Vladimir Rogozhin Thank you for your discerning read and rousing questions. A full examination of the matters you raise would require a full essay (or, more likely, several essays). It is your first query, though, that most intrigues and will occupy these comments: “Is there an ‘absolute rest’ of matter?”

As a concept, “absolute rest” represents a state of pure being, of unchanging existence: time is stopped, change has ceased. Absolute rest is the complete absence of emergence. Historically, there is a certain “self-evidence” to the idea of pure or perfect being. In fact, the idea of pure being (or absolute rest) is the origin of the mono-ontological urge—namely, of God. Could such a state exist in our Universe? No—it is a “pure” idea as opposed to a “practical” idea in the Kantian sense. Our Universe is a dynamic system where existence is balanced and matched by emergence, held in equilibrium. Absolute rest would imbalance the system towards being; it therefore cannot be.

Now, this is where things get difficult. What is the concept of perfect or pure emergence? Alas, here is a concept with no self-evidence. We understand change—the most jabbering babe instinctively knows this preceptive effect—yet we assume that once difference comes-to-be it will acquire a certain stillness, a certain temporal permanence, or at least exist for two consecutive and linked “moments” we might say. The very possibility of constant change (of non-momentous matter) boggles and dizzies the mind.

Approaching physics from the standpoint of an outsider, this is what appears at-once so miraculous and noteworthy about the Standard Model: it presents an unassailable material explication of emergence—it explains how objects come-to-be; it explains change in form. That which has so entangled every modern philosopher is managed and administered with insouciance by the physicist. How can those of us who tiptoe in the realm of ideas not marvel at their sure-footedness?

But this success has become a trap, of sorts, for it has enticed physics to regard all principles as subsumable under the Standard Model. For instance, the attempt to shoehorn gravity into the model is a futile endeavor, for gravity is a force of existence and not emergence. Gravity measures and regulates the temporal stability (i.e., the being) of objects; it apportions existence in object-specific terms: this object has more gravity (and hence, more stability of being) than that object. Gravity cannot be understood in a model that frames becoming. And I humbly assert that unless and until the duality and equilibrium of existence and emergence are properly accounted for in a material theory of the Universe, true progress will flag.

Apologies must be offered, as the fertile ground you prepared was harrowed and sowed in a rather haphazard manner.

    Alaya Kouki Thank you for your observations linking these concepts to other pressing questions. If the universe is indeed a system at equilibrium, then there are some possible expansions of this framework into prediction.

    One of the more conspicuous areas for future consideration concerns the role of dark matter in maintaining the physical equilibrium of the system, an idea that should yield clues into the particular properties of this phenomenon. Thus, we can suppose that at the origin of the Universe the quantity of autochthonic emergent particles (particles from which new objects can be formed) equaled the quantity of autochthonic non-emergent particles (particles which do not form new objects, but which are necessary for the equilibrium of the system). From this foundation, we may glean precisely how much emergent matter was lost to the destructive processes of becoming (i.e., matter-antimatter annihilation).

      Sue Lingo Thank you for your close read and probing questions. Does the proposal constitute a “theory of everything”?—absolutely not. The essay is, as prefaced, a thought experiment from the perspective of one situated outside the field—a “what if” analysis asking how our view of science could be different if we regarded the Universe as a dynamic system at stable equilibrium between the opposing forces of emergence (mechanically described by the Standard Model) and existence (mechanically explored by introducing the idea of “boundary energy’). In principle, the proposal considers the possibility that the Universe is a dialectically fluctuating but balanced system of being and becoming in the full Hegelian sense. A “theory of everything”—as I would define it—would offer a complete material causality of observation expressed in mathematical terms. At most, I would hope these ideas might stimulate those who are versed at translating concepts into formulae (a skill I do not have) into considering fundamental questions from a different vantage.

      As to the arbitrary nature of review: to be sure, there is an element of caprice in all human endeavors. It is the natural consequence of the well-intentioned attempt to effect order in a clamorous world. Nevertheless, I have faith that even in an age of noisy discord, sound ideas resonate and will rise from the cacophony. The din no doubt delays reception, but that which harmonizes with the understanding “pleases universally.” In the end, the onus falls on us (those who venture to propose) to make each utterance more clear than the last, and remain ever-sensitive to when our soundings fall flat.

          Congrats for your essay ontologically and philosophically speaking, I liked how you approach these differences, the origin of the life........ , it is interesting how you analyse these outside the box and these opposite forces. I am intrigued a lot about these deeper parameters, the DM and DE and I believe that they are foundamental at all scales, regards

          Thank you. Lots of new and interesting things. I'll add my opinion:
          In reality, matter is the unity of mass and volume. Newtonian physics is mass at a point. Quantum physics, mass in volume.

