Hi Satyavarapu...

In that my essay explicitly request my readers' assessment of my application of Absolute Intelligence, as modeled therein, to a logic evaluation criteria for my essay, your thoughtful review of my essay is greatly appreciated,

By your assessment of my essay as "very logical", I am encouraged in my application of UQS mechanix to establishing verifiable communication with Absolute Intelligence... but I am notoriously incorrigible.

I have now read your essay, and as a discussion of principles for reality models, it is highly relevant.

However, a conclusion predicated on principle must adhere to principle, and be consistent with all other such conclusions.

Your conclusion that there is a "force behind expansion of universe" has historically triggered the "something from nothing" rejection of the model... i.e. "Creation" implies a Logic Singularity.

Time-Space Energy as Cause's feeling of now, is indicative of a Logic Singularity... i.e. a feeling requires no Space, and now requires no Time.

REF Graphic Illustration: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time Energy http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

To facilitate an Origin Logic singularity in a Space-Time Energy Reality model, UQS implements additional criteria:

- The emission and subsequent distribution mechanix of a postulated/theorized Space-Time Energy Reality model, shall comply to the CAD geometry environment upon which the theory is established.

What is the CAD environment geometry of the Dynamic Universe Model (DUM)?

... the structural geometry encapsulating a point source emergence IS a spatial singularity for directionally unbiased distribution of Space-Time Energy

... a Cartesian and/or Radian geometry does not facilitate a point source pulsed emergence of spatially defined minimum/indivisible Quanta of Energy (QE) without introducing perturbation in all subsequent analysis... i.e. the math becomes" uncomputable".

- A theorized Space-Time Energy Reality model, shall differentiate Quantum Energy (QE) from Phenomenal Energy (PHE).

What minimum icon/sprite of spatially defined Energy (QE), experiences a Space-Time differential, in an emergence SIM within th DUM CAD geometry environment?

... if the CAD geometry quantization does not establish a structurally uniform spatial occupancy for Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy to emerge as Space-Time Energy in a Space-Time Energy Reality, one can not differentiate a minimum Quantum of Energy (QE) from Phenomenal Energy (PHE)

... observations of Phenomenal Energy (PHE)... i.e. observed event of a QE's experience of a Space-Time differential... and subsequent analysis/quantification is inherently perturbative

I agree that enhanced computer computational skills can resolve perceptual limitations, and In that jayanti V S Murty wrote on Mar. 3, 2020 @ 07:10 GMT... that you are "developing a software for solving the problems of cosmology", it is highly predictable that you "will emerge as one of the leading stalwarts in the field".

Does the DUM CAD/SIM app utilize a cross platform 3D graphic engine... e.g. OpenGL?

Thanks again for justifying my obsession to verify a connection with the Cosmic Consciousness Computer (CCC://)... and yes a flip a coin was utilized as the only logic evaluate criteria for each of the above statements.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Dear Sue Lingo,

Thank you for your interest on my essay and Dynamic Universe Model.........

You are confused, Probably I could not explain the whole of Dynamic Universe Model in two pages. There are No singularities in this model.....

I will answer all your observations, points by point........... First of all the important confusion you got is.........However, a conclusion predicated on principle must adhere to principle, and be consistent with all other such conclusions.

Your conclusion that there is a "force behind expansion of universe" has historically triggered the "something from nothing" rejection of the model... i.e. "Creation" implies a Logic Singularity.................

There are blue shifted galaxies and red shifted galaxies in the universe. Universe is rotating..I will give an example.....

Assume a children's giant wheel in a amusement park, you are looking at it in its plane of rotation. Some buckets come near to you and some will go away. Those which are coming near are Blueshifted and going away are red shifted.

Now assume many giant wheels each rotating about its own axis and these wheels are rotating rotating Dynamically in different planes about each other. You are in a bucket in a wheel. then you see the some buckets come near and some go away in all directions. so if you observe only those buckets which are going away you will see expanding , only those coming near to you you will see contracting universe.

And the force behind expansion is UGF, the UNIVERSAL gravitation force , that is the force acting on each body at that position at that time. this force is not constant

You can Download all papers and books for free from my blog...........

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

And the Universe Model proposed...........

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.

com/2018/

I will continue....

