Essay Abstract

The amount of unexplained observational data is huge. More fundamental descriptions are simpler, more useful, and apply to the entire universe including areas of mathematics, physical sciences, life, and society. The uncomputability, undecidability, and unpredictability of the models limits human wisdom. Because the universe does yield definite characteristics and decisions, the Scalar Theory of Everything suggests the Godel's incompleteness theorems, Turing's proof of non-computability, and other similar mathematical proofs do not apply to physics. Indeed, ``proofing'' cannot be part of the physical sciences. However, because the universe's source of initial conditions is unknowable, the universe is unpredictable except for limited space and time.

Author Bio

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1520-2153

Download Essay PDF File

Hi John... Your essay has a lot to offer.

You state... "Human modeling starts from postulates, which include methods of reasoning (logic), and extends to theorems"

You say that a more fundamental model is required and a paradigm shift is necesaary on the form of a fundamental model which is long overdue.

You have offered STOE as your model/new theory and I hope more people take a look at your ideas.

    Hi John, you do not mention the major advantage of sexual rather than asexual reproduction. That is the variety of gene combinations generated by "shuffling" the genetic material obtained from the two sexes. Greater variety gives fitness of the population to a greater range of environmental conditions and challenges. Which increases the likelihood of some offspring surviving. Low levels of genetic variation, such as in endangered populations, is hazardous.

    An essay full of ideas to ponder, regards G.

      Scott

      I note you also say a more fundamental model is needed. You should look at the STOE for many of the questions you ask.

      The answer to your first question is your 6) IMHO and experience.

      Georgina

      single cell organisms are found everywhere sexual reproducing organisms are found AND in many other places such as in rocks miles below.

      Hoyle's panspermia suggested simple organisms (their DNA) are at least space travelers and may be interstellar travelers.

      If the question of why life exists is asked, then the answer must include why more complex life can form (survives the kulling).

      8 days later

      Just started reading your essay.

      I find it encouraging.

      However, I am slow of study and thought and need to spend time with it to grok it.

      6 days later

      John

      This article is interesting and thought provoking. Yes, I agree that Occam's razor should be motivated more due to our ability to understand. So, we should test the simple method first and not decide it to be true. I mhave had that opinion since long time.

      Yes, I also agree to your idea that we often use too many mathematical arguments on physical relations. Sometimes our models become so complex that we tend to discuss mathematics and forget the physics.

      Thanks for the article.

      With best regards from ____________________ John-Erik

        John-Erik

        I have noted your articles on RG.

        Thanks

        Hi John,

        Very rigorous having 2 introductions! I strongly agree a few things, survival depends on a 'generalist' CROSS DISCIPLINE approach. A paradigm shift is long overdue, vortices and 'annihilation', maths models are 'band aids' for poor physical understanding, self-similar & fractal structures, etc.

        You write "All models must have some assumed effects without causes". As you go on to grade those with the least as best I assume you don't mean a model MUST have those to be valid! Having spend many years research to explain and remove all such loose ends in the DFM, which you'll see has extraordinarily wide resolving power, I don't want to falsely add any in again!! (If you can see any I've missed do mention/ask).

        On 'hard photons', you know I agree requantization on all interactions (so all 'measurement') so we always FIND EM energy in 'photons', but I still haven't seen you fully address the inaccessible travel between those points or the vast evidence of and need for 'wavelike' characteristics which you seem to just dismiss. You also never commented on the HELIX model I invoke. We now KNOW all light has helicity (with some ellipticity), which of course makes it 'particulate from the front but wavelike from all sides.

        Of course 'agreement' on such things isn't a scoring criteria. And few seem to agree on much!

        Very best.

