Essay Abstract

This approach tries step forward physics by proposing a new way to look matter and address some dogmatic issues that required to be solved by right interpretation this new theory is simple and may explain all physical phenomenon, and most Nature' underlying fundamentals. Philosophy which was guidance of physical science, since physics and mathematics was a part of natural philosophy before 20th century. Science get developed well time after time, but after the beginning of 20th century we have already experienced imbalance of the knowledge, this means that experimental physics, and mathematics may extremely advanced and be more complex than it's logical meaning, as theoretical part decreases and perhaps will finally be forgotten near future. This aproach points out some risks may go a limit that we can't make any explanation about the Nature fundamental issues. In other words, what was simple to understand before long time is the most difficult one today. Through the advancement and it's complicity the Experimental physics and Mathematics may finally illimitable theoretecal physics and all philosophical views..

Author Bio

Bashir M. Yusuf. Msc Electronics Engeneering, Puntland State University Galkayo Punland Somalia.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Bashir M. Yusuf,

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

Dear Bashir M. Yusuf.

The fundamental must be simple, understandable and save our thinking, This is the New Cartesian Physics, which is based on the identity of space and matter of Descartes, which wants to be the theory of everything. If a fundamental theory means the theory that which all other theories can be derived from, it is the ultimate theory of everything (TOE), then certainly it should describe the Big Bang or if there is one at all or if there is anything before it. 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 this principle. Evaluate and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

Dear Bashir M. Yusuf, in new-Cartesian physics, corpuscles is three-dimensional vortices that, under the influence of the pressure of the Universe, unite into bodies. It recognizes two fundamental forces: the force of the pressure of the universe and the centrifugal force of rotation of space. The remaining forces are their combinations and superposition's that arise when the corpuscles are combined into bodies. The Coulomb law and Newton's law of gravitation have a common in the inverse square of the distance, and so the surface of the sphere can vary. Consequently, they can be generalized by the Gaussian Law. The law of equivalence of mass and energy in the new-Cartesian physics of corpuscles is explained by the fact that the centrifugal force in the vortex is balanced by the force of the Universe pressure.

Sincerely, Boris

It is absurd to consider a fundamental particle is an indivisible atom. This terminology only can create confusion.

The photon is no more fundamental than the electron. At contrary one can eliminate all photons from electrodynamic theory and stay with a theory of direct action among charged particles, but one cannot eliminate electrons and use only a theory of photons.

Photons do not have mass.

Dark matter does not exist. It is only a fictitious matter added to the equations to compensate for the lack of certian dynamical terms.

The popular concept of wave-particle duality is based in a missunderstanding of quantum mechanics. The electron is a particle, an elementary particle, and it always behaves as a particle.

Visual representation of the double slit experiment.

We can detect the arrival of individual electrons, and see how the diffraction pattern emerges as a statistical pattern made up of many small spots. This pattern, a wave-like pattern, is property of the whole ensemble of particles.

One cannot claim that protons and protons are hold togheter by strong force, but gravity helds togheter protons and neutrons.

It is not true that chemical bonding only explains ionic bonding. And van der Waals binding is a particular case of chemical forces.

There are many more issues, but I stop here.

Dear All

Error correction at; "Some historical events.

Sir. Isac Newton set the matter in action. He formulated the theory Of Gravity. Theory that is based particles in universe attract, and Henry Cavendish made experimental confirmation later."

Sorry for the names confusion here; Chadwick instead of Cavendish that was just writing mistake.

Dear Dizhechko Boris.

Thanl you for your comment.

I think your essay is very important (the best one I know so far) and therefore rated, Since it profoundly attacks most of current problems in physics.

To address all problems and put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?.

Regarding to history of scientific development It has been something normal that scientists at time conclude their work and generalize to equation, based what they so far but second generations must be aware it's validity and if there is new discovery immediately must be profoundly interpreted while taking into account it Philsophical aspect, other wise misinterpretation may lead chain of misconceptions.

A best example is tremendous situation of the separation (due to matter of misinterpretation) between Classical Physics and the Quantum Mechanics.

Linking them to the Fundamental nature of Gravity, there is 232 years old PUZZLE namely Coulomb's Law which have not valid reason last 85 years (since 1932 last nucleon discovery), but I m not quite sure if today's Scientists are aware to it and it's consequences. I think the appropriate and inspiring question is;

Regarding to Coulomb's law a statement that says "same type of charge repell and different type of charge attracts". How Coulomb would conclude his law, if he know that nuclei has protons that same type of charge are attracting each other and with the neutrons? and they can be divided into fractions of charge?.

