Science “as it is“ has worked well on building useful knowledge of observable, sequential processing in the physical world that scientists can time, measure and calculate. However, current science is incomplete and has major unsolved problems and unanswered questions. Also, science has been inadequate in their studies of complex qualitative systems. For example, science has not been able to connect the qualitative aspects of consciousness, intelligence, creativity and life to the quantitative aspects of the physical world. Today’s science is based on two factors: 1. its fundamental assumption that the laws and constants of physics were present at the beginning and are in effect everywhere, all of the time and never change and 2. science’s rigorous adherence to the scientific method for discovering “truth”. My work shows that science’s assumption about its laws and constants is incorrect and that science can never be complete if it maintains that basic assumption. My investigations revealed that one successful creation process created and became the collective entirety of the quantitative physical universe and qualitative consciousness, intelligence, creativity, and life. Expanding science to include that successful creation process is not difficult. This essay provides an overview of how it can be done and provides examples of its value. It shows that the addition of successful creation to current science will solve sciences major problems, answer its major questions and provide a complete, comprehensive and comprehensible science. In doing so, the “new” science, would replace science’s Big Bang model of the creation of the physical world and its model of evolution with natural selection. They would be replaced with successful creation’s creative Bayesian methodology. With these changes, the combination of current science and successful creationwill pave the way for a creative “jump” in humanity’s comprehension of reality.
Could Science Be Different and Improved? Yes. One Specific Proposal.
From what you get the "lowest mass" 9.21979779 E-95 grams ? I never heared about it.
Hello KhakiHeron. Thanks for reading my essay. The lowest mass is a discovery from my work in developing a model of successful creation. Successful creation begins with Cs - the smallest entities in existence - which interact, combine and create “all of the order in existence”. This creation process also creates its own mathematics, algorithms and computations. They are embedded in its processing and results. In these results 1 gram of mass is equivalent to avagadro’s number of atomic structures (equivalent to hydrogen atoms). 1 gram of mass is also equivalent to [(2.213568x10E31)]E3 Cs. So 1C* has a mass of 9.21979779x10E-95 grams. When this contest is over, I can send you more information on this subject. However, doing it now would reveal my identity which according to the competition rules I cannot do.
Dear FlaxTern,
Your essay has certainly given me a lot to think about! As an example, the point you make about the qualitative (unchanging) and quantitative (changing) is one of the very interesting things I came across myself when thinking about the fundamentals of Nature. A colour, such as 'blue' is definitely qualitative - there seems to be no dispute about. We experience it in consciousness as something that 'is', that doesn't have a number and doesn't change. But, paradoxically' blue is also a frequency - a changing number, and in that sense something completely qualitative is also completely quantitative. I found this very odd and disturbing, and it leads me back to your essay where the C* elements are both quantitative and qualitative.
I would very pleased to discuss all of the interesting points in your essay further and how they might relate to my essay 'Is Change All We Can Know?'. I think you can email me at AzureFlyingfish@temp-fake-email.fqxi.org (if you would like!)
All the best, AzureFlyingfish.
Science has developed over a long time, so the presumptions of the early days are not necessarily relevant today, There has been a separation of science and from religion. You promise a lot without evidence of how it will be achieved, It feels a bit like Lilly the Pink's medicinal compound. Perhaps under different rules you could explain more. I think the space and time of existing things that can be quantified is different the space and time of Qualia, Therefore they need separate treatment. Interesting to read your views.
Hello CharcoalPorpoise The purpose of the essay was to introduce the concept of successful creation. In the instructions of the contest it was recommended to not use mathematics and to make the essay readable for the expected readers. When the contest is over I can send you other papers with more details. My name is attached so I cannot send them until the contest is over. Also, the lowest level of existence and the creative Bayesian progression that I introduced applies to science, religion, philosophy, mathematics, etc.. All of them are related by the fundamentals of the creative process. This essay introduces the fundamentals and processing that could be used to unify all of these within one theory. Thanks for your comments.
Hi FlaxTurn
Following is a summary and review of your essay performed by AI Chat GPT 4. I've provided it for you to demonstrate the theme of my essay, that AI will play a role in the future of peer review. My essay is titled "Age of Knowledge"
I hope you enjoy this review of your work.