        Peter

          John,

          Like you, I state that the 3 "Us" are the result of human failings and limitations and that cognitive enhancement and quantum processing can provide the wisdom and knowledge needed over time. Our human assumptions must be replaced by physical assumptions. In other words, the universe must tell us the answer thru experiments and observations. I see that your STOE suggests it should include life and society observations, eliminating the limiting factors. A scalar theory of everything suggest many such measurements of "limited space and time," stated in your conclusion relate to galactic measurements. I also see the scalar qualities that you mention "combinations of simpler structures form more complex life."

          Many good thoughts to mull over.

          Jim Hoover

            Peter

            Thanks for your interest.

            The 2nd "introduction" is actually a page heading on the 2 page.

            All models MUST have some postulates to start. For example, time and space are usually assumed to mean something and then calculations using such parameters follow (this must be followed by the method of measurement standard which may be subject to variation if other standards are used). Most physics models accept algebra and geometry as calculating schemes. The Big Bang model presumes a Big Bang and then uses current observations to determine its characteristics . Indeed, some matter origination seems required. The QSSC presumes the stuff of our universe is created by a creation field at the center of galaxies.

            Please provide a reference/description of the DFM. I have followed some of your work and have seen mention of a Discrete Field - but no description of the experiments.

            This paper was about the 3 U's, math and physics. The STOE model of photons is covered in many papers which can be found in a project under my site on RG. I didn't mention your request because it wasn't necessary to make the point. But since you ask, The STOE model as it now stands suggests hods in a column form photons. The hods and, therefore, photons attract plenum (an ether with some special characteristics to also form "space-time" of GR). As photons travel thru the plenum, they create waves in the plenum (speed much faster than light - entanglement experiments) which travel out from the photon both forward (the quantum eraser experiments and TIQM) and backward. Reflected plenum waves direct the photon's path as Newton queried in "Opticks" and the Bohm Interpretation- see the many simulations of diffraction experiments . The more significant experiment is with transparent 2nd mask where the photons sense the slit only AFTER they pass thru the mask. The forward wave cause the photon to change direction BEFORE reaching the slit as has been observed. I think the Helix model doesn't explain these experiments (I looked at a helix model years ago and figured it couldn't explain interference experiment better than wave models that are rejected by experiment.) Perhaps, your model makes improvement on such models -The transparent mask experiment is perhaps the bellwether one. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056 Interference Experiment with a Transparent Mask Rejects Wave Models of Light.

            The plenum cleaves to one side of the hod and is 0 on the other side. This is the magnetic field. That is, the hod is a disk magnet - it's important to be a disk, not 1D or 3D, but 2 D. There are 5 papers suggesting the magnetic field evolves to be gravity on large (>atomic) scale. which also suggests a different atomic structure without the orbits of electrons concept. 2 types of magnetic field in Maxwell. One is the permanent magnetic field of hods (which waves travel at much faster than light). The other in radio signals is the moving hods which travel at the speed of light. Note this explains the quandary Einstein had which he used to help form Special Relativity.

            We -at least I- don't KNOW all light has helicity. Reference of experiment showing this? Or, are you talking of a photon column's rotation as it travels (the polarizing experiments).

            Scoring? I'm interested in some new observation or new model I haven't considered in these essays. I already found 1 and wrote a paper (extended "Planet 9" explanation). The chances of scoring on these has proven unlikely for outsiders in this essay "contest" . I'm hoping to find 1 person who might be interested in writing some papers along STOE lines (probably in vain). Or, and observation best explained by their model which is not explained by the STOE and which explains all the STOE explanations.

            Jim

            Thank.

            I don't agree that quantum processing can provide more wisdom.

            The STOE forms a Universal Equation and applies it to astronomical/cosmological problems and to light interference experiments

            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328489883_STOE_replaces_relativity_and_quantum_mechanics

            Hi John,

            Thought provoking essay...

            Your definition of understanding as the ability to predict events/observation versus wisdom as the ability to cause them is an effective framework to build upon. I too agree that a paradigm shift will be required to reduce the limitations to knowability and will necessarily need to include consciousness and the human condition in the scope of a truly comprehensive TOE.

