The end of Questions by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

"A meta-math function will define and help to find the fundamental nature of the universe" if something has taught us the scientific method during the last centuries is that mathematical/philosophical approaches cannot say us which is the fundamental nature of the universe. The history is full of skeletons of mathematical ideas that looked ok in paper, but do not describe universe.

Mathematics aren't the basis of the universe. Feynman explained the difference between mathematics and physics in his lectures.

"The scientific method does not prove a hypothesis true, but can only determine if something is false. The more a hypothesis or theory is tested the more certain we can be of its "truth", but absolute certainty will never be found by science". I disagree. We can prove hypothesis. E.g. Newtonian laws of motion continue applying to day so well as they did about 300 years ago, because the hypothesis that they describe motion was proven, so it cannot be disproved. Also the concept of truth used in science is not the older concept of truth used in other disciplines. Something is true on science if the difference between what the model states and measurements is smaller than the margin of error.

I do not think evolution is a fundamental principle of biology. I think it can be derived from atomic-molecular biology. The scientific method and evolution are not the same process, not even close; one is a method invented by humans, the other is a natural process.

Science is a "human construct". This does not throw away the idea that science could be developed by non-humans. For instance aliens or machines. Robot scientists have already been created.

Science gives true answers to questions about Nature. It is other disciplines as Philosophy which never provide any relevant answer.

Despite what some claim, string theory is not science, it is a kind of New Age religion.

Obviously "the fundamentals of Physics" are "in doubt", otherwise we had found the final theory. But there is no problem with taking a set of basic fundamentals and work with them until some experiment show they are in reality derived concepts. All the formal structure that arises from assuming those concepts are derived will continue to work so well as it does today. That is why we teach thermodynamics and its principles today, despite those principles can be derived from more fundamental principles.

Dear Jeff Schmitz I again read your short and beautiful essay. I will add that the fundamental will be an irrational number, it is possible - this is the number 3,14......

I wish you success! Dizhechko Boris

Dear Prof Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

Very nicely sated in in your OP...." A meta-math function will define and help to find the fundamental nature of the universe." and you are correct in saying that...." The problem is the meta-math function is the scientific method and the fundamental element is not easy to find and might not be that important in the end."

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Jeff,

Although I think a little more text formatting would have made your short, to-the-point essay more accessible, it was fun to read and you made several interesting points, often with humor. Your suggestion that "the answer is 42" might have been mocking the millennia-long human search for perfect, simple, satisfying integer numbers in nature made me chuckle out loud. That to me is the most perfectly done comedy scene in all of science fiction, but it had never occurred to me that it might also be a bit satire of science. (And occasional real finds, such as the orbital resonance that really does make Venus rise regularly at five different points in morning and evening skies, always helped drive the search.)

I most liked your points about how meta-functions may be relevant to what is fundamental. You gave a nice definition of how meta-functions are formal arguments that are well-structured overall, but for some reason also contain a component that goes just beyond the possibility of formally proving them to be true, with Gödel's incompleteness theorem being a specific example. I might phase the same point by saying that meta-functions are unprogrammable, that is, they contain some stubborn, intransigent, persistent point that somehow just cannot be cannot be expressed in any formal programming language. At some point you are forced instead to insert a comment to the effect of "Then a miracle occurs!" before you can drop back to using well-defined, fully formal statements again.

Another possible example that came to mind for me is the idea of living within a simulated universe. The smaller-scale, more solipsistic version, and easier-to-envision version of that, only the observer would be simulated. In either case, the problem with living in a simulated universe is that even though you might suspect it to be simulated, and even though you may be able to collect all sorts of statistical evidence and anecdotes that support suspicion, you will also by definition lack the kind of external access or presence that would allow you to prove your suspicion conclusively. It becomes a meta-theorem, one you can never prove definitively.

So again, thanks for the essay. It is an interesting rumination on when it comes to things fundamental to the universe, some things may be beyond our ability ever to specify with certainty.

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger, Fundamental as Fewer Bits

Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz,

Thank you for your gracious comments and for the welcome advice to humanize the Tavern with sights, sounds, smells, etc. I may rewrite this using your advice for another venue (although there few venues like FQXi).

Having now read your essay, I agree with you that "the assumption that the rules of quantum mechanics apply to gravity waves and neutrinos, but we have no experimental evidence for this assumption."

You might like to read the comment on my thread [Feb. 20, 2018 @ 00:56 GMT] based on Cristinel Stoica's excellent discussion of isomorphisms.

Thanks again for giving meaningful remarks on my essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Jeffrey,

"If one were looking for the key to the universe, the scientific method might seem a poor choice, because science seems a human construct"

I would say that the scientific method gives us discovery and my contention is that discovery through the scientific method brings new knowledge that causes what is fundamental to evolve. So we can only speculate about what is fundamental, pretty much what you suggest. Therefore, fundamental is only of value as an inspiration, as part of a concept or theory that you continually test and examine leading to more discovery. It's like searching for the Holy Grail. Now we think ToE with our limited knowledge. What will it be with more knowledge? I share your objectivity and your open mind.

Good Luck in the contest that is quickly winding down.

Jim

Jeffrey,

Incidentally, hope you get a chance to check mine.

Jim

Very nicely written, MR. Michael Schmitz!

Read and rate it.

Further comments are useless.

If you do have the time and pleasure for a related essay, you can check this one

Respectfully,

Silviu

Dear Jeffrey

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Jeffrey,

As the deadline approaches and as my recall slackens, I try to revisit all I have read to see if I have scored them. I did yours on the 2/20/18.

Good luck,

Jim

The scientific method is a method not a discipline, so it cannot be meta-math. If what you really mean is that science is meta-math I don't agree. Science goes beyond math is some aspects, but math goes beyond science in other aspects.

"Despite a vast number of positive results, just one repeatable negative will disprove a hypothesis. We can still use a disproven theory within limits." But the theory is not disproved if it continue working for that vast number of positive results. The scope of the theory has been delimited. E.g. Newtonian theory is not disproven; we simply we did learn it isn't applicable for relativistic speeds or for micro-phenomena. Within its scope of validity Newtonian theory continue working today so well as it did 300 years ago; and is because Newtonian theory is taught today in school and why it is used by engineers.

Biological evolution is a consequence of the molecular structure of biological matter, not a principle has to be imposed on the laws of matter.

Science done by a robot or alien could be different, but since the reality is the same for all of us, our models of them would share some similarities. If I can predict the position of the Moon next week, an alien or a robot scientist would be able to do the same even if their science uses a foreign language to me.