Best Regards

-snp

Dear Sue Lingo,

Your words............Time-Space Energy as Cause's feeling of now, is indicative of a Logic Singularity... i.e. a feeling requires no Space, and now requires no Time.

REF Graphic Illustration: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time Energy http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

To facilitate an Origin Logic singularity in a Space-Time Energy Reality model, UQS implements additional criteria:.............

In Dynamic Universe model, there are no Logical Singularities, Undefined point errors, No zero / zero errors, No divide by zero errors...... I checked them thoroughly......

Best

=snp

I request you please study Dynamic Universe Model

Dear Sue Ligo,

Have a look at my other posts replying your post on my essay please....

Best

=snp

Sue,

Sorry I didn't comment on the specific central question your perceptive and well explained analysis posed. Having read my essay you should understand the answer & detailed explanation I give to your comment there.

Very Best

Peter

Dear Sue. I liked your essay and I will comment on each of the statements in your summary based on the concepts of the model presented in my essay.. Mental models do constrain perception and new conceptual models predate major shifts in perception and understanding. Mental models are critical factors in one's ability to function in one's reality- can also be turned around to - functioning in one's "reality" can be a critical factor in the development of mental models. To me that is the basis of the "consensus reality" of science, the lack of creativity in science and the reason no TOE has been developed by scientists. The concept of an "absolute intelligence" that was in effect before the creation of the physical world and is in effect everywhere, all of the time and never changes is a commonly held "concept" in science, philosophy, religion, mathematics, etc. However, as I address in my essay, each discipline has their own belief on what that intelligence is - and they fight over it. In my model I take a different position. The model begins in total chaos. The chaotic motions of the smallest unit of changing ( a redefined quantum that replaces the "unchanging physical quantum" of physics) creates a vortex that is the precursor to a (in your language) "...directionally unbiased Point Source pulsed emission and distribution of spatially defined Quantum Energy (QE)...that evolves as a networked intelligence which resolves nascence of a functional Space-Time Energy reality. Yes the two essays come to the same conclusion expressed in a totally different language. Also my model goes beyond your "demonstrates probability" and provides the mathematics and theoretical measurements that correspond to the variables of universal space, time, mass, speed and direction of the physical universe and its internal functioning. In my essay, I allude to the creation of intelligence and ifs relationship to the creation of the physical world. Also, the fundamental C*s to SSCU transformation corresponds to the creation of the basic "node" and the self replication and self organization of the SSCU(basic node) through a lengthy progression creates and becomes the networks of the universal intelligence that you discuss in your essay. I would appreciate your comments and a discussion on how and if we could combine the ideas in my essay, yours, Peter Jackson's, SNPG's, Sabine's, etc. to get a more complete inclusion of the different disciplines and get some funding from FQXi or other research sources for a "foundational" interdisciplinary research program. Sounds ambitious. Is it possible? John D. Crowell

    Hello Sue Lingo,

    Thanks for you comment on my thread. I'll try to relate our two essays.

    I enjoyed your essay immensely. I not sure whether the computer-naive will appreciate your poetic analysis [think GW in your last essay] but I am computer competent and I loved it. I almost saw a Data General 1600 or Hewlett-Packard 2100 in front of me as you booted the hardware and the system experienced spatial differentiation over time with "address-mapped switch configuration...with which to query the entity's experience" [which showed up in lights].

    Of course the "continual pulsing" is conventional, and not necessary; just an efficient way to design. But your "entity that experiences differential/transformation over time" is applicable to the consciousness field-based model of absolute intelligence.

    In my terminology awareness is fundamental to consciousness, but intelligence is obtained by adding logic circuitry.

    I'm sure you see that your model of intelligence applies directly to my model of the brain in the consciousness field. The awareness comes from the field and the intelligence comes from the axon/synaptic logic circuitry.

    I suspect that a key difference is that the self-interaction of the distributed continuous but inhomogeneous consciousness field replaces an equivalent "addressable spatial occupancy map, within which to query the entity's experience."

    In short, I believe that by abstracting conventional computing at a very high level you have captured the essentials for understanding the intelligence aspect of the consciousness field model of the brain, something that most models of 'brain as computer' fail to do. Congratulations!