            I differ somewhat from your view that mathematics rejects duality of the algebraically discrete and geometrically continuous. I would offer as an example the ixi=-1 representation of the complex plane - it describes both the algebraic relationship between real and imaginary numbers as well as its half-rotation geometry of the complex unit circle. You do, however, note the significance of two-from-one as a natural emergent phenomena such as cell division and DNA. I just see that property of duality as being more fundamental.

            So to me, unobserved mathematics such as imaginary numbers or extra dimensions do not necessarily imply a mathematical model is flawed, but perhaps just that duality such as wave-particle duality should be viewed as a "composite particle" most knowable when considered as a single coin rather than two sides, only one of which we can perceive at a time.

            Thanks for helping me think deeply on this fascinating topic!

            Regards,

            Michael

              I have noted your essay. Note that the STOE suggests that imaginary numbers also lead to models that fail to reflect physical reality. I note the Afshar experiment rejects the Copenhagen duality as do the several interference experiments I did (see for example:https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056

              5 days later

              Reply to Eckard Blumschein's comments:

              Could you accept the idea that the use of the math characteristics produces problematical physics and should be indicate a model that needs a redo (my thesis)?

              One thing I treat lightly (lack of space) was the place of error analysis/statistics in misleading and inadequate for physical models. This point was explored in Nielsen, Guffanti & Sarkar arxiv:1506.01354 "Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae". This point was further explored in Sabine Hossenfelder's recent interview of S. Sarkar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1mwYxkhMe8&list=PLwgQsqtH9H5fe4B5YCF3vcZgIkMMULS7z

              Let me add a bit on a previous comment on your essay, The truncated Fourier analysis results in the next term after truncation is the Uncertainty (Heisenberg's Uncertainty?). The photoelectric experiment where the slope of the energy vs frequency line has a slope of h (Plank's constant). So, the best a measurement can do is within 1 h . So the Fourier series in representing a observed value is a truncated Fourier series where Heisenberg's Uncertainty is the next term. The idea of conjugate pairs is an artifact of assuming particles are infinite waves.

              Would you comment on the idea that all the added dimensions, imaginary numbers, and things like Fourier constants do not improve Understanding or physics. They merely mask better physics.

              I suggest that nature does "calculate" and does arrive at answers. So, Godel's and Turing's theorems do not apply to physics but to math. A common factor is that they both use ordinal numbers as an important part of the proof. This is what triggered the suggestion that ordinal numbers do not belong in physics. As you see, I hold only cardinal numbers as useful with irrational and transcendental function as contributing to the error between observation and math. This suggests the "natural numbers" includes a man-made part - the ordinal numbers.

              Now consider what the cardinal numbers are counting - the standards of measurement. Physics starts with assumptions/postulates about what the standards of measurement are. Advances in physics is primarily about redefining the more reduction standards. For example, Newton defined gravity as a assumed measure in the "The Principia". Gravity was limited to action between masses. In Newton's "Opticks" 1730 edition (careful - different editions have different Query numbering)

              Qu. 17 -22 the gravity was caused by an aether which had additional experiment observations of directing corpuscles in diffraction. That is, the aether characteristics are causeless and all other effects emerge such as gravity and diffraction of light observations. Further, the STOE's plenum includes the aether concept and adds the explanation for astronomical observations such as rotation curves (dark matter) and Planet 9.

              I understand the natural number's interest is describing an extension of a point to a line to want to include such numbers. But I reject imaginary numbers as being an unnecessary crutch. The distinction between a dot and a point is that there is no distinction. In physics, the cardinal numbers include the zero to signify the beginning of a standard of measure.

              You noted "the map is not the territory". Mathematical transforms (maps) as a procedure to solve difficult equations is helpful. However, interpretation of the map should not imply physical effects or measures without the inverse transform. For example, General Relativity field equation has the real measures (mass, distance, time) on the Right Hand Side (RHS) and the transform on the Left Hand Side (LHS). The LHS parameters are NOT physical space or time. Singularities or infinities are not physical and are indicative of incorrect calculation. The speed of gravity is frequently and falsely measured with LHS parameters as equal to the speed of light (the maximum possible speed by assumption).