I agree many points of your conceptual explanation and would like to discuss it later.

The fundamental concept physics is based on three basic units Mass, Space and Time ( matter plus two related basic effects) which isn't interchangeable but their effects (derived) as energy, force an so are interchangeable since it agrees with our everyday experience.

What is the difference between Fundamental and elementary?

What is the name of fundamental particle?.

The case of mass energy the is lot we can discuss about, I have quantized that mass of elementary particle (photon) but I have experienced that there is great misunderstanding due to confusion of terms over last hundred years.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

Mass of photon m=E/c^2 = 1.7x10^-36kg.

Wavelength = 1.2398ﾃ--10^-8 m

These results and perhaps more are also in Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt

We are incoherently talking same thing in diffrent name. I would be thankful if one can comment.

Sincerely.

Bashir

Sadly your PDF makes the words very difficult to read.

Your one indivisible atom sounds very odd to me, that means there are no true independents in your model and all collapses to solipsism or one atom as you put it. You do not have a "bird's eye" view to see all, hence you can only establish "relative truths" in your model. We all have "Frog's view" that is within the one atom. Hence we can only have "collective solipsism" which is strictly an oxymoron. I think you should address these issues more directly. Also your model cannot account for why there seems to be "places far away" from us that don't seem to be in temporal communication with us yet are needed by the theory. Also the quantum property of monogamy cannot be established in your model, (how system and subsystem are connected).

If you have time please have a look at my essay What is fundamental is the area of the imaginary unit" -- it looks at global geometric monogamy in one model where we can have both the bird and frog viewpoint at once.

Dear Tiainen

Regarding your comment at my current essay;https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143

Sorry that the changed terms in different feilds of knowledge and interpretations have lost most important fundamental terms of physics discipline, that are necessary to define What is fundamental in physics.

"Your one indivisible atom sounds very odd to me"

I didnt mean the chemical atom, that Dalton mistakenly gave to chem.elements

Indivisible is the original meaning of the Greek word Atom, which Democtratus coine to the Nature's fundamental particle which physics discipline and Natural philosophy are based on. Therefore I strongly propose to keep term to its real meaning.

I hope you now that the answer of question, What is fundamental? Is somehow depending on physcs. Since physics is the聽natural science聽that involves the study of matter聽and its聽motion聽and behavior through聽space and time, along with related concepts such as聽energy聽and force.In other word one can't study any effect without matter.

Although these metaphors in terminology my answer is focusing Nature's Fundamental particle (matter) and energy Force that are still unsolved, or profoundly explained.

I am readin your essay and will comment more after evaluation. Some points I appreciated are, "Clearly pure mathematical properties (p0,p1,p2,p3,....pn-1,pn,pn+1,......) are matched up with to

cardinality classes 0,1,2,3,....... so" "Hypotenuse box" (Pythagorean).

Regarding " bird eye and Frog eye, systems connection,Quantum monogamy".

Are conceptually included in modelling, though it would be better to use 3D spherical clustering Program.it means that model used can be applied any particle's clustering, ex; electron, proton Neutron, atomic Nuclei, DNA, Dark matter, and so... But since this is summarized basic theory due to contest limitations detailed explanation require a lot.

I am sure that "Most of the fundamental ideas of science are simple and can be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone".

In 2010, my previous essay. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

I explained the Natures fundamental as simplest, smallest thing of all.

On the other hand, I believe that current physics fundamental problems amongst dealing with fundamental terms such as original meaning of "Elementary" "Quanta" "Atom" .

I found that biggest and misleading one off all is the term "massless"

Question related fundental problems of phys;

What is Elementary Quanta?

What is Light Quanta?

What is elementary Charge?

What is Photon?

What is Elementary particle?

What is elementary energy?

How these terms are related each other?

Is E=mc^2 fundamentally applicable to all matter?

Why light is affected by Gravity?

What are Gravitational waves?

Why we still discover Einsteins theory?

Why Newtons simple statements Gravity is still most important of all Physical science?

Is any scientific theory that we can overall spectrum of physical sciences?

Which is natures dominant structure/shape at all level?

Which way philosophical/ scientific idiea from the known history we come to here?

Any possibility to continue it?.......

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Albert Einstein.

In general (when dealing with light EM), I have different actions to Feyman's the three basic actions;

-Action #1: A photon goes from place to place.

-Action #2: An electron goes from place to place.

-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon.

My opinion

-Action #1: A photon does not goes from place to place, but its energy is tranfered as wave(force influence/gravitational wave/dynamics).

