Deciding on the nature of time and space by Edwin Eugene Klingman

You are mistaken. I didn't give you a 1.

Edwin, this is really disturbing. Somebody, probably anonymous, must have snuck in and given you a 1 after I rated it. I don't think I should tell you exactly how I rated yours, but I believe it deserves to be up at the top of the list. You're undoubtedly high enough to make the cut that really counts, the final evaluation.

Edwin:

I agree with聽your basic approach.聽 The Universe is composed of one fundamental substance-charge.聽 Higgs charge.聽 This charge fills the Universe and is under tremendous pressure.聽 In聽response聽to the pressure the charge assumes a pattern of motion in sync with all surrounding charge.聽 This pattern of motion you may call a vortex.聽 Synonymous with the Higgs field this charge in motion has mass.聽 Dark Matter,聽 Mass that we do not normally notice as there is equal amounts in all directions; but it does compress a bit in response聽to concentrated energy (seen as displaced bits of charge=normal mater.)聽 Our material presence is composed of displaced bits of the vacuum, the either.

Hello E.E. Klingman,

The 2009 FQXi essay contest topic was "What's Ultimately Possible in Physics".

Your entry "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness".

In your abstract you state, "Because every physical theory assumes "something", that basic assumption will determine what is ultimately possible in that physics. The assumed "thing" itself will likely be unexplained. This essay will assume one thing......"

You then give a really good exploration of where you think that one thing assumed will lead and in the end prove out the second sentence of your abstract with these two concluding sentences of your essay:

"What is ultimately impossible in physics is to explain gravity and consciousness the essence of G and C (self-attraction, self-awareness, and the ability to act) will forever remain mysterious. This defines the ultimate possibility of physics.

You are correct, starting with "something" will always result in an unknown "something" resulting in the creation of more "somethings" to explain previous "somethings".

In this present 2020 contest your essay, "Deciding on the Nature of Time and Space" is very closely related to your 2009 one.

On page 9, you conclude, "In summary.......but no one has provided any explanation of how we are aware of 3D shapes in 3D space at arbitrary and mixed scales."

Both essays deal with no-things, gravity, consciousness, time, and space are all no-things, nothings, yet we know gravity and consciousness affect "things" and that effect we understand through our intuitive, "framework" of space and time, admitting space with or without things is no-thing and time with or without events is no-thing. Thus are Something and Nothing closely and intimately related as the ultimate opposites. But what is the relation between them?

The relation between them is what is created when you join them. MOTION.

Without motion there is no relationship at all between space and time in fact there can be no space and time because their existence is only realized in their unity in motion. And we KNOW MOTION EXISTS because we experience it as the unity of space and time according to the formula V=S/T.

Thus the unity of space and time in motion makes all 3 defined separately by their relationship to the other 2.

So that gravity is a motion in space, consciousness is a motion in time.

The space aspect of motion condenses by gravity into matter and the time aspect evolves condenses into consciousness the inward directing force within the matter itself. Because we only can focus on one aspect at a time one remains constant and the other variable.

In a universe where all is motion the 3 dimensions are created by the motion of our self-conscious awareness in this manner. A line is a motion, a movement in a direction not contained in the point. A surface is a movement in a direction not contained within the line and a solid is a movement of the surface in a direction not contained within itself to create the solid.

Consider the formula E=mc2. The only "thing" known in this equation is c and it has nothing to do with light, for c represents the speed of light, a motion and that is the common denominator between energy and mass and the reason each can be converted into the other for both are made up of motion. Mass is condensed motion and energy is that same motion expanded.

Comments appreciated,

Gerry Klein

Dear Edwin,

I found your essay to be interesting and beautifully written. And I thought your explanation of the problems with Special Relativity, and a possible way of solving these problems using a different ontology, was very clear.

However, as you might realise, I disagree with your view of time (also your views about number and consciousness). As you say: "the problem is in the ontology, i.e., the nature of physical reality." I see a universe of subjects. I take the view that time is created by the subjective perception of discontinuous change, i.e. the creation of time is only representable as an algorithmic step, where there is a stepwise change in time whenever there is a perception of (what we might represent as) a stepwise change in number for a variable. I can't see time as a pre-existing universal dimension or continuum, i.e. something representable as a smoothly changing variable in an equation.

