Fundamentality Here, Fundamentality There, Fundamentality Everywhere by Marc Séguin

Dear Marc Séguin, after reading your essay, I thought that you should definitely get acquainted with New Cartesian Physics. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Marc,

thank you very much!

Have a nice day,

Francesco

Marc,

Does such information exist without a medium? Is there structure in the void?

Abstraction is necessarily abstracted from our experience and while it is defined by its consistency, is it completely logical? Consider the idea of a dimensionless point as an abstraction of location; If it has zero dimension, does it really exist, any more than a dimensionless apple? It is a multiple of zero and last I heard, any multiple of zero is still zero. Obviously it is more conceptually efficient to overlook this than deal with insisting on some infinitesimal dimensionality, but does that negate zero being zero, or is something being ignored?

How about the idea of space as three dimensional; Isn't it really just the xyz coordinate system and a mapping device, rather than foundational to space? Presumably volume, thus 3 dimensions, is prior lines and planes? Consider that any such coordinate system requires the 0,0,0 center point and multiple such points can exist in the same space, just as people all exist in the same space and are the center of their own coordinate systems. Lots of political conflicts revolve around different coordinate systems being applied to the same space. Are longitude, latitude and altitude foundational to the surface of this planet, or just a mapping device?

Obviously nature is incredibly complex and the patterns and laws we manage to extrapolate from it are also complex, but are they prior to nature, or an expression of its regularity?

Wouldn't it be even more foundational if we could explain how these abstractions emerge from ever more basic patterns, than assuming they exist in some platonic realm? Is there proof of that realm, or is it just belief?

Regards,

John

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3039

Hi Marc:

Congratulations on intriguing and well-written essay.

Building upon your statement - "......try to make sense of these diverging views while attempting to distinguish between epistemological fundamentality (the fundamentality of our scientific theories) and ontological fundamentality (the fundamentality of the world itself, irrespective of our description of it).", my paper - "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Prof Marc Séguin wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT

Essay Abstract

Very nice OP ...."The question "What is fundamental?" elicits widely divergent responses, even among physicists. The majority view is that the mantle of the most fundamental scientific theory is currently held by the Standard Model of particle physics, and will eventually be passed on to its successor, a "Super Model" that will incorporate quantized gravity and explain current mysteries like dark matter and dark energy. But many disagree with this straightforward, reductionist viewpoint....."

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

Hi Marc,

It is treat to be in another contest with you.

Could I summarize your diagrams as follows:

If you climb down the stairs (turtles) you favor small scale cause. If you climb up the stairs (monkeys) you favor large scale emergence.

Or is this a little to simplistic?

I have a tendency to climb down the stairs. I think you may find my essay interesting.

I think your essay could be a "crystal clear" introductory course to the sciences.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Dear Marc,

thanks for the intriguing essay! However, I always have to smile a little when I hear somebody claiming that 61 is too 'large' a number of constituents for the Standard Model to be fundamental---given that it could just as easily have been thousands, or millions, or billions, it seems actually rather an astonishingly small number!

But still, there are of course plenty of reasons that the Standard Model should not be expected to be fundamental.

You mention the generation structure as similar to the order of the periodic table, hinting at something more fundamental, and I think there's something to that---to me, it's always been a terribly frustrating element of the SM: it's kinda like, being out of ideas like a washed-up Hollywood producer, nature decided to capitalize on its greatest hit with two unnecessary sequels that introduce litte novelty except for packing a heftier punch. That alone is reason enough for me to want the SM replaced by something neater!

Going further, I think we share some common ground in thinking about epistemological fundamentality, and in particular, in terms of 'everything' being essentially of zero information content, and our models of the world ultimately containing information because they only pick out some part of it, being themselves only incomplete descriptions. Although I come at it from a very different angle, it's intriguing that we should find some common ground there. There's even a little Zen in my essay, too!

Marc,

An exceptionally classy job, as usual, and thorough review of the whole concept. I particularly liked reading your take on the standard model. I'ts been described in many ways to me including from what seemed like a small frame of snooker balls to a top Fermilab guy talking about a 'quark/gluon soup'! It always seemed a cloudy soup to me, missing stock and seasoning, so I enjoyed your clarity and agreed your view.

I agree big affects big and loops back to small but I confess most sympathy for Weinbergs view (indeed I find massive new value in the smallest condensed scale of fermion 'pairs' after 'popping up' and "permeating all space"). I certainly agree your plan to form a loop with the turtles & monkeys, all is connected and relative though perhaps leave the monkeys out of the soup!