    I too consider geometry as fundamental and believe that the brain's interaction with the field as described produces 3D geometric shapes in the physical brain that mirror the shapes we see around us. Once these shapes are learned through eyesight, we should be able to recall them and play with them at will.

    With warmest regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    9 days later

    Hi John...

    Thank you for reading my essay with attention as required to make a comparative analysis between your Successful Self-Creation theoretical model, and my Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) geometry model.

    I have now read your essay, I do see similarities, and many of the seemingly dissimilar aspects are discipline specific language issues... e.g. I differentiate Phenomena Energy (PHE) from spatially defined Quanta of Energy (QE) to facilitate the UQS minimum/indivisible unit as Space-Time ENERGY, which can then be differentiated from Spaceless-Timeless Cause ENERGY.

    REF Graphic Illustration: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time Energy http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

    To ask, as Peter Jackson does: "You mention self-replication but what existed before the first event?", is not the same as to akd What existed before the first C*s to SSCU "event" ... to which you respond... "Indeterminate C's were interacting chaotically.".

    Chaotic interaction implies entity action events... i.e. "stuff" experiencing motion differentials over time.

    Differentiating Space-Time ENERGY from Spaceless-Timeless Cause ENERGY requires a logic singularity... i.e. the geometry that encapsulates a minimum/indivisible temporal quanta (QT) pulsed Point Source emission of a spatially defined entity... but in that UQs is a rigorous mathematical/geometry model that satisfies a Space-Time/Spaceless-Timeless logic singularity ... i.e. not a theory... the classic "something from nothing" rejection of the model has been eliminated.

    In that the Space-Time kinematic chain, from pulsed source emission of a minimum/indivisible spatially defined entity, to a visible entity. has not been verified, I can agree with Edwin Eugene Klingman'S assessment that we have "no need for new theory"...i.e. I think what we need is conversions of speculative mathematical theories into CAD environment models for critical analysis of fundamental emergence by digital SIM.

    I am currently designing UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game console screens and coding screen mapped DEF FN, to facilitate utilization of prior UQS geometry derived digital code, as a CAD/SIM environment user interface... i.e. I no longer work with mathematical symbolic equations/linguistics... and as my essay demonstrates, I have installed the UQS integrated PHSICAL/META-PHYSICAL model on my mental desktop and am experimenting with application of the Cosmic Consciousness Connection it facilitates.

    In that the Successful Self-Creation model "mathematics and theoretical measurements" correspond to standard model... i.e. perturbatively derived... "variables of universal space, time, mass, speed and direction of the physical universe and its internal functioning", I can not concede that the Successful Self-Creation model goes "beyond" the ""probability"" for a fundamental process that evolves as a networked intelligence, which resolves nascence of a functional Space-Time Energy reality, as demonstrated by the UQS unified field model CAD-SIMs.

    In that our exchange demonstrates that "interdisciplinary" conceptual convergence is currently being conveniently and effectively facilitated by FQXi essays and essay comment threads, and typically funding is not available for application development, I think independent Computer Aided Development of the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game, is currently my best course of focused action.

    Thanks again John for your thought provoking essay, and thoughtful comments on my essay.

    Sue Lingo

    UQS Author/Logician

    www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    Hi John...

    Thank you for reading my essay with attention as required to make a comparative analysis between your Successful Self-Creation theoretical model, and my Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) geometry model.

    I have now read your essay, I do see similarities, and many of the seemingly dissimilar aspects are discipline specific language issues... e.g. I differentiate Phenomena Energy (PHE) from spatially defined Quanta of Energy (QE) to facilitate the UQS minimum/indivisible unit as Space-Time ENERGY, which can then be differentiated from Spaceless-Timeless Cause ENERGY.

    REF Graphic Illustration: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time Energy http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

    To ask, as Peter Jackson does: "You mention self-replication but what existed before the first event?", is not the same as to ask What existed before the first C*s to SSCU "event" ... to which you respond... "Indeterminate C's were interacting chaotically.".

    Chaotic interaction implies entity action events... i.e. "stuff" experiencing motion differentials over time.

