Dear David Brown,

A general concern regarding String Theory: How can a theory that is limited to one slice of reality, say the Planck scale, determine and define the actions at the atomic scale (it should explain this), at the molecular scale (it can do some of this), at the macro-molecular and protein level, at the cellular level, at the ligament and tissue level, at the organ level, at the human body level, at the meteorological and planetary climate level, at the solar, black hole and solar system level, at the galactic level, at the galaxy cluster level?

How can any theory limited to just one slice of this continuum of scale expect to describe and determine the actions and interactions at all these levels?

When we touch our hand to a pane of glass, and visually see our hand touching the glass and feel our hand touch the glass, should we believe a theory that says "those experiences are not real, the only reality is what occurs at the atomic or particle level where your hand and the glass are mostly open space". Or should we require our theories to explain the Planck level, the cellular level, the surface of our skin and the glass surface level all together?

We are measuring the universe in thin slices, like measuring only in the plane of Flatland when the universe is three-dimensional.

The concept of MOND should indicate we are not looking at the universe correctly, rather than being the solution.

We are barking up the wrong tree, using mathematical and measuring tools limited to only slices of this continuum of scale. We need to be able to measure and devise equations across scale, from the atomic to our macro level to the galactic level and back down.

We need new tools.

Don

    According to Wikipedia, "A Feynman diagram is a graphical representation of a perturbative contribution to the transition amplitude or correlation function of a quantum mechanical or statistical field theory." If we assign a positive number to each internal line in a Feynman diagram so that each internal line is associated with a gravitational energy-density, then there is a mathematical problem of how to formulate a quantum-gravitational action that yields an averaging procedure. It seems to me that the answer is the Nambu-Goto string action (or something mathematically equivalent to it). Study the following:

    TASI Lectures on Perturbative String Theories" by Hirosi Ooguri and Zheng Yin, 1996, arXiv.org

    In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, there are string vibrations at the Planck scale -- and there is the string landscape at the cosmological scale. In string theory with the finite nature hypothesis, the string vibrations are entirely virtual and never emerge from Wolfram's cosmological automaton -- and there are a huge, but finite, number of alternate universes on the boundary of the multiverse (which is approximately generated by Wolfram's cosmological automation using a network of Fredkin-Wolfram information.)

    My guess is that the string theorists are not "looking at the universe correctly" because they have underestimated (or have remained ignorant of) Milgrom, McGaugh, Kroupa, Scarpa, Sanders, Koide, Lestone, Riofrio, Sanejouand, Pipino,, and several other physicists and astronomers. I think that the problem is now to find Wolfram's conjectured 4 or 5 simple rules -- and to show that the rules are empirically valid.

    How does a point particle cross scale? The question needs to address objects and actions at all scales in between the largest and smallest - and not just the extremes or black holes.

    Statistics and probability are one-way tools, only able to move from the smaller to the larger. Are our tools biasing our theories? A bouncing beach ball is best described at the scale of the beach ball. The actions at this level impact what occurs at the molecular level, were we might want to describe the scuffing of the ball surface. How do any theories at only one scale perform both (plus what happens at in between scales)? If the only tools we have go from smaller to larger, will we even be able to model action or movement in the reverse direction?

    MOND is an attempt to connect the large with the small, however do we even have appropriate (mathematical) tools to address this situation?

    Basing theories on geometric points, smallest spaces or point particles does not give any confidence that such a theory can traverse the scales from smallest to largest.

    We seem to be developing theories as if we live in Flatland, only able to measure in one plane at a time. However, we perceive the three dimensional scale aspects of reality. Our theories do not match our wide scale-continuum perceptions and the limitations of our mathematical tools might be the reason why.

    Don

    "How does a point particle cross scale?" According to string theory, something is wrong with the concept of "point particle". Feynman explains the basic problems with the concept of a "point particle" -- quantum field theory does not entirely resolve the problems.