              The STOE developed a Universal Equation with real quantities on both sides of the equation. It started with the Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) of A Source at the center of Spiral Galaxies. This equation was applied to astronomical problem observations and to light interference.

              Current morals (not ethics) are distinctly NOT suited for a significant cooling period. There have been many such periods in history. If a society has grown such that the population level requires the warm period, the following cool period means less food. In high population, humanity morals care for the sick and old and infirm young. Indeed, this is so ingrained that even primitive societies overextend (see Tainter "The Collapse of Complex Societies"). However, there are societies that practices exposure of sickly or unwanted (read unable to support) infants. The Bible chronicles Moses was such a child. A further lesson in the life of Moses is where he is unable to contribute to society and unable to cross the river (read a major test). A similar practice was chronicled by Bronowski "The assent of man" episode 2 of the Bakhtiari nomad peoples' response to their harsh life. We see a lesson for humanity that is ignored. The last cold spell in the early 1800s was solved by technology (invention of fertilizer). Will technology do it again?

              The STOE suggest principles of life and for physics should be the same (see https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3032 "Fundamental principles criteria"). For example, life functions with feedback loops (Sarengetti Rules). The STOE suggest feedback is a fundamental method which results in fine tuning of parameters. For example, the CMB temperature is determined by such a loop.

              Hodge

                Dear John Hodge,

                There are perhaps not yet many non-Gutmenschen who share your (and mine) intention: "My current philosophical interest is to conceive of a constitution for a world order for humanity's growth." Are you aware of substituting God?

                I also appreciate the opportunity you gave me to hopefully bettter explain what I meant with "calculate as if the model was identical with the basic reality behind it".

                Best,

                Eckard

                Dear Eckard:

                The problem of invoking "God" is that God is undefined. That is, there are many, too many interpretations of the characteristics of God.

                Hodge

                Dear John Hodge,

                I simply meant: Are you aware of being perhaps too presumptuous? I rather share Alan Kadin's view.

                Maybe, you and others do not understand what I meant with non-Gutmensch. Many people in particular in Germany feel being good in the sense of obeying Christian values: being emphatic, tolerant, merciful, liberal-minded, cosmopolitan, etc. Such "good-people's" attitude has its main roots partially in old traditions like indulgence and partially in the awareness of the horrible reproach to be guilty for what Germans are blamed for. Good-people tend to consider children like God's or Allah's gift, the more the better. I see Kadin a non-good one but of course not a bad human. On the contrary, he is someone who doesn't need feeling good with a presumptuous putative moral superiority.

                What about ethics and moral, I am not sure but I tend to guess, the ethics as a whole is the more comprehensive philanthropic basis or moral rules which decide about right and wrong. I vote for a radical correction of ethics.

                Eckard

                I don't know of Alan Kadin's view or Gutmensch. My view of morality and ethics is to achieve survival. see:

                https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329209019_Survival_is_the_only_moral_goal_of_life

                Of qualities you mention, only one (mercy) is a characteristic that can enhance survival. Being emphatic, liberal-minded, cosmopolitan, etc. I view as being "passive opposites. That is, they condition a society into a state that cannot defend itself and, hence, can be killed. Tolerance is a complex in that it involves several characteristics, some of which help survival (allowing change and competition) and others that inhibit survival (tolerating destructive behavior).

                John I enjoyed your essay and I agree that a paradigm shift to a more fundamental model is needed. My essay "Clarification of Physics: A Derivation or a Complete, Computable, Predictive model of "Our" Multiverse is a step in the right direction. Although it is only referred to in this essay, the Successful Self Creation processing includes the creation of "all ordered existence" which includes humanity, our social structure, religions and philosophies as well as our consciousness and cognition. I would appreciate your comments on my essay. Thanks John D Crowell

                14 days later

                John,

                Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few minutes ago. Personally I feel that it is greatly improved. I did rate yours on 3/20, giving it the good rating, feeling it was one of the better ones.