    Differentiating Space-Time ENERGY from Spaceless-Timeless Cause ENERGY requires a logic singularity... i.e. the geometry that encapsulates a minimum/indivisible temporal quanta (QT) pulsed Point Source emission of a spatially defined entity... but in that UQs is a rigorous mathematical/geometry model that satisfies a Space-Time/Spaceless-Timeless logic singularity ... i.e. not a theory... the classic "something from nothing" rejection of the model has been eliminated.

    In that the Space-Time kinematic chain, from pulsed source emission of a minimum/indivisible spatially defined entity, to a visible entity. has not been verified, I can agree with Edwin Eugene Klingman'S assessment that we have "no need for new theory"...i.e. I think what we need is conversions of speculative mathematical theories into CAD environment models for critical analysis of fundamental emergence by digital SIM.

    I am currently designing UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game console screens and coding screen mapped DEF FN, to facilitate utilization of prior UQS geometry derived digital code, as a CAD/SIM environment user interface... i.e. I no longer work with mathematical symbolic equations/linguistics... and as my essay demonstrates, I have installed the UQS integrated PHSICAL/META-PHYSICAL model on my mental desktop and am experimenting with application of the Cosmic Consciousness Connection it facilitates.

    In that the Successful Self-Creation model "mathematics and theoretical measurements" correspond to standard model... i.e. perturbatively derived... "variables of universal space, time, mass, speed and direction of the physical universe and its internal functioning", I can not concede that the Successful Self-Creation model goes "beyond" the ""probability"" for a fundamental process that evolves as a networked intelligence, which resolves nascence of a functional Space-Time Energy reality, as demonstrated by the UQS unified field model CAD-SIMs.

    In that our exchange demonstrates that "interdisciplinary" conceptual convergence is currently being conveniently and effectively facilitated by FQXi essays and essay comment threads, and typically funding is not available for application development, I think independent Computer Aided Development of the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game, is currently my best course of focused action.

    Thanks again John for your thought provoking essay, and thoughtful comments on my essay.

    Sue Lingo

    UQS Author/Logician

    www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    Hi David...

    A rigorous math model requires all GEOMETRY ELEMENTS... i.e. elements of spatial definition... are derived from a digitally coded CAD environment quantization algorithm that is compatible with the CAD engine.

    A rigorous math model 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: an impossibility if model requires an emergent intelligence, and the quantization of CAD environment is not a unified field...i.e. identical geometry algorithm to generate QI as spatial occupancy addresses

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

    I have completed these requirements, and coding the preferably cross platform CAD/SIM app necessary to utilize the Physicist/Logician's rigorous math model, as defined above, can be outsourced to any game developer with 3D OpenGL/vulcan/dirextX experience. or to a CAD/SIM app developer.

    A rigorous model of an emergent intelligence... i.e. ability to resolve the next SIM frame without external (perturbative) input... requires an INFERENCE module that reads CAD (x,y,z) data, compares choreography differential between process sequenced frames of the SIM, and digitally codes a logic statement of that differential as a SWITCH Function that can be accessed by the CAD engine as AVAILABLE INTELLEGENCE for subsequent SIM frame resolves.

    Coding the CAD/SIM app necessary to utilize the Physicist/Logician's rigorous emergent intelligence model, as defined above, will require Artificial Intelligence expertise.

    My choice would be to establish a collaboration between "Animation Master" author Martin Hash, and "Mathmatica" author Stephen Wolfram, but due to limited resources, I have become multi-disciplinary.

    May your resources facilitate a more timely production schedule for a "Successful Self Creation" model CAD/SIM.

    Sue Lingo

    UQS Author/Logician

    www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    Sue I expressed my thanks for your reply in the "thread" posting of my essay. Thanks again. John

    Hi John David Crowell...

    My bad!!!... i.e. my cut and paste error addressing you on my last post.

    In regard to your reference to my BIO statement implying that I 'do not believe in "perturbative measurements", please note that my Bio reads: "as a logician I refrain from perturbative analysis of FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES."

    As to the reason I "left the use of symbolic mathematics and language": a digital processor requires an interpreter to process symbolic maths... e.g. calculus... and depending on the interpreter, version#, etc, the response to a query may vary. That being the case, I admit to a bias for digital coded logic in developing applications for analysis of fundamental processes, by digital processors.

    As to the reason I "entered CAD/SIM representations based on thought/logic alone": Gödel's thermos do not apply to geometry.