    According to Feynman, "First, we compute the energy of a charged particle. Suppose we take a simple model of an electron in which all of its charge聽q is uniformly distributed on the surface of a sphere of radius聽a, which we may take to be zero for the special case of a point charge. ...

    It is all fine until we set a equal to zero for a point charge--there's the great difficulty. Because the energy of the field varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance from the center, its volume integral is infinite. There is an infinite amount of energy in the field surrounding a point charge.

    What's wrong with an infinite energy? If the energy can't get out, but must stay there forever, is there any real difficulty with an infinite energy? Of course, a quantity that comes out infinite may be annoying, but what really matters is only whether there are any observable physical effects. To answer that question, we must turn to something else besides the energy. Suppose we ask how the energy changes when we move the charge. Then, if the changes are infinite, we will be in trouble."

    "28-1. The field energy of a point charge" in Chapter 28. Electromagnetic Mass, Vol. II, The Feynman Lectures in Physics, 1964

    The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, Mainly Mechanics, Radiation, and Heat

    The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II, Mainly Electromagnetism and Matter

    The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume III, Quantum Mechanics

    My guess is that are 2 (and only 2) ways to resolve the basic problems with the concept of "point particle" -- string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis or string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. One way predicts MOND is wrong -- the other way predicts MOND is (approximately) correct.

    How uncertain is string theory? How might string theory be related to money? Consider 2 dicta: (A) Watson's Dictum: DNA makes RNA makes protein. (B) Brown's Dictum: Money drives technology drives science. Is science more important than money? I have speculated that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis will make quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand -- am I wrong? There are 2 competing views of Witten: (a) Witten is greater as a theoretical physicist than a mathematician. (b) Witten is greater as a mathematician than a theoretical physicist. Which of the 2 preceding view is correct -- or is it a 50-50 split? According to Graham Farmelo, in 1995 Witten at a conference held at the University of Southern California "demonstrated that the five different string theories and supergravity are each valid, but in their own separate domains--they are simply aspects of a single, overarching structure. He gave it the temporary name of 'M-theory'' ... the audience looked on in awe, as he cast the entire subject in a new light. ... The string framework was never going to be the same."

    "The Universe Speaks in Numbers: How Modern Math Reveals Nature's Deepest Secrets" by Graham Farmelo, 2019

    Are the following speculations wrong?

    PROFOUND INSIGHT??? If dark-matter-compensation-constant were equal to zero, then Wolfram's cosmological automaton would not have a timing mechanism.

    The Seven Sagacities of String Theory with the Finite Nature Hypothesis: (1) There is a profound synergy between string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis and string theory with the finite nature hypothesis. (2) Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence (implying dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5). (3) The Koide formula is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (4) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is essential for understanding the foundations of physics. (5) The idea of Fernández-Rañada and Tiemblo-Ramos that atomic time is different from astronomical time is correct. (6) There is genius in the ideas of Riofrio, Sanejouand, and Pipino concerning the hypothesis that the speed of light in a perfect vacuum steadily decreases as our universe ages. (7) Quantum information reduces to Fredkin-Wolfram information, which is controlled by Wolfram's cosmological automaton in a mathematical structure isomorphic to a 72-dimensional, holographic, digital computer

    6 days later

    According to Milgrom, "... cosmology and local MOND will be understood as two aspects of the same construct ...".

    [link:arxiv.org/abs/2001.09729]Milgrom, Mordehai. "The a0 - cosmology connection in MOND." arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.09729 (2020), page 8[/link]

    The string theorists (as of early 2020 C.E.) reject MOND -- they believe that nature is infinite and furthermore dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0. Are the string theorists correct? My guess is that the Fredkin-Wolfram viewpoint leads to string-vibrational synchronization among alternate universes, but string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis leads to supersymmetry, the string landscape, and lack of string-vibrational synchronization among alternate universes.

