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

    Thank you David for your remarks on my thread

    In my perception choices are not made in the past, the Now is an unreachable moment of the future but it is "here" where the choices are made through the partial consciousness of the agent. We are living in the past...

    Thoughts are an agent's. conscious experiences in the emerging flow of time. Thinking is becoming aware of one's consciousness, so is a meditation where we are trying to come free from the troubles that are consuming our pasts, we are trying to come closer to Total Simultaneity, the POINT Zero that contains the ALL.

    I don't fully agree with Steven Weinberg, because the more we "think" we understand the more we understand that this comprehension is only an infinite little part of ALL there is to understand. You become aware of the relativity of human life towards the whole shebang of our universe (micro and macro). It seems then pointless what your thoughts are adding, they are only a sparkle in infinity. But then I remember that an infinite line without a specific point is no more that specific line but becomes two lines. Then I think that even my minor thoughts, my whole life, is NOT wholly pointless, but is needed to bring two infinities together...

    just a thought

    Best regards

    Wilhelmus

    David Brown re-uploaded the file Brown_davidbrownessayfqxi20.pdf for the essay entitled "Gödel versus Wolfram on Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability, plus Bohr versus Einstein on Uncertainty" on 2020-03-27 06:34:00 UTC.

    Hi , I agree totally about the Words of Poincare , I love also his conjecture proved by Perelman. What I find relevant is that these spheres can create all geometries also.

    imagine this with humility, take 3 main systems, series finite of quantum 3d spheres where this space disappears due to a specific serie having the same finite number than our cosmological 3D spheres. so one for the vacuum space , they are coded, one for the photonic fuel, they are coded differently and one for the other fuel a cold dark matter and so when they fuse they create our geometries, topologies, matters ann properties because they are coded simply ,now consider this at this planck scale and utilise these series and superimpose 3 E8 for the geometrisations, utilise the Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture, the Topological and euclidian spaces, an assymetric Ricci flow for the unique things, and the lie derivatives.....all will be easier to explain all our unknowns than just a E8 and geometrodynamics. But for this the thinkers must Think beyond the box.

    E8xE8xE8 in fact with finite series of 3D spheres instead of points or strings.

    the main codes are in this space , the two others are fuel permitting the gravitation and the electromagnetism simply, see the combinations possible , we can create all Shapes, geometries, topologies and the unique things ....

    Regards

    11 days later

    How might Gödel's 1st and 2nd incompleteness theorems be extrapolated?

    "Is our brain smart enough to understand the brain?" by Stanislas Dehaene, 2002, edge.org

    Consider the following idea: No matter how smart you are, you are too stupid to understand how your own brain works.

    Gödel found a mathematical formulation of the following statement: This statement is true but unprovable in the axiomatic system you are using.

    Let us suppose that you have a remarkably precise and sophisticated computer simulation of the molecular mechanisms of your own brain. There might be a complicated line of computer code that encodes the following: This statement is necessary for you to completely understand how your own brain works, and this statement is too complicated for you to understand.

    Dear David,

    You give good thoughts to David Spergel and Rebecca Goldstein:

    "Both dark matter and dark energy require extensions to our current understanding of particle physics or point toward a breakdown of general relativity on cosmological scales."

    "The necessary incompleteness of even our formal systems of thought demonstrates that there is no nonshifting foundation on which any system rests."

    To overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science, it is necessary to call for help the paradigm of the world (Universum) as a whole (holistic generating process). This step is pushed not only by the crisis in the foundations of science, but above all by the modern Information Revolution and the problem of understanding the nature of information, its place in the scientific picture of the world, and therefore the nature of the "laws of Nature". Quantum theory and General Relativity are parametric (phenomenological, operationalistic) theories without an ontological basification (justification). Also, and "string theory". It is necessary to "dig" with an extremely sharp "Occam's razor" to the most remote meaningful ontological depths -- absolute forms of the existence of matter (absolute states). The time has come to introduce the Ontological standard for justification (basification) theories that claim to be called "fundamental". Today the motto is relevant for physics: "Physics, do not be afraid of metaphysics and dialectics!"

