Seek Fundamentality, and Distrust It by Sylvia Wenmackers

Dear Professor Sylvia Wenmackers,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Sylvia,

Excellent essay. The power of philosophy is there. Two concepts of natural metaphysics were "substance" and "cause". The universe is *spontaneous* and the logical causality is built in.

In my essay I claim the following: "...we have something like the "how gravity works" of Newton, the "how gravity works" of Einstein, the "how gravity works" (MOND) of Milgrom, etc. Do we really need anymore "how gravity works" theories? These theories are just a sample from a large number of possible theories or descriptions for the very same event. On the other hand, asking the question "why gravity works" would address the only possible logical reason for this one event to happen by itself."

The essay suggests such single substance, single cause and single logical operation. These are, I believe, ontological fundamentals.

All the bests,

Marcel,

Dear Professor Wenmackers,

I read your essay with pleasure - it is a brilliant piece of work. Absolutely spot on in addressing the question asked in the contest, and providing new insights. My compliments!

With regards,

Tejinder

Dear Sylvia Wenmackers, "The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, Seek simplicity and distrust it." Простота РІ идентичности пространства Рё материи. Р"акарт РіРѕРІРѕСЂРёР» В«Р"айте РјРЅРµ материю Рё СЏ построю весь РјРёСЂВ». РџСЂРё этом РѕРЅ утверждал, что пространство - это материя, Р° материя - это пространство. Материя двигается, следовательно Рё пространство двигается.

Р'ас может заинтересовать РјРѕС' СЌСЃСЃРµ: FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Sylvia Wenmackers, Sorry, I am not the whole post translated into English "The guiding motto in the life of every natural philosopher should be, Seek simplicity and distrust it." Simplicity in the identity of space and matter. Descartes said, "Give me the matter and I will build the whole world." At the same time he argued that space is matter, and matter is space. Matter moves, hence space moves.

You may be interested in my essay: FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating as the bearer of Descartes' idea. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness, which wants to be the theory of everything OO.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Sylvia,

I really appreciated your essay, it's interesting and well written, I wish you all the best for the contest! I've to say that I loved your style as well: the platform metaphor was great and it was funny to find xkcd quoted in an essay.

You write that

> 'Fundamental' can be used as a comparative notion.

and I completely agree; I reach similar conclusions in my essay about Nagarjuna and absolute relativism. Then in the end you say,

> This allows me to explain the title of this essay: while we look for what is fundamental, we should not jump to conclusions about the physical world once we believe we've found something. 'Fundamental' is best left as an epistemic term, rather than an ontological claim .

I also agree, but in a more broader sense I wonder: we have good and sound reasons to distrust our means to know the world, but does not every refusal of any epistemic > ontological link lead to skepticism? Of course, skepticism is always an honest philosophical point of view, but it should lead to distrust himself as well.

All the best,

Francesco D'Isa

Dear Sylvia Wenmackers

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Is physical chemistry more applied or less abstract than solid state physics? In what planet? The rest of the Fig 3 diagram is misleading as well.

The particles described in gauge quantum field theory aren't real. E.g. the electron that appears in the Lagrangian of the Standard Model is not a real electron like those one can find and measure in the laboratory, but a fictitious and unphysical electron named bare electron. It is only after a renormalization procedure that those bare electrons are eliminated from the equations and replaced by real electrons. Regarding the footnote 8, let me emphasize that what we measure in the lab are particles, not fields.

Respected Prof Sylvia Wenmackers,

You are exactly correct in the OP...."Physics has inherited two projects from the ancient natural philosophers: one searches for concrete elements, the other for abstract principles. At least since Comte, there is a prevalent, reductionist idea that both the natural world itself and our theories are organized in strata, which match perfectly.'..... Very nice words....

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 Sylvia. Liked the essay a lot. But curious as to why you line project (2) up with epistemological only? Who said the principles (archai) can't be viewed ontological? What is the argument? I give a couple of examples in my own essay, and a few others have done the same.

Best,

Dean

Hello dear Mrs Wenmackers,

Congratulations for your essay, I liked it a lot.

I am happy to see a belgian thinker, I come from Belgium also, near Bergen in wallonia

Best Regards

Get the simplest method where you can get online tutorial about how to

play dvd in windows 10 without downloading any file or something.

Dear Silvia

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

Hi Silvia,

I know when an essay is good when I read the whole and feel as if I learned something. Seek Fundamentality, and Distrust It! The maps of hierarchies and platforms were effective in getting the point across.

Thanks for an excellent essay,

Don Limuti

Dear Sylvia,

Very good essay. You said "If we want to see things for what they really are, we must escape the intricate poetry of our language", and indeed we seem to agree that mathematics provides a clearer, though more abstract, language. We agree also on "it seems wiser to reserve the adjective 'fundamental' to abstract, formal and mathematical entities", and that a pluralist view, acknowledging subjectivity, contextualism, and relativity, is essential. You said "Fundamental (or funny, beautiful, or important) to whom? And in what context?". We have personalized Ockham's razors, shaped by our own personal experiences, which are subjective. So "what's fundamental" is as relative as "what's simple". I also liked your patchwork view of physics showing more applied theories and subfields. Yes, I think it is justified to see the fundamental [at other levels too]. Here are some possible updates to the xkcd "Comte's hierarchy" [1, 2] :)

Good luck with the finals!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net