    Consider 4 speculative hypotheses: (1) The Koide formula suggests there is a maximum wavelength in the physical universe and there is a Koide cutoff that needs to be introduced into Einstein's field equations. (2) Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might suggest that a Lestone cutoff needs to be introduced into Einstein's field equations. (3) The empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND might suggest dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 . (4) The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is (approximately) empirically valid if and only if string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid if and only if there exist 4 of 5 simple rules (as conjectured by Wolfram) implying empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory if and only if the monster group and the 6 pariah groups can be used effectively in string theory with the finite nature hypothesis.

    According to Bílek, Thies, Kroupa, and Famaey, "Observations show that if gravity is to be modified, then the MOND theory is its excellent approximation on galactic scales."

    Bílek, Michal, Ingo Thies, Pavel Kroupa, and Benoit Famaey. "Origin Of Tidal Structures In Modified Gravity." arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.07537 (2019)

    Do the empirical successes of MOND require a new paradigm for the foundations of physics, including a new concept of time? I have conjectured that there are 3 basic concepts of time: Newtonian, Einsteinian, and Wolframian.

    In 2012 Wolfram wrote, "... in the mid-1980s one of the great attractions of string theory was that it seemed to support graviton excitations without the problem of infinities seen in point-particle field theories. But it had other problems, and to avoid these, supersymmetry had to be introduced, leading to the presence of many other particles that have so far not been observed. .... spin networks and spin foams seem to be viewed just as calculational constructs that must be evaluated and added together to get quantum amplitudes - quite different from my idea of associating an explicit evolution history for the universe with the evolution of a network."

    SOME HISTORICAL NOTES From: Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science, Notes for Chapter 9: Fundamental Physics, Section: The Phenomenon of Gravity, Page 1054[, wolframscience.com

    In 2015 Stephen Wolfram wrote, "One of the key realizations that led to General Relativity 100 years ago was that Euclid's fifth postulate ("parallel lines never cross") might not be true in our actual universe, so that curved space is possible. But if my suspicions about space and the universe are correct, then it means there's actually an even more basic problem in Euclid--with his very first definitions. Because if there's a discrete network "underneath" space, then Euclid's assumptions about points and lines that can exist anywhere in space simply aren't correct."

    "What Is Spacetime, Really" by Stephen Wolfram, December 2, 2015, writings.stephenwolfram.com

    "How a mathematical point that has no dimension could extend into infinite space of the universe nobody has an answer. From where all the energy of the universe came in the hypothetical explosion also there is no answer. Big Bang cosmology is not falsifiable (Karl Popper), it is not bijective (A.S. Sorli). Maybe 50 years ago it was an interesting idea. Teaching this theory today at universities seems not right. The universe as a system in a non-created permanent dynamic equilibrium is more appropriate and in accordance with all measured data and observation." My guess is that the empirical evidence supports the preceding ideas. I believe that Green, Schwarz, and Witten are more-or-less on the same level as Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga -- however, they fail to realize that Big Bang cosmology contradicts the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND. Sorli's idea that Big Bang cosmology is not logically bijective is, in my estimation, an important insight.

    According to Wikipedia, "In mathematics, a bijection, bijective function, one-to-one correspondence, or invertible function, is a function between the elements of two sets, where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other set, and each element of the other set is paired with exactly one element of the first set."

    Bijection, Wikipedia

    If fundamental information describes nature precisely, then fundamental information should be bijective from one Planck time interval to another. It seems to me that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis is empirically valid -- although I might have the details wrong.

    David. I found your questions about whether nature is infinite or finite and their relationships to the incompleteness theories thought provoking. In my essay "Clarification of Physics--", I introduce a new perspective that starts from a different "beginning" and accounts for the creation of a finite physical multiverse that includes our visible universe. In order to "discover" this natural process, I had to get rid of the basic assumptions and impossibles currently imposed on physics, start from a different beginning and "find" the mathematics hidden in its finite processing and results. I think you will find the essay interesting and I would appreciate your comments.