I DO want to discuss the GREAT issue between SR/GR and QM. Bell said a classic QM would be found, but it would 'amaze'. Well you may need to be prepared to be amazed. Full ontology and experimental proof in mine, matching code and CHSH>2 Cos^2 plot in Declan Traill's. So yes, I agree "the situation can improve" but only if those in Academia dare to look! which few have. I judge you to give a fearlessly honest view.

Very well done for yours, penciled in for another top score.

Best wishes in the judging.

Peter

Hi Marc, clearly written and nicely illustrated essay.

About combining 3. and 4. take care not to muddle map and territory when doing that.

Dynamic emptiness is a nice idea but to be dynamic it can not be utter emptiness, nothing alone can not move, it seems to me. I think I can equate it to the idea of the base medium from which all kinds of existent things and phenomena are differentiated. I don't think everything physical can come from nothing at all. Though I have read Max Tegmark's argument.

Good question at the end. I think we can still have awe without mystery. Such as for the scale, and the complexity and diversity of the universe. There is another saying, "ignorance is bliss," but does that make it desirable?

Dear Marc,

the Matrix trilogy is, in fact, exactly what I had in mind when I made that comparison. And yes, I suppose I have a somewhat analogical style of thinking---which I often have to reign in, as one tends to see spurious connections; on occasion, I have been so taken in by a (superficially) fitting analogy that I didn't notice where it breaks down. I always feel the danger of succumbing to crankdom in that area: I get so taken in by my own associations that I forget to stop and check them against hard data, or, failing that, the hardest arguments I can find against my own views.

This is why discussion, such as that generated by these contests, is so important to me: here, I get the chance to have other people look at my stuff, and hopefully tell me if I've left all solid ground behind and analogized myself into some fantasy cloud-cuckoo-land.

That said, I am admittedly somewhat fond of the rainbow analogy, I have to admit: it goes to show (well, suggest) that whether the world is just as it is in an objective way, or whether the observer creates what they observe, is not necessarily a cut-and-dried dichotomy, but rather, that the two may complement each other to give rise to observed phenomenology.

This is the sort of thing that I also see at work in your thinking: it's not just the tower of turtles or the chain of monkeys, both have their part to play. A point that one might also make in this regard is how we know of the (current) 'bottom layer' of the tower of turtles only via mediation of the 'top layer'---i.e. ultimately, the entire tower is, of course, presented to us only via our experience within the world, and hence, as much a part of the mind as it can claim to be objective reality.

So again, idealism's insistence that 'all is thought' and materialist reduction to fundamental particles may not be the opposite poles of the spectrum of metaphysical options, but may both be valid views of the world, with different emphasis.

And yes, I do agree---a lot of valuable thought has emerged in the essay discussions, and I would be very interested in seeing how this might have impacted individual views. Perhaps make the next essay question, "what's the most important insight to emerge from FQXi contests"?

Cheers,

Jochen

Dear Marc,

I was very pleased to read your essay! It was very well explained, honest, taking into account multiple views about what is fundamental, and at the same time entertaining. I like the idea to use the Zen symbol ensЕЌ to symbolize "dynamic emptiness", whether it is at the top or at the bottom. And the proposal that maybe the top and the bottom was the same ensЕЌ. I had much fun seeing the "fog of metaphysical handwaving" as the missing link with the bottom fundamental abstract structure, and at the same time the missing link to consciousness. This was even funnier considering how true it is :) Excellent essay, I wish you success!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

Hello Mr Seguin,

I liked a lot your essay.It is one of my favorites.

I have an explaination for this dark matter and this dark energy and I have correlated with the quantum gravitation in my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm sphères Inside an universal spheres.It is the meaning of my equation E=m'b)c²+m(nb)l² with m(nb) this dark matter this matter non baryonic.I have encircled the model standard mith these particles and correlated fields , with forces weaker than electrmagntic forces of photons.I have also inserted a serie of quantum Bhs farer than nuclear forces, this standard model is encrcled by this gravitation.If this DM exists so it is produced by something and also encoded in nuclei.For the dark en,ergy I cnsider it like an anti gravitational spherical push and I consider that aether is gravitational also.They turn so they are these soherical volumes ....

Your essay was a pleasure to read , I learn in the same time,

Best Regards

Marc, yes and no. I think a more complex structure is needed. For analogy; The story in a book is something different from the ink on the pages. When the printed characters are interpreted by a mind the story can be of another world, not the world the book, (ink on pages), is in. The 'things and events of the mind are not the same things and events as external reality independent of the mind, There is a categorical difference.That is to say the map has to be within the terrain, as that is all that exists, but that does not make the map the terrain itself. That's how I see it.