-Action #2: An electron does not goes from place to place, but its energy is tranfered as wave(force influence/gravitational wave/dynamics).

-Action #3: An electron emits or absorbs a photon's energy, but not photon itself.

Every particle's total energy must contain same quanta (certain quantity), of elementary energy, that equals the total quantity of elementary particle's(Photon's) energy.

Since elementary mass 1.7x10^-36 kg, by dividing any particle's Mass into the elementary mass, we obtain ratio that equals to quantity of photons (note integer number).

Every particle's total mass must contain same quanta (certain quantity), of elementary mass, that equals the total quantity of elementary particle's(Photon's) mass.

Since elementary energy 1.6x10^-19eV, by dividing any particle's energy into the elementary energy, we obtain ratio that equals to quantity of photons (note integer number).

Proton; 938, 272 081 MeV. 938 272 081 particle (Photons). ODD number of photons.

Electron; 0.510999 MeV. 510999 particles. (Photons). ODD number of photons.

Neutron; 939. 565 134 MeV. 939 565 134 particles(Photons) EVEN number of photons.

You may also discuss following from Gravitational angle;

Coulumb's constant?

Universal Gravitational constant?

G wave and EM wave same speed? Why?

Pauli exclusion?

Dimensions in String theory?

.......

Best wishes.

Bashir.Attachment #1: 4_Bashir_Quantum_Mech_and_Relativity_Theory.pdf

Dear Bashir,

You cover many aspects of physics in your essay. I interpret your "indivisible atom" to be the fundamental "substance", which you seem to postulate to be the photon. You say all other composite particles have two key categories, "charge and neutral". My suggestion would be to focus on mass and charge, in terms of gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields, as described in equation 1 in my essay. You state that "strong and weak force are both a gravitational force." Since gravitation interacts with itself, while the electromagnetic field does not have charge, so does not interact with itself, we have a linear field and an interacting nonlinear field. I do not believe the situation has been sufficiently explored, but mine is a minority view. Your intuition seems to be good, but I do not believe your basic model will take you as far as you wish to go. Perhaps focus on the non-linearity of gravity in high-density situations will be of some use. I encourage you in your efforts to understand nature.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin

Thank you for the comments.

I agree many points in your essay, concerning fundamental question, is very interesting as it gives rationally explanations that focus most imortart fundamental aspects of nature of the Gravity and light which I also have implications of 19th century's benefits of philosophy linked physics namely Classical Physics.

"TK: No. I hope we can discuss the proposition that: all light propagates in local gravity. Photons have energy, hence mass, and bend in gravitational fields"

My suggestion is that even photon mass was included the concept mass energy equivalence.

Considering the points of your coments I will focus on it more and will discuss later.

". My suggestion would be to focus on mass and charge, in terms of gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields, as described in equation 1 in my essay. You state that "strong and weak force are both a gravitational force." Since gravitation interacts with itself, while the electromagnetic field does not have charge, so does not interact with itself, we have a linear field and an interacting nonlinear field. I do not believe the situation has been......"

In fact this hypothesis is based on idea that is a collectively view " picture in mind" of all scientific theories and facts. Deeply thinking to many possible imaginations considering Nature's similarities and after choosing one rechecked and compared its relation to the facts. Since this Hypothesis is based on scientific ingredients it must agree/confirm all known facts and also recorrect it's interpretation or make predictions. By searching some parallel approaches in the contest I found many related in somehow but focusing deeply on specific aspect. In other words, I believe that all scientific facts are somehow right, no matter whether it's classical Physics or Quantum Mechanics, except of some fundamental interpretations.

I think what is missing is only (interpretation) fundamental theory that compiles all scientific theories into same ground (same basis). Since this Hypothesis is a different view, it's basics assumption is that clustering process of the Nature began with absolutely one kind of extremely large quantity of small-sized particles (photon) and one kind of attraction force (Gravity) as it may agree with Big Bang event, There are some expected communication Challenges it may face and overcomes namely;

Terminological metaphors may make term confussion unless redefinition, example; "Photon is particle that gives elementary charge (e) character and basic energy quanta (1eV) therefore its really the natures elementary particle" may sound quite strange.

It may be far from the Current Physicist's way of viewing the Nature's Physical phenomenon ( expectations ), and best communication would be Spherical Geometrical modelling. I think similar principle that the architect and philosopher, Buckminster Fuller used.

Under consideration of gravitational force as basic with categories;

Linear interaction interactions: electrostatic force and planet's centrifugal force.