    Hello, here are my thoughts about these strings. Can we affirm that these strings, Branes, fields Waves are the pure essence of our geometries, topologies, Matter and properties in this space time ? no, we cannot affirm and even philosphically speaking, we cannot affirm that we have a 1D main field oscillating permiting to these tsrings t this planck scale to create our physicality. In fact I beleive strongly and it is just my opinion of course that Witten has created a prison now and a fashion. But don t forget this, if the strings are false , so all the philosphy correlated and the works about the geometrisations are not correct simply. Imagine we have coded particles, not points or strings but 3D coded spheres in a superfluid coded aether? I doubt really that we have an infinite energy , a heat and that this energy oscillate and create so the QFT only to create all our physicality. We have probably a deeper logic to all this puzzle, the same about the geometrodynamics am points , or the E8 or Yang mills, in fact imagine if we have coded particles and that they can create all SHAPEs and properties with the Ricci flow, the Hamilton Ricci flow, an assymetric Ricci flow, the heat equation, the topological spaces and euclidian spaces, the lie dervivatives and other mathematical Tools ? it is maybe a solution too to explain all our geometries, topologies and properties of matters. So a thing that I have difficulties to encircle is why these strings are Always utilised, maybe it is just a fashion and that the thinkers had forgotten to consider the coded particles, my model with spheres and spherisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere respect also the Waves particles duality in this aether where the space disappears. All this is a philosophical problem I beleive and all we are free to Think like we want but maybe the sciences Community could focus on different roads and not forget that the universe is simple generally. Spherically Yours,

    ps I liked your general essay, congrats and good luck for this Contest.

    "... I doubt really that we have an infinite energy ... We have probably a deeper logic to all this puzzle ..." Is nature finite and digital? Stephen Wolfram wrote, "I've been thinking about the physics of space and time for a little more than 40 years now. At the beginning, as a young theoretical physicist, I mostly just assumed Einstein's whole mathematical setup of Special and General Relativity--and got on with my work in quantum field theory, cosmology, etc. on that basis.But about 35 years ago, partly inspired by my experiences in creating technology, I began to think more deeply about fundamental issues in theoretical science--and started on my long journey to go beyond traditional mathematical equations and instead use computation and programs as basic models in science. Quite soon I made the basic discovery that even very simple programs can show immensely complex behavior--and over the years I discovered that all sorts of systems could finally be understood in terms of these kinds of programs.Encouraged by this success, I then began to wonder if perhaps the things I'd found might be relevant to that ultimate of scientific questions: the fundamental theory of physics."

    "What Is Spacetime, Really?" Stephen Wolfram, Writings, December 2, 2015

    When I say "String vibrations are confined to 3 copies of the Leech lattice" , what precisely do I mean? The precise answer would require an entirely successful realization of Wolfram's program -- first write down 4 or 5 simple rules and then prove empirically that Wolfram is correct.

    Thanks for sharing and developping, I like how you Think. I understand so your works and what you try to reach. We seacrh answers to explain what we don t know after all.