    Mathematics is the "language of Nature." But the centennial problem of justification (substantiation, basification)) mathematics, and therefore knowledge in general, remains unsolved. Radical dialectic and ontological ideas are needed to overcome the crisis of understanding in the philosophical (ontological) basis of fundamental science. Physicists, mathematicians, information workers, poets and musicians must have a single picture of the world. A good conclusion was made by the philosopher Pavel Florensky: "We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding."

    David! Do you support the Big Bang hypothesis?

    Please also see my dialectic and ontological ideas .

    With kind regards, Vladimir

      What are the implications of Milgrom's MOND for the scientific and philosophical foundations of undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability? What is relativistic MOND?

      In 2019 Banik and Kroupa suggested 2 tests of (non-relativistic) MOND:

      Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 1653-1661.

      "Directly testing gravity with Proxima Centauri", arXiv preprint

      Banik, Indranil, and Pavel Kroupa. "Testing gravity with interstellar precursor missions." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 487, no. 2 (2019): 2665-2672.

      "Testing gravity with interstellar precursor missions", arXiv preprint

        "Due to the unsolved problem of justification of Mathematics, paradigm problems in Computational mathematics have arisen. It's time to return 竊" Into Dialectics. The solution to the problem of the foundations of Mathematics, and therefore knowledge in general, is the solution to the problem of modeling (constructing) the ontological basis of knowledge - the ontological model of the primordial generating process."

        One basic question for constructing the ontological basis of knowledge might be: Does the Big Bang hypothesis contradict empirical evidence? My guess is that string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis implies the Big Bang and dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, but string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies the Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model and the value of the dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9ﾂｱ.5) * 10^-5 . It might be true that the Gravity Probe B science team is correct and I am wrong about the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes. In any case, it seems to me that the concept of infinity (either a complete infinity or a potential infinity) is philosophically unsatisfactory. Is the Axiom of Choice relevant to physics (or any empirical science except anthropology)?

        The Axiom of Choice" by John Lane Bell, 2015, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

        John Lane Bell, Wikipedia

        5 days later

        The theory, which claims to be "fundamental", must be ontologically grounded. Along with the Empirical standard for justification of scientific theories, it is necessary to introduce the Ontological standard for basification of theory. General relativity and string theory - theories without ontological basification.

        Is string theory "ontologically grounded"? At the present time, the majority of string theorists say that dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0, i.e., gravitational energy is empirically conserved in the Newtonian approximation of general relativity theory. I say dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^-5 -- if I am wrong about this then I am forced to admit that my speculations concerning general relativity theory and string theory are wrong. What then?

        The question is, in the words of Witten, "... what happens to Albert Einstein's conception of spaceetime?"

        "What every physicist should know about theory" by Edward Witten, 2015, Physics Today

        What are the most fundamental questions about undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability? What is predictability? Why does predictability exist? What is truth? Why does truth exist? Objective truth might be fundamentally different from subjective truth within a logically consistent framework of beliefs. Mathematical predictability is one thing -- empirical predictability is another thing and perhaps more fundamental. I say that Milgrom's MOND has many empirical successes and MOND's empirical successes require a new paradigm for the foundations of physics. Does the new paradigm for MOND accept infinity or reject infinity? Do all of the positive integers occur in nature? What is constructivity in mathematics?

        According to Paul Cohen, "Many people devoted their efforts to developing various parts of mathematics in a constructive manner. I think that for many the crucial issue is already present in the most basic part of mathematics, number theory. Since classical set theory is non-constructive almost by definition, in that it speaks of infinite sets, one hardly expects constructive ideas to be successful here."

        "Skolem and pessimism about proof in mathematics" by Paul Cohen, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering, 2005, volume 363, number 1835, quote on p. 2412 of pages 2407-2418

        6 days later

        Assume dark-matter-compensation-constant = 0 and string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis is empirically valid.

        Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections might explain the numerical value of the fine structure constant.

        Lestone, John Paul. Possible reason for the numerical value of the fine-structure constant. No. LA-UR-18-21550. Los Alamos National Lab.(LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2018.

        Lestone, J. P. "QED: A different perspective." (2018). Los Alamos report LA-UR-18-29048

        If Lestone's theory of virtual cross sections is empirically valid, then does it require a new uncertainty principle?

        According to some of the string theorists, spacetime is doomed. If spacetime is doomed then is a new uncertainty principle required? What are the criticisms of the following?