    REF: - Topic:"The Misalignment Problem" by Jack James

    I agree that any concept of an "Absolute God" as an entity, rather than as the fundamental process for spontaneous harmonious distribution of minimum/indivisible spatially defined Energy (QE) throughout the Universe, "is one of those fallacies", but recognizing the fallacy does not invalidate potential for Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy to emerge as a Space-Time Energy information network, and to verify the root architecture and processes of that information network, one needs to experiment, develop query mechanisms, and make application of the "wisdom" of said Universal Intelligence

    REF: - Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

    or as an .html document "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

    As for "truth??... it must be supported by a composite model that seamlessly, logically, integrates one's PHYSICAL model... i.e. as a QE spatial occupancy model... and one's META-PHYSICAL model...i.e. as a model of spaceless processes... and be defined in terms that facilitate experimental verification of one's observations of one's PHYSICAL and META-PHYSICAL Reality.

    Your "assumption was that existence has always existed" is predicated on the word "always", which infers temporal logic that is not supported in a model of Causality as a Spaceless-Timeless logic frame.

    Sue Lingo

    UQS Author/Logician

    www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

    Hello, I am interested to know more your UQS for the sphere like I work about my theory of spherisation and these 3D coded quantum spheres. Regards

      Sue. I have another posting on our posting thread for you to consider. Also Thanks for your reference to Jack James essay. You may find my posting on his essay interesting. Also you may be interested in how I answered Steve's postings in our thread on my essay. John

      Dear Sue,

      I find this interesting to read, thank you. Please see my essay, which is in your area, and which is here. I hope there's time for you to see it - it uses a rational conceptual approach, involving analysis of the conceptual clues in trying to interpret quantum mechanics, before going to any of the mathematical aspects of the question.

      The essay's main point is that there must be missing concepts. This is suggested by the lack of consensus, as well as by several aspects of the physics. So rational methods are put forward to search for these 'missing pieces of the puzzle', and it is pointed out that assuming we have all the pieces in front of us has held physics back many times in the past.

      Best wishes, JK

      10 days later

      Hi Steve...

      Thanks for your interest in the Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) model.

      Please note that your essay is not currently listed in the FQXi "Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability" Essay Contest index?

      Visualization of the emergence of the UQS Spatial Singularity as the 3D spherical geometry that encapsulates the Logic Point Singularity boundary between two logic frameworks... i.e. a Causal Spaceless-Timeless logic framework and a Reality Space-Time logic framework... and encodes 24 planar spatial addresses (QI) for occupancy of initial QE emission, will be more effectively facilitated if I dispense with the verbalization, and refer you to the initial 9 second youtube UQS video.

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

      The second video in the sequence, illustrates in 3 seconds, subsequent UQS infinite Shell Expansion.

      REF: UQS Lattice = 2 (3sec.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf7QqIcnCbA

      The UQS unified planar address geometry, which inherently facilitates pulsed emission and infinite distribution of minimum quanta of spatially defined Energy (QE), is graphically depicted in a single UQS open source on-line illustration.

      REF: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time Energy http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

      In that you mention Nassim's work, I will refer you to a highly illustrated UQS open source on-line paper that discusses the mathematical difficulties in developing a QE emission and distribution model utilizing a Spatial Singularity that does not quantize a unified field geometry.

      REF: UQS Directionally Unbiased Point Source QE Emission) www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

      Thanks again Steve, for your long term commitment to a spherical, single point source pulsed, emission geometry solution.

      Sue Lingo

      UQS Author/Logician

      www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

      Hi , you are welcome, I have not made this Contest, I develop since many years here and improve it my theory of spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal spheres of future sphere with quantum 3D coded spheres and cosmological spheres, I consider coded particles to explain our geometries, topologies, matters and properties, I don t consider the fields to explain these geonetrisations, you can see the general ideas and developments on blogs and on the essays where I have answered, I like that the people utilise the spheres, I am happy for my general theory, fortunally people cannot plagiate it, it is coded particles and the generaliry is the spherisation , regards

      5 months later

      Hello...

      In that I am unable to post to Peter Jackson's 2019-20 essay page... but can post to other community pages... this is a test.

      Anyone w/ info on this issue... please advise.

      Thank you...

      sl

      Write a Reply...