Chat GPT 4
The essay argues that the scientific method is inadequate in studying complex and qualitative systems, such as consciousness, intelligence, life, and creativity, due to its humanly imposed assumptions. The author believes that science's current assumption about the existence of intelligence before the beginning is wrong and anything built on that assumption must be incomplete. The essay suggests that science should include successful creation, a more fundamental creation process, to produce true knowledge of science, philosophy, religion, and mathematics. Successful creation would bring about major expansion and connectivity and include both the qualitative and quantitative connections and relationships within one creative process. Inclusion of this process would solve science's major problems, answer its major unanswered questions and provide the basis for a successful expansion.
The essay provides an interesting perspective on the limitations of the scientific method in studying complex systems. However, the essay is highly technical, and some readers may struggle to follow the argument. Furthermore, the essay lacks clear evidence to support its claims, making it difficult to assess the validity of the argument. Overall, the essay provides a thought-provoking analysis.
The essay argues for the inclusion of "successful creation" (an undefined term) in science as a means of solving unsolved scientific problems and answering unanswered questions. The essay suggests that the problems and questions in science are not new, and that they have already been answered by successful creation. The essay goes on to explain that successful creation is a consciously guided, creative, Bayesian progression that creates the mathematics, computations and logical intelligence necessary to understand and explain the progression of all order in existence, from the conversion of chaos to order, to the creation of the universe and its contents. The essay suggests that combining successful creation and science would bridge and unify the disciplines of science, religion, philosophy, and mathematics.
Chat GPT 4
- Edited
John Crowell Greetings, FlaxTern. First impression: I find your basic concept interesting and potentially fertile, especially in regards to our mutual interest in seeing science start paying attention to the qualitative and trans-abstractable aspects of the universe. I note some more specific claims that need more elaboration and possible support. Sure, we don't have space for elaboration in the essays proper, I get that, so it can go as follow up. You mention a specific minimum quantum of mass: 9.21979779 x 10⁻⁹⁵ kg. That is very very much smaller than the Planck mass, and I can find no other mention there or in my memory or general search. Could you please explain with some justification and especially any other refs, thanks. [Update: I see in your reply to another contestant, some explanation and also why you can't say more. Sure.]
Also, the idea of reforming or deeper insight into math too, is very intriguing. Yet again, it would help to see some specifics. Are you maybe talking about ideas similar to non-standard analysis, the hyperreals and so forth? Regards.
Hello persimmon swan. This is a test to see if the system will post this message. It has not been posting my latest replies
Hello PersimmonSwan and CHAT GPT4 Thank you for your rapid review of my essay. Before discussing my essay, I want to discuss your review.
In Paragraph 1 your analysis did a very good job of extracting and restating the claims of the essay. Paragraph 2 provides the “essence” of what a reader (reviewer) might think about the essay - it is highly technical and it may be difficult for the reader to follow the argument. You also provided feedback that the essay does not provide clear evidence to validate its claims. Again I think your perception is correct. I find that when I discuss my work with friends- both scientific and non scientific - the fundamental concepts are hard for them to comprehend (believe?). These concepts are different from what they have been taught so there is information overload. Their minds cannot assimilate the information without a change in their scientific, religious, philosophical, or mathematical information processing systems. At some point in the discussion their eyes begin to glaze over and their information processing gets confused. Perhaps it is from the way I explained successful creation processing relative to their ways of processing information.
Paragraph 3 is also a reasonable analysis based on what was provided in the essay. The ideas of a science of successful creation or a successful creation of science may be difficult for a scientist to accept based on what they have been taught and the historical conflicts between religious creationism and science. However, Successful creation is not religious creationism.
I.also, have some questions for you as a peer reviewer. If I can provide a mathematical/computational/ logistically intelligent model of successful creation that “maps” large quantities of C*s progressive quantum creativity to science’s (generally accepted as true) measurements of the physical sizes, masses, densities, movements, etc. to the creation of Plank actions and their progression to become the creation of the space/time/mass relationships of solar systems, stars, galaxies, and the visible universe, would science accept that as validation of the successful creation “hypothesis”. Would the correlation of successful creation with generally accepted scientific physical measurements and observations create a curiosity among scientists to explore the successful creation concepts in more detail. If so how can we make that happen? Can you answer these questions? Regards
Neil Bates Hello PersimmonCatshark. Thanks for your reply. Your “…potentially fertile” response is all that I hoped to gain from this essay. Am I correct that the “trans-
abstractable” aspects you refer to are how to use the fundamentals of successful creation in religion, philosophy, mathematics, etc.? If so I think you will like the successful creation potential to do so.