        There exists a (finite) Lestone-maximum-mass > 0, such that for any massive elementary particle in the Standard Model of particle physics,

        (standard deviation of position) * (standard deviation of velocity) тЙе

        (reduced-Planck's-constant/2) / (Lestone-maximum-mass) .

        godel ,Einstein ,Heisenberg... name it.are all human, according to Einstein theories are descriptions Of The world and all are manufactured by humans. can the natural unpolluted human being psyche be a bias to which a basic interactive framework can describe reality. pls take your time to read/rate my essay here-https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks for the computing knowledge you've added to my database.

        7 days later

        Dear David Brown,

        Thank you for very interesting essay.

        There is a strong possibility that our physical universe is infinite. In cosmic inflation theory, the commonly accepted cosmology model, a multiverse is inevitable. In a multiverse, one cannot avoid infinity. See the great works of Andrei Linde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.

        In my essay, I conclude that reality is identical to V (Von Neumann universe). However, unlike the standard view, I view V as dynamic, not static. V is evolving, just like us human. V may have consciousness too. Whitehead's process philosophy may be relevant here.

        Best regards,

        Agus

        "There is a strong possibility that our universe is infinite." Because the amount of empirical data is, presumably, always finite, it seems to me that there will never be a completely satisfactory resolution of the question of infinity as a physical reality. However, I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- on the basis of overwhelming empirical evidence. Google "kroupa milgrom". It seems to me that Guth and the majority of astrophysicists have ignored and underestimated the empirical successes of Milgrom's MOND.

        For example, the following article

        Geller, Sarah R., Jolyon K. Bloomfield, and Alan H. Guth. "Mass of a Patch of an FRW Universe." arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02249 (2018)

        makes no mention of MOND -- my guess is that the history of astrophysics and cosmology will eventually reveal that ignoring MOND is a bad mistake.

          Assessing the scientific status of inflation after Planck

          Debika Chowdhury, Jérôme Martin, Christophe Ringeval, and Vincent Vennin

          Phys. Rev. D 100, 083537 - Published 24 October 2019

          ABSTRACT Inflation is considered as the best theory of the early universe by a very large fraction of cosmologists. However, the validity of a scientific model is not decided by counting the number of its supporters, and, therefore, this dominance cannot be taken as a proof of its correctness. Throughout its history, many criticisms have been put forward against inflation. The final publication of the Planck cosmic microwave background data represents a benchmark time to study their relevance and to decide whether inflation really deserves its supremacy. In this paper, we categorize the criticisms against inflation, go through all of them in the light of what is now observationally known about the early universe, and try to infer and assess the scientific status of inflation. Although we find that important questions still remain open, we conclude that the inflationary paradigm is not in trouble but, on the contrary, has rather been strengthened by the Planck data.

          Dear David Brown,

          Thank you for a very interesting essay.

          As you may have noted from my posts to other essayists I prefer a finite rotating universe composed of aether (one type of particle) and matter (also one type of particle) with simple rules (force laws) between aggegations of matter. This simple model predicts a baryonic CDM that is neutral, and in equal proportion to normal matter. This means that there must be a lot more unseen normal matter than is counted in the numerous census's. (most likely H2!) My theory of gravity is different to all others but obey's Newtonian rules. I do not go with gravitons or any form of boson as a force carrier at all, as I can explain forces using fields instead. However I do not cover these ideas in my essay, which is on other matters pertaining to the essay topic of the 3 Un's.

          BTW I can calculate the masses of the various baryons quite simply, which makes me think the Koide formula is just a numerical co-incidence. I tried to make sense of it, knowing how basic matter is constructed from quarks but I failed.

          Thanks for the Sanejouand link, I shall peruse it when I have finished with the plethora of essays.

          LL&P

          Lockie Cresswell

          How might physicists give an empirical proof that "the Koide formula is just a numerical co-incidence"? Motl has argued the Koide formula is merely a meaningless curiosity.

          "Could the Koide formula be real?" by Luboš Motl, 2012

          I have speculated that string theory with the finite nature hypothesis implies square-root(mass) has a meaning in terms of area. In string theory with the infinite nature hypothesis, square-root(mass) might have a meaning in terms of Koide-uncertainty, where this uncertainty is somehow related to the string landscape. What might be the possibilities for introducing square-root(mass-energy) as an essential concept in physics?