Non liniear interactions: Orbiting object( charged vs non charged or magnetic non magnetic) influencing other external particles(electro, gravity, magnetic,........ Dynamics) Electromagnetic waves as Gravitational waves type (dynamics charged particle)

and Spherical quantum modeling of charged/neutral magnetic.... and its detection system (giver and sensor) could be good, for studying and simulating Nature of particle clusters and related effects, such as Quantum correlation/monogamy, intermolecular forces, multi spatial dimensions string theory, I propose simplest octopole magnitetic cube like. Spherical clustered particles of rotating (dynamics). In other words spherical modelling of homogeneous spheres packed could reveal secrets and the beauty behind Physical science Mathematics. It would be necessary studying both matter formations and related effects and relationship between our number sequence, parity and quantum such as;

Electron proton Neutron Neutronstar. Black hole.

Pauli exclusion, Nuclear Magic numbers, DNA cell...

Elementary quanta can be applied to al matter.

We know necessary fundamental constants namely elementary energy E (1eV) for single elementary particle and speed of light (c) hence we can accurately calculate it's proportionality to any particle charged, neutral or both. The ratios of Energy and mass are exactly same, and no any other particle which can have such property.

Best regards

Bashir.

[math]\[n\frac {M_{earth}}{m_{photon}}=\frac {E_{earth}}{e_{photon}}=\frac {Mc^{2}}{mc^{2}}=3.35*{10^{60}}n\][/math]

Hi Bashir Yusuf

wonderful approach,...."a new way to look matter and address some dogmatic issues that required to be solved by right interpretation this new theory is simple and may explain all physical phenomenon, and most Nature' underlying fundamentals. ..... Best wishes to your essay...

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

Dear Satyavarapu

Thank you for comments. I am really pleased sharing knowledge.

Now I am reading your essay with great attention and will comment after complete reading.

Indeed its very important topic.

Best wishes

Bashir.

Dear Bashir,

You give very interesting and profound ideas that are aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the ontological basis of fundamental science. I invite you to see my ideas .

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vladimir

I am really pleased to see your profound essay which I think it is most important Idea I know since it creates the real philosophical solution for modern Physics crisis, it creates a comprehensive environment for undertanding and answering fundamental questions including current "What is Fundamental?". Therefore I would recommend all to take this topic seriously, if the question has importance for humanity.

The reason is that the modern physics is far from its fundamental aspect ( philosophical scientific basics) and the current situation seems that, it is almost impossible to answer or even to grasp the answer no matter how simple it is.

I have experienced the need of such ontological ideas after giving simple basic answer (hypothesis) which links together, in 2010 essay. previous essay

After evaluation of the hypothesis, I realized that it was poorly or almost not understood, on the other hand many verifying discoveries happened.

By investigation to the problem I suspectedly wondered, "To address all problems and to put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?". My answer become " to address the problem first".

For most part of my current essay, I have focused to point out some important ontological issues.

Terminological metaphors, los in conceptualized mathematics,...... led the phyical reality to be far from the Current Physicist's way of viewing the Nature's Physical phenomenon ( expectations ), and best communication would be Spherical Geometrical modelling (close sphere packing) I think similar principle that the architect and philosopher, Buckminster Fuller used. In other words, ontological presentation of Geometry and simulations of the Nature would be a good way to understand underlying fundamental Principle in both physics and mathematics.

Best wishes

Bashir.

Hello Mr Yusuf,

Happy to see your essay on this contest.A relevant general WORK, I am wishing you all the best,

Best Regards

Dear Bashir M. Yusuf,

I have read your Essay and suggest that you read Dark Matter: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0207v3.pdf

Quantum Mechanics claims that an electron can be both spin-up and spin-down at the same time. In my conceptual physics Essay on Electron Spin, I have proved that this is not true. Please read: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Dear Bashir

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

Dear Steve Dufourny, Kamal Rajpal and Steven Andresen.

Thank you for comments and sharing Ideas.

I have read your essays and commented.

I hope good lucky to all.

Best regards

Bashir.

Bashir,

Nice essay, glad I got to it. I think you covered the ground well and identified some important fundamental issues. Nice job, nice historical review, right on topic and well arranged.

If you'd like to be early seeing a shocking one - a classical derivation of QM, do check out my essay, but read the last part slowly to reconstruct the full ontological mechanism. (Declan Traill's short essay confirms the output with a code & PLOT). (Of course it likely won't be accepted into doctrine for some eons!) Do ask any questions there.

Well done for yours. Very best

Peter

PS; I just posted a quick mechanism check list on Jeff Yee's string.