          Valerie Burks

          Hi alias EcruScorpion...
          sl Your insightful response stimulated more probing questions, and hopefully relevant commentary.

          Thank you for your close read and probing questions. Does the proposal constitute a “theory of everything”?—absolutely not.

          sl Is a geometry structure a "theory"?...or a logic framework from which theory can be assessed??

          The essay is, as prefaced, a thought experiment from the perspective of one situated outside the field—a “what if” analysis asking how our view of science could be different if_we regarded the Universe as a dynamic system at stable equilibrium between the opposing forces of emergence (mechanically described by the Standard Model) and existence (mechanically explored by introducing the idea of “boundary energy’). In principle, the proposal considers the possibility that the Universe is a dialectic ally fluctuating but balanced system of being and becoming in the full Hegelian sense._

          sl The Standard Model as a description of "mass, charge, and momentum" differentials measured over time, verifyies substance and dynamics, but to resolve the underlying mechanics of the differentials, requires a mechanical description of emergence fundamentals... i.e. a momentum mechanism and geometry of a substance distribution structure.

          sl Does "existence" as a "boundary energy" force in opposition to the force of emergence as a consequence of a specified momentum mechanism and substance distribution structure, necessitate additional emergence fundamentals?

          sl In any case "boundary energy" requires a precise definition of "energy".

          sl Is "energy" as herein used, referenced to some convenient unit of measurement associated with the perceivable effect of an event?... or a physical.... i e. occupies space... substance??

          sl If given " energy" in units of a measurable event effect... e.g. temperature... would "energy boundaries" have a spatially defined mechanical process to explore?... or only temporally differentiated measurement states from which to theorize an underlying process?

          sl If in reference to "energy" as a physical substance, does "energy" have a minimum /indivisible physical form... i.e. can be defined in terms of a spatially dimension ed "energy" distribution unit ... as the irreducible Quantum of Energy (QE)?

          A “theory of everything”—as I would define it—would offer a complete material causality of observation expressed in mathematical terms.

          sl In the case of "energy" as a quantitative measurement of event effect, in that substance is required to verify causality of substance dynamics, a "complete model of material causality" will need to resolve a unifying substance that exhibits properties from which mass, charge, and momentum can be derived... e g. a QE.

          sl To verify causality of substance/entity dynamics within a specified structure, requires a spatial definition of entity, a structural geometry that facilitates a non-perturbative analysis environment, and a momentum mechanism.

          sl My rejected 2023 FQXi Essay demonstrates a methodology to generate and utilize these elements to establish a logic framework in which scientist of all disciplines could seamlessly mesh their observations of environment, and there in establish a "theory of everything".

          sl Geometry as the basis of all spatial mathematical analysis, precludes many of the conundrums of mathematical syntax... i.e. equations... and I rely heavily on visual illustration to eliminate the necessity for "concept to formulae translations".

          sl Fortunately digital CAD SIMulations... ie. animated process... are highly suited to investigate causality of substance dynamics within a specified virtual structural environment.

          sl I applaud your willingness to address the issues associated with composite entities, and I think I can equate your concept of an "ontological" hierarchy to my concept of consciousness hierarchy.

          sl In that entity boundary mechanisms are manifest as a consequence of the framework onto which QE are distributed, I graphically illustrate examples of boundary hierarchy within the framework.

          sl By extension of fundamental entity boundary mechanism, I can define the "I Am" in terms that facilitate application of model derived functions to the human condition.

          sl In that our "proposals" have many similarities, I am not surprised that universal harmony has emerged as a prioritized element in your dialog.

          At most, I would hope these ideas might stimulate those who are versed at translating concepts into formulae (a skill I do not have) into considering fundamental questions from a different vantage.

          sl In that translation of concept to formulae is highly applicable to technological advances... e g. the Star Trek Replicator... I hope conceptual horizons of those "versed at translating concepts into formulae" (a skill I do not prioritize in my work) will be expanded by visual assimilation of a digital animated emergence process.

          As to the arbitrary nature of review: to be sure, there is an element of caprice in all human endeavors. It is the natural consequence of the well-intentioned attempt to effect order in a clamorous world. Nevertheless, I have faith that even in an age of noisy discord, sound ideas resonate and will rise from the cacophony.The din no doubt delays reception, but that which harmonizes with the understanding “pleases universally.” In the end, the onus falls on us (those who venture to propose) to make each utterance more clear than the last, and remain ever-sensitive to when our soundings fall flat.

          sl Thanks for the "utterance" opportunity our dialog offers.

          sl If you get a chance to read my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay (https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) ... know that I consider "probing questions" essential to refinement.

          sl May your essay stimulate enhanced conceptualization, and thereby "make a difference in science".

