Jim,
Thank for the comments. I look forward to reading your essay.
Jeff
Jim,
Thank for the comments. I look forward to reading your essay.
Jeff
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
Silviu,
Thank you for the very concise review. Looking forward to reading your essay.
Jeff Schmitz
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.
A mathematical function is a method, a set of operations done according to the function. Science requires something outside of math, this does not make it "better" just not fully math.
If you want a true understanding of the Universe then you throw out a "disproven" or limited theory, if you want functional then a limited theory might be the perfect tool.
The statement "Evolution being the basis of Biology" does not and cannot include how evolution came to be.
I agree the science for human, robot and alien would in the end be the same.
All the best,
Jeff