    Wolfram is relevant indeed and a very good mathematician, I consider these maths essential and foundamental when they are utilised with determinism to explain our physics. But I consider the physics like the most important, the maths sometimes can imply confusions in the extrapolations with the infinities, or this or that. Like for example the multiverses or the whormholes, I beleive that they are simply mathematical extrapolations but are not really things real and deterministic, but of course it is just my opinion. So I agree that Wolfram is very relevant the maths important, what I spoke is about these strings, can we be sure that they are foundamental mathenmatical and physical objects at this planck scales and the 1D Cosmic field also ? I don t Think personally, so the branes, D branes, Mtheory, Yang mills or geometrodynamics are just a thought simply not proved. But I can recognise the relevance of mathematical Tools permitting to rank the fields and properties like with the E8 or E8X 8 or others lie groups,I make the same for my theory of spherisation, this optimisation of the universal sphere or future spheres , and the quantum 3D spheres and cosmological 3D spheres and the gravitational coded aether. I cannot affirm that these spheres are the foundamental objects and the same for this aether. For me this aether is sent from the central cosmological sphere and the space disappears when we take specific series having the same number than the cosmological spheres, we decrease the volumes form the central spheres, utilising the primes and increasing the number, oddly we apprroach the Dirac large number, now see that these 3D coded spheres playing between the zero absolute and the planck temperature can rank also these fields because they are in motions and oscillations these spheres , they rotate also, so we have many parameters to consider for the ranking of fields and particles , the densities, the sotings, the synchros, the superimposings, the volumes, the surfaces, the mass, the senses of rotations, the angles, the moments, this and that, we can even consider the poincare conjecture, the Ricci flow, the assynmetric Ricci flow that I have invented, the hopf fibrations, the lie derivatives, the lie groups, the euclidians and topological spaces, and others. It is not a problem to rank our particles fermionic and bosonic if I can say, it is even more simple and more intereting for me considering the numbers of these finite series. The photons are just a fuel so in this line of reasoning, particles permitting simply the electromagnetic forces, the life death,the fact to observe but we have a deeper logic probably to this universe than these photons, that is why I consider this gravitational aether sent from this central cosmological sphere. It is there that this infinite energy transforms and codes the particles, so all is made of particles and not made of fields like in the strings.

    The Waves particles duality is also respected because all is in contact due to fact that this space disappears and they oscillate these 3D spheres. So Wolfram works can converge it is not a problem I beleive humbly.

    Ps see that this general reasoning can help in technology because we can rank better these particles and fields with these 3D spheres.

    About the space time, it is of course correct for our GR , and einstein field equation, but we consider only photons and it is an observation and different interpretation of this gravitation wich is here a curvature of our spacetime at high velocities, different thah Newton where this force is attractive between all mass at lower velocities. Now what I say is simple, if this gravitational aether exists, so we must superimpose a deeper logic to all this, Newton and Einstein, and it is like this that I have reached this quantum gravitation, I have encoded in nuclei different particles and changed the distances because the main codes are farer and the particles encoded also, so the standard model is just emergent, correct but emergent and cannot renormalise and quantize this quantum gravitation. All the thinkers have tried in considering only electromagnetic forces or otehrs and they have not reached it, Connes and his non commutativity, or Verlinde and his entropical gravity, or Lisi and his E8, or Penrose and his twistors, or the loops or this or that, they have not quantized it, there is a problem and I beleive that I found why in all humility, we need to Think beyond the box and add new parameters, like Is I said that this GR , the photons and the strings are a prison for the thinkers.

    Like I said I liked your essay and maybe you could consider my theory and works, because it is more simple to explain our unknowns, the universe is so simple generally,m complex in details but so simple generally. These spheres seem foundamental, Poincare and Perelman shall agree I beleive :)

    best regards and good luck in this contect

    How are undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability elated to money and technology? How are money and technology related to string theory? Frank H. Knight wrote, "Economics ... is different from physics in degree, since, though it cannot well be made so exact, yet for special reasons it secures a moderate degree of exactness only at the cost of much greater unreality."

    "Risk, uncertainty and profit" by Frank H. Knight, 1921, p. 3

    Is string theory essential for understanding reality? My guess is that some version of string theory is the theory of quantum gravity -- beyond a reasonable doubt. However, let us ask: How might string theory be related to economics and technology? Will string theory make quantum field theory somewhat easier to understand and, thereby, demonstrate its value in terms of technology and economics? Is string theory really valid in empirical terms?