          S. Lingo

              Sue Lingo
              <<In that entity boundary mechanisms are manifest as a consequence of the framework onto which QE are distributed, I graphically illustrate examples of boundary hierarchy within the framework.>>

              "Truth should be drawn..." (A. Zenkin "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS")
              [http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm]
              Any "formulas" are clippings from the existence of the Universe as an holistic generating process.
              And what is your original / primordial structure of the Universe?
              The link does not open, unfortunately (antivirus does not allow)

                  EcruScorpion, your ideas do motivate quite a discussion. I personally feel that the phenomena that are "explained" with DM require more investigation with GR or other alternative theories of gravitation, as DM may reveal itself as a gravitational effect rather than a kind of matter.

                  PS: I invite you all to kindly read and rate my essay: "More diversity and creativity for a different science". I'd like to send this invitation in a separate thread but I was unable to start a new discussion in the forum so far.
                  https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2330#control_panel

                    NADJA MAGALHAES It is the big question indeed about this DM, must we modify this newtonian mechanic or this GR, personally I consider that they are the real quanta of mass and so we must modify this GR, it is what I have made in my model, and the higgs mechanism so must be completed with deeper particles and fields . The MONDs are actually considered but why to modify a newtonian mechanic wich works well at slow velocities, we need in all cases to have more datas and proofs from experiments, the LHC makes some experiments, hope we shall have datas soon , regards

                      Vladimir Rogozhin
                      Hi Vladimir Rogozhin...

                      sl Thanks for you insightful correlation between my statement:
                      <<In that entity boundary mechanisms are manifest as a consequence of the framework onto which QE are distributed, I graphically illustrate examples of boundary hierarchy within the framework.>>
                      ... and such an adamant assertion that:
                      "Truth should be drawn...
                      (A. Zen kin "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS")
                      [http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm]
                      Any "formulas" are clippings from the existence of the Universe as a holistic generating process."

                      sl Loved it!!! ... and herein, for the benefit of the FQXi community, I expand your excerpt from the A.Zenkin link:
                      "... truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to "an unlimited circle" of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence (see http://www.com2com.ru/alexzen).
                      If it is really the Truth, and if my neighbor is not a colour-blind person, we (and all other people around) shall see the same. And nobody, at all desire, will be ever able, using as a cover a "Bourbaki" camouflage, to pose a falsehood as a truth, and an empty place as an outstanding scientific achievement."

                      "Infinitum Actu Non Datur" - Aristotle.
                      "Drawing is a very useful tool against the uncertainty of words" - Leibniz."

                      And what is your original / primordial structure of the Universe?
                      The link does not open, unfortunately (antivirus does not allow)

                      sl Thanks for the heads up!!!
                      sl Link correction to my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay:
                      (http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php)

                      sl A Space-Time Energy emergence single point source, facilitates a Logic Domain Singularity which differentiates a Spaceless-Timeless Energy Logic Domain, in which space and time are not variables of the domain's energy functions, from a Space-Time Energy Logic Domain from which questions of beginning, size, location etc., are inappropriately posed with regard to a Spaceless-Timeless Energy Intelligence.

                      sl May a perturbative conceptual framework enable utilization of "cognitive computer visualization technology" to achieve a structural change in human consciousnesses.

                      S. Lingo
                      UQS Author/Logician
                      http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

                        An interesting thought experiment but it isn't clear in what way science would be different if we look at the world through object oriented ontology. In the last sentence of the essay the author points out that scientific observation and math are still required to validate or clarify the hypotheses put forward. Every scientific discovery requires a new way of looking at things, objects or phenomena but it doesn't imply that the way we do science chances.
                        I'm also not sure the statement "... the faster an object moves, the more likely it is to remain free." can be considered true. Intuitively the faster something moves the more likely it should be for it to interact with something that might absorb or disintegrate it. Furthermore looking at the neutronic cross section of any isotope will cleanly show that it doesn't necessarily decrease with the increase in the neutron's energy.
                        Although there is an argument to be made that object oriented ontology in a way predicts the emergence of living entities, the essay isn't very clear in how the geometry of the double helix molecule lies at the origin of life since life also requires triple strand DNA that serve specific functions. Furthermore the DNA has a very complex geometry if we take into account the way it wraps onto histone to form nucleosomes that then coil themselves up to form chromatin fibers and so on.



                        Write a Reply...