Re consciousness: I think it is necessary to consider how one would derive the information content of consciousness, which clearly consists of higher-level information categories like "food" "danger" "tiger", "songbird" and "striped". And how one would derive that content from the lower-level information categories (like light frequency/ wavelength) arriving via interactions with the eyes and ears.

Regards,

Lorraine

Dear Dr. Klingman,

You have well laid out how Einstein showed that reality is not just a simple given. The nature and structure of space and time even which is which is relative to states of motion (and in GR, acceleration too.) It seems a rather tight pivot to the next subject, of your concept of the Consciousness Field, but I understand the space (;-)) constraints here, and it being further explained in the references. If you can link that concept with the feature-building power of Wolfram's constructs, that would be a neat feat.

BTW if any readers might take at look at my own piece, addressing the issue of the strong correlations of entanglement and how neo-mechanistic models of quantum physics aren't enough - it could use more votes on this last day. Thank you.

A delightful essay Ed...

I like to save some of the best for last, and you did not disappoint. I have fundamental agreement on several of your key points. You know what some of my sticking points are. But at this time the disagreement separating us is paper thin.

I'll comment further but I want to get to a few more essays now. One of the best!

Regards,

Jonathan

Edwin,

Just as good on a fuller 'moderation' read through, so very much in line with Jonathans comments above. Reading so many a reminder is always good. Again we're close in just about all ways! It's now 03.00 in the UK so on my last scoring round way past my bedtime!

Very best

Peter

Hi Edwin,

Does the contextual interpretation you describe for SR apply also to GR? The contextual dissipative conceptual model (DCM) so nicely accommodates quantum mechanics and SR. If GR is also describable contextually as 3D space and universal time, I see no reason that DCM could not accommodate GR. And perhaps a path to quantum gravity.

If you like to pursue this, please email.

Best Regards, and good luck with the essay.

Harrison

Hi Edwin...

Thanks for digging deeper!!!... don't know why you are unable to view the UQS links?

I tested them from my essay.pdf ... https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3483 ... no problem, and I daily get an average of 10 worldwide virtual visitors to the UQS open source on-line commentaries.

The UQS website is http: not https:.. but I visited http://www.geneman.com/... and assuming your browser security settings allow you access to your website, it should not be the issue?

In that most mathematicians, physicist, and philosophers, are some combination of two or more of these scientific disciplines, they frequently dabble in cross discipline inferences, and contextual clarification is a critical element in conveying cross discipline "we are on the same page" validity... i.e. given a CAD spatial quantization environment in which to verify context, metaphors for a Cosmic Consciousness are much more likely to converge, and to mitigate verbalization, I rely heavily on CAD illustrations in my open source on-line commentaries.

In that semantics, as equations or poetry, or some combination, can not facilitate contextual clarification to the degree of detail necessary for us to discuss whether a Hydrogen Proton is "self-aware"?... and does it have logic circuitry to process field intelligence??... to facilitate the discussion, your ability to access the UQS Consciousness Investigation... www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php ... 3D CAD illustrations of the UQS Hydrogen proton model, is required.

I have read, enjoyed, and 1st. draft re-viewed:

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009)

TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of Consciousness by Edwin Eugene Klingman

I will post my review to your 2009 Essay page, as soon as I get an edit on it.

Thanks again...

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Edwin...

I was unable to add a new post to your FQXi Essay Contest (2009) CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Author Page, as per my Jun. 8, 2020 @ 06:53 GMT post to our thread above.

In order to give continuity to what I consider a highly relevant discussion, I am herin posting a summary of my initial review (now essay length) of your - TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of Consciousness https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561.

Your willingness to wager your credibility is admirable, and I suspect it has contributed significantly to subsequent FQXi Essay Categorical focus... i.e. effectively opened the flood gates for thought provoking discourse on risky, cross-discipline extrapolations.

I might even be able to multi-task my verbose review of your 2009 essay, in its entirety, in terms of the next FQXi Essay.

"In fact, the problem becomes, how does the universe emerge from consciousness, not how does consciousness emerge from matter."

REF: Author Edwin Eugene Klingman Oct. 11, 2009 @ 00:37 GMT post to 2009 FQXi Author page... https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

Terminology... e.g. "PHYSICAL"... utilized to verbalize a Space-Time THEORY/CONCEPT without specifying the relevant Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL, inherently lacks definition in terms that can be correlated to FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of a specific Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL... i.e. "SPACE" and/or "MOTION ENTITY" must be graphically illustrated before any term that is defined in terms of "SPACE" and/or "MOTION ENTITY" can be given visual context within a specific Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL.