    According to Richard Szabo, "In conventional quantum field theory, the fundamental objects are mathematical points in spacetime, modeling the elementary point particles of nature. String theory is a rather radical generalization of quantum field theory whereby the fundamental objects are extended, one dimensional lines or loops ... The various elementary particles observed in nature correspond to different vibrational modes of the string. While we cannot see a string (yet) in nature, if we are very far away from it we will be able to see its point-like oscillations, and hence measure the elementary particles that it produces. The main advantage of this description is that while there are many particles, there is only one string. This indicates that strings could serve as a good starting point for a unified field theory of the fundamental interactions."

    "An Introduction to String Theory and D-brane Dynamics" by Richard J. Szabo, 2004, p. 1

    I have suggested that the string theorists have underestimated Milgrom and failed to understand the value of the ideas of Koide, Lestone, Riofrio, Sanejouand, Pipino, and others. My guess is that strings are entirely virtual and merely approximations generated by Wolfram's cosmological automaton -- am I wrong? Am I wrong in my estimate of dark-matter-compensation-constant? The Gravity Probe B science corrected for alleged imperfections in their 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes -- but are their corrections justified?

    Adrian Cho wrote, "... Interactions between those imperfections and ones in the gyroscopes' housing created tiny tugs, and to reach the final precisions, researchers spent 5 years figuring out how to correct for them. Some other scientists aren't sure how much they trust the corrections. Five years ago, Ciufolini notes, Gravity Probe B researchers were reporting uncertainties more than 10 times bigger. Correcting for such large "systematic errors" is tricky business, he says: "I don't know the details, but it seems to me very difficult to get rid of more than 90% of the systematic error." ..."

    "At Long Last, Gravity Probe B Satellite Proves Einstein Right" by Adrian Cho, 4 May 2012, Science

    ************** Physics

    **************** в†'в†"

    Philosophy в†ђ String theory в†' Quantum computing

    **************** в†"в†'

    ************ Mathematics

    Hi ,

    I have thought a lot about these MONDs , I have read and studied many pappers about these modifications of our Newtonian mechanics and the opposite reasoning considering this Dark Matter. But after a deeper analyses, philosophicaL, it seems that a cold Dark matter can be very relevant to balance our actual classical physics at this quantum scale and this coosmological scale, I doubt in fact really that we have only photons like main essence to this universe.

    I doubt in fact that we had before the physicality, a kind of infinite heat and energy and that this thing osccilates and have created the photons to create our physicality and its topologies, geometries,properties of matters with strings so at this planck scales.

    I prefer to consider a deeper logic , a kind of gravitational coded aether sent from the central cosmological sphere , and made of particles , finite series of 3S spheres playing between this zero absolute and this planck temperature, this reasoning permits to consider the photons like just a fuel implying the electromagnetism, the fact to observe, the thermodynamics, the standard model the life Death but it seems that we have a deeper logic to this universe with this DM also, this matter is probably encoded in nuclei also and the relevance is that it permits to balance this heat and can even explain this quantum gravitation, it is what I have made with my equation and to reach this quantum gravitation, I have changed the distances to respect this newtonian mechanic, and I have reached it in all humility in considering these particles encoded weaker than this electromagnetism and photons and I have considered also a serie of quantum BHs farer than our nuclear forces, that creates a fith force also.

    I formalise all this puxxle but I must admit that it is not easy. The strings and the photons like main essence of our universe seem a problem to explain the generality and the unknowns, we need I beleive humbly to Think beyond the box and admit that this universe is more complex than we can imagine.

    Maybe the strings, the photons and its correlated philosophy have created a kind of prison for the thinkers and now they don t go farer , they consider only the heat and the Waves,oscillations , it is not easy to change a line of reasoning, I know because we are all persuaded lol but after all we must recognise that we are Youngs on Earth and that we know so few, we have just a Little bbit detailed the standard model in some hundreds of years, we have just improved our physics a Little bit.We have an ocean of things to discover still generally and about the details also, Regards

    Sorry I write too quickly without rereading, I told 3D spheres, not 3S spheres lol and I have made some errors in English also, I am french speaking, I cannot solve, we cannot re edit and correct. sorry But I beleive that you can understand my general reasoning.