                Please check mine out if you have time. Such honest, No BS, reviews are needed by all of us.

                Jim Hoover

                John C. Hodge,

                Congratulations on a long history of deep thought and hard work. I noticed that your first publication on relativity and QM was 1979. I looked back through some of your publications and noted that you wrote a book on Amazon. Ditto...I tried that. I have not achieved any success in helping science with its outstanding questions. I used viXra and Prespacetime Journal and you used Researchgate. We have thought about some of the same questions. I have no criticism of your work although I couldn't access some of it. I read your essay and noted that maybe you have the same problem I have. Our theories (yours STOE and my proton model) are difficult to describe in 10 pages. I am concerned that others are so engrossed in their own work that they will not try to understand the work of others. I don't have a phD and don't have access to arxiv and other research journals. But like you I have been trying to contribute.

                Keep working and enjoy the challenge. I enjoyed your essay.

                a month later

                when the unknown far outweighs the known.limits must have been at play. very classically put in simplicity. well done.please read/review simple dedications in anthropology affect our judgement here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.thanks all the best

                8 days later

                • [deleted]

                • Post #25

                Dear John,

                I agree with your position at the beginning.

                Our knowledge is neatly divided into separate and independent disciplines.

                That is why in my works I give preference to the Philosophers of Nature, as scientists were called, before the separation of scientific disciplines took place.

                I do not agree with your position:

                However, because the universe's source of initial conditions is unknowable, the universe is unpredictable except for limited space and time.

                Because the source of initial conditions are known. These are the same condictions that they are now. That's what my formulas derived from Newton's and Planck's formulas sa

                Regards,

                Branko

                6 days later

                Dear John Hodge,

                You mention algebraic vs geometric math. When I write about my view of the universe I must apologize for ignoring algebraic math. But from your paper I realize that I am promoting the use of imagined geometric math applied to remote situations. You say geometric mathematics deals with continuous shapes. The decidability of such geometry has lead to accuracy bound theories of fixed model bases such as 'the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames'. Fixed models can lose out someday to a new paradigm shift built around undecidibility geometry, imagine a flowing geometry.

                Taking that perspective leads to 'The Universe is Otherwise' where the medium is gravity.

                I thank your paper for suggesting future paths. It rates well

                Best wishes,

                Paul Schroeder

                • [deleted]

                • Post #27

                Hi John Hodge,

                On the first reading I did focus on your discussion of math as that is a psychological issue for me. In your response you ask about photons. I did ignore the photon issue as my system rejects that particle. I have light and all EM radiation as simply waves (within beams). The photon particle Einstein supported was needed to account for wave energy. Waves do impact, the result of the waves arriving at a mass, and the measure varies with the frequency. At some level the waves could be particulate. So, the equations and physical reality of the Newtonian scale apply to the very small scale. The waves themselves are not particles as currently defined. The double-slit experiment supported the wave nature of light.

                I have not reviewed a 'future' wave and I haven't accepted faster than light travel.

                Atoms for me depend upon electrons which occur as intersections of waves traveling opposite directions from each other. Any interaction of my gravity waves with an atomic element will cause change in the element and release a higher frequency wave. Gravity waves are very low frequency and get converted to higher frequency light waves.

                Orbits don't decay because, just like moon or planetary orbits, pushing gravity causes a variety of flows that provide both the attraction and the 'directional flow' (all motions). Gravity is the driver.

                We are partly connected, but my model backs away from so many physics concepts that matching is rare. Perhaps ongoing communication would help. You do provide your model here but my model covers too many topics from pushing gravity to EM nature of space. For details see the general science journal.

                Best wishes,

                Paul Schroeder

                Write a Reply...