Correlation of conceptually derived terms, to FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of a specified GEOMETRY MODEL can be the key to convergence of seemingly incompatible THEORIES/CONCEPTS.

SPECIFIC GEOMETRY MODEL EXAMPLE: UQS

The Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) resolves a single point source charge emission geometry, which graphically illustrates initial Space-Time REALITY emergence.

REF: "DIFFERENTIATION of SPACE-TIME REALITY ENERGY by CAUSE ENERGY" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

The initial frame of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, graphically illustrates the root Space-Time logic entity... i.e. "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS"... as the Spaceless LOGIC SINGULARITY point... i.e. the ORIGIN of the UQS CAD environment... of transition/transformation between the Spaceless-Timeless CAUSE logic operatives and our Space-Time REALITY logic operatives.

If CAUSE logic operatives facilitate a Spaceless "AWARENESS" of a Timeless NOW, the initial Space-Time graphically depicted logic element... i.e. "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS"... as the (0,0,0) coordinate of ORIGIN for the UQS CAD quantization, can acquire an "AWARENESS" of Self that is consistent with operatives of UQS Space-Time logic framework.

On key-frame 2 of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, initialization of the UQS CAD environment, graphically illustrates an "AWARENESS" of Space-Time INTELLLIGENCE, as the available address/occupancy structure of the 3D GEOMETRY SINGULARITY that encapsulates the UQS Space-Time ORIGIN... i.e. the GEOMETRY SINGULARITY is the fixed graphic representation of a spatial Self-Aware "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS".

REF: UQS Space-Time Differentiation Video (9sec.)... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4UQS

Key-frame 3, QE Pulse-1-Open, of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, graphically illustrates a Timeless... i.e. Time as a single Q-Tick is undefined until QE emission Pulse-1-Close... "AWARENESS" of a CAUSE ENERGY sourced Time-Space ENERGY emission Pulse, as impetus... i.e. "VOLITION"... to make application of INTELLIGENCE... i.e. the address structure... to spontaneously harmoniously resolve initial occupancy as 24 minimum/indivisible quanta of spatially defined ENERGY (QE), equally distributed within the 24 unified 2D planar minimum/indivisible quanta of SPACE (QI), as defined by the UQS 3D GEOMETRY SINGULARITY, and close Pulse-1-C as NOW.

REF: "UQS P-1-Open/P-1-Close Illustration" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/GameQIscrnP-1.jpg

The unified/uniformly defined QI address geometry structure of the UQS SINGULARITY expands infinitely in shells of radius = 1 UQS volumetric Base Unit (BU).

REF: "UQS Root Architecture Illustration" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSWTEE.jpg

As a consequence of UQS emergent composite circuit complexity hierarchies, the pulse sampling rate of subsequent Self-Aware entities/circuits within the UQs Space-Time logic frame, are progressively greater than 1QT, but as a consequence of a unified field address structure, all subsequent circuits inherit the properties of the initial Space-Time "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS", and therefor all processes of "brain in the CONSCIOUSNESS field", can be reduced to the most FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of the UQS GEOMETRY MODEL.

Your theoretical explanation of "how matter (neutrinos, electrons, and quarks) derives from a "CONSCIOUSNESS field", suggest a definition of mass/"stuff" as hierarchal choreographies of QE.

REF: "UQS Hydrogen Proton Illustration" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSPAECST.jpg

Observations of the "C-field as the weak force that transforms particles"... i.e. Energy Phenomena (PHE) events.. seemingly suggest mass/"stuff" density as a variable in C-field processes, but given an exponentially smaller minimum spatial resolution than that which is consistent with Plank's constant... REF:Stephen Wolfram ... those observations do not invalidate C-field mechanix having infinite range at QE resolution.

I agree with your comment to [linK:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3437]J.D. Crowell's 2019 FQXi Essay[/link] that we have "no need for new theory".

In my comments to J.D. Crowell I reiterated your comment to him, I also insisted that what we do have an immediate and critical need for is conversions of speculative theories into CAD environment geometry/structural models, and I defined a "rigorous math model" as:

... requires all GEOMETRY ELEMENTS... i.e. as elements of spatial definition... are derived from a digitally coded CAD environment quantization algorithm that is codec compliant with the CAD engine.