    "Maybe the strings, the photons and its correlated philosophy have created a kind of prison for the thinkers ..." There is the possibility that string theory is somewhat wrong or, perhaps, fundamentally wrong.

    Freeman Dyson wrote, "What philosophical conclusions should we draw from the abstract style of the superstring theory? We might conclude, as Sir James Jeans concluded long ago, that the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a Pure Mathematician, and that if we work hard enough at mathematics we shall be able to read his mind. Or we might conclude that our pursuit of abstractions is leading us far away from those parts of the creation which are most interesting from a human point of view. It is too early yet to come to conclusions."

    Superstring theory, Wikiquote

    Henri Poincaré wrote, "La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti, ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée préconçue, ni à quoi que ce soit, si ce n'est aux faits eux-mêmes, parce que, pour elle, se soumettre, ce serait cesser d'être."

    Henri Poincaré, Wikiquote

    Dear David Brown, I appreciate you for trying to include the neocartesian generalization of modern physics in your knowledge system and comparing it with the Lee Smolin loop quantum theory of gravity.

    It should be noted here that in neocartesian physics, it is not length that is quantized, but the construction of the length by mass. The continuity of length arises from the Heisenberg inequality, which indicates that it is impossible to tear out a single point from space, since this requires an infinitely large momentum. So the principle of uncertainty passes into the principle of definiteness of points in space and makes them irrational points that complement the set of rational points to the continuum.

    I wish you a deeper understanding of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics and apply your knowledge to deepen it.

    Sincerely, Dzhechko Semenovich.

    5 days later

    Dear David,

    Thank you for a very interesting and well-written essay.

    While reading your essay I made the following remarks.

    I am like you also attracted to the mystery of life and consciousness

    When you are describing the Bohr/Einstein discussion and the String theory you clearly give a description of the problems scientist have in finding solutions, it is only discussions.

    From the two paths at the end of page two, I agree with number two. But when I say that immediately I have to ask myself is an illusion finite or infinite? (see my Total Simultaneity Interpretation). The answer could on one side be finite because it is just a moment, but, on the other side infinite because it emerges from its infinite source that is eternal timeless), so our reality can be an infinite part of infinity. So I think I just cannot answer my own question.

    "Where do we come from...etc" is also one of "questions" I am trying to explain. You say that MOND requires new paradigms and couple this to the subject of the contest. I explain in my essay that MOND is just another interpretation of the many (not a bad one, because bad interpretations do not exist).

    You are very well treating all the "missing knowledge" of the reality we are living in, but not giving an interpretation that brings this situation forward.

    Each day agents are developing their conscious idea's, that is why I made changes in MY ESSAY (Wilhelmus de Wilde re-uploaded the file Wilde_THE_COMPLETELY_UNKNOW.pdf for the essay entitled "THE COMPLETELY UNKNOWN" on 2020-03-25 10:48:58 UTC.)

    I hope that you will spare some time to read and comment on my interpretations. (It seems from the scores I received that you can be or for or against it)....

    Thanks

    Wilhelmus

      "... treating all the "missing knowledge" of the reality we are living in, but not giving an interpretation that brings this situation forward ..."

      It is true that I have failed to reach even the first step of the three steps of my basic program: (1) Find 4 or 5 simple rules that correctly provide the basis for Wolfram's Simple Rules Conjecture. (2) From the precise statement of the 4 or 5 simple rules, derive empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity. (3) Provide empirical verifications of the new predictions from the 4 or 5 simple rules. Is my basic program merely a basically wrong idea?

      According to Wolfram, "The Standard Model is certainly not the end of physics. There are clearly gaps."

      "A Moment for Particle Physics: The End of a 40-Year Story?" by Stephen Wolfram, 5 July 2012, Stephen Wolfram Writings