... requires all GRAPHIC ELEMENTS... e.g. minimum/indivisible spatial unit (QI), minimum/indivisible icon/sprite (QE) that experiences SIM animation... are defined in terms of (x,y,z) coordinates to pass to the CAD engine.

Note: if the THEORY/CONCEPT requires an EMERGENT INTELLIGENC, the quantization of the CAD environment must be a unified field... i.e. one in which an identical geometry algorithm generates all spatial occupancy addresses (QI).

... requires all EMMISION and subsequent DISTRIBUTION PROCESSES... i.e. (x,y,z) transformations of GRAPHIC ELEMENTS from time 0 to SIM duration time... be digitally coded to output (x,y,z) coordinates for pass to the SIM module of the CAD engine.

I have completed the above "rigorous math model" code requirements for UQS, and coding of a preferably cross platform CAD/SIM interactive environment to utilize my code, can be outsourced to any game developer with 3D OpenGL/vulcan/dirextX experience. or to a CAD/SIM app developer.

Admirably, J.D. Crowell replied: "I am looking for good CAD/SIM modelers. Do you have a recommendation?".

In that an EMERGENT INTELLIGENCE .. i.e. the ability to resolve the next SIM frame without external (perturbative) input... necessitates an additional level of complexity to a CAD/SIM interactive environment, Info Process Emergence, 3D kinematic Sequencing, and Artificial Intelligence, expertise is required.

The alpha version of the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game (UQSVQLG), associates EMERGENT INTELLIGENCE with an INFERENCE module that reads conditional CAD (x,y,z) data, and compares QE choreography differentials between Pulse-Open/Pulse-Close sequenced frames of the SIM, to digitally code the UQSVQLG Technician's/Gamer's binary visual resolve procedural... i.e. VOLITION?.. .as a SWITCH FUNCTION, and with an AVAILABLE INTELLEGENC module that logs all emergent switches and conditional dictates for access by Lab Tech/Gamer resolve of subsequent QE/QI Pulse-Close.

The intended function of the UQSVQLG as an interactive CAD/SIM environment, is to formulate Lab Tech/Gamer procedural sequences, as digital code to augment human VOLITION limitations, with digital process assistance... i.e. at UQS Emission Pulse 75, it is evident that as a consequence of specifying a unified address geometry structure, the graphic elements and logic switch types are exquisitely finite, but the Lab Tech can no longer sequence the switches, or verify on a per pulse basis that the solution is consistent with conditional dictates, whose per pulse emergence diminishes on subsequent pulses, but are most probably infinite.

My recommendation would be to establish a collaboration of a sagacious Physicist with Micro Processor Design expertise, "Animation Master" Martin Hash, and "Mathmatica" author/logician Stephen Wolfram.

"FUNDAMENTAL" as a GEOMETRY MODEL selection criteria implies least INITIAL STATE inferences/assumptions, and any GEOMETRY MODEL candidate that warrants investigation must survive rigorous INITIAL STATE analysis... REF: "Directionally Unbiased Point Source Emission www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php... but "It is unlikely that there will be more than one such correct model." ... REF: E. Fredkin; 'Five Big Questions With Pretty Simple Answers'... IBM Journal Res. & Dev., Vol. 48, No. 1, Jan. 2004.

It is highly likely that the "correct model" can be verified by graphical/visual analysis of "FUNDAMENTAL" process SIMs within specified CAD geometry candidate environments.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Edwin...

Just discovered some browsers may no longer allow subdirectory access links... i.e. all subdirectory links go to the UQS Home page... and it will be necessary for me to recode all .html subdirectory link in all my webpages.

I already have done so to facilitate your access to the subdirectory links in the above post from the UQS Home page:

Scroll down to:

UQS: Social Media and Forum

Click:

Log Update: 05/28/20... (this links to an .html duplicate of my FQXi author communications)

Text search:

Sue Lingo wrote on Jun. 23, 2020 @ 05:14 GMT... (this is a duplicate of my above post w/ corrected links)

Thanks for your patience.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Edwin...

Not a browser issue as reported above... i.e. apparently my ISP "tweaked" their user webpage functions.

The resulting dysfunctionality has been brought to their attention, and is being investigated.

May tenacity prevail in all things digital!!!

sl