In response to follow up, I will address your direct questions and then try to address the measurement problem, Consciousness and subjectivity. It may take more than one reply.
Cs and their relationships to Plank actions are addressed in a previous fqxi essay. Just go to google search and type in fqxi Clarification of Physics and you should get the essay that introduces Cs, Planck actions and the creation of space, time, mass and their relationships. Also, in this same creation process, the quantum creativity becomes repeating quantum “mechanical” processing with all of its seemingly hard to understand idiosyncrasies. After reading that article we can discuss its implications. That same article introduces successful creation mathematics and its elimination of infinitesimals, infinities and zero (nothing). Basically it invents a “new” system of changing and and a new way to calculate it. So the calculus based on infinitesimals, infinities and zero (nothing) no longer apply. It simplifies the mathematics of physics.
Now to a discussion of the measurement problem - does the Schrödinger equation really collapse? In successful creation, the consciously directed, creative, Bayesian progression creates and try’s all of the possibilities, selects those with a continuing probability (eliminates what is not working), continues the trials and selects the one (best) result. In this progression, the full extent of all of the possibilities and probabilities are never realized. There is not a “collapse” of the possibilities but a progressive creation of the result that best satisfies consciousness (and overcomes entropy - i.e. continues to live and progress).
What is it about consciousness that allows it to direct creative activity and select the best progression? C*s contain the ability to sense/feel deviations in its normal(preferred) composition and trigger a creative response that returns the deviation back to normal. That capability is inheritable and improvable as it progresses in successful creation. If we put that in “human terms” the deviations cause pain (the greater the deviation the greater the pain) and the return generates equivalent and opposite “pleasure.” As it progresses the Bayesian progression can feel if it is generating pain or pleasure, Stop the painful processing, Continue the pleasure producing processing and eliminate a lot of useless and time consuming trials. It is like an AI trainer telling the system if it is getting closer or farther away from the desired result. This improves the by chance aspect of “as it is” science science and allows successful creativity to occur faster than what would be expected “as it is” science. The goal of consciousness is to balance pain and pleasure and minimize the duration and intensity of the pain. The consciously directed, creative, Bayesian progression satisfies consciousness by developing the shortest, fastest, most efficient processing that emerges from its source, develops the processing that continues to live (overcomes entropy) and returns to its source and repeats. In ancient terminology, it became an ouroboros - an eternally, repeating, overall unchanging, every component is changing, conscious, circulating process in which everything is connected. That original processing created the fundamentals that were adhered to in each step of the Bayesian processing of successful creation. I am sure you will have questions that I can try to answer and use tha answers to improve the essays. Regards
Hi, John Crowell. Your ideas are bold and foster creativity. I believe that an environment in which science can be pursued with creativity and freedom would pave the way for science to get better and different. Your essay shows free and creative thoughts, and points towards new science indeed. If you wish please check my essay, “More diversity and creativity for a different science”.
Dear FlaxTern
Just to let you know that I did reply to your interesting email (just in case the reply went into your spam folder!).
David Jewson Hello Azure Thank you for your post. I did not find your reply anywhere in my mail. I was hoping you would reply. I must apologize. I very much want to keep our discussion alive. Can you resend it in a reply to this reply? Regards
NADJA MAGALHAES
Hello CeladonDormouse. Thank you for your positive comments. I agree with your premise that greater creativity is needed in science. Conscious creativity and its role in the creation, functioning and connections of intelligence, life, and the physical world is worth studying. I believe it is the key to a complete understanding of what we experience, observe and interact with. My background is an example of how someone outside of the scientific “community” can develop fresh ideas and concepts that could be valuable. I studied science and math and then worked in a scientifically based company for 20 years. Then, I left the world of “consensus reality” and became an independent scholar. I “cut my ties” with the scientific world and I began to study what I was interested in. Without that independence, I would not have developed the successful creation concept !!! That development was the cheap part. Getting it presented in the scientific community is another story. Getting novel ideas presented in scientific journals and conferences without being associated with a think tank, university, scientific company, etc. is difficult. [As a prejudice, I also believe that if a concept is truly novel their are no capable peers to judge if it is worthy of being presented.] So, in the presentation stage of the concepts, cutting the ties with science was a bad idea. That is why FQXi or an institution of that type will be essential in the new science. This my second essay in FQXi contests and these are the only scientific “publications” of my ideas. I am sure that other truly independent scientists would have the same problems. Another problem is funding. Developing the concepts and developing my model was relatively cheap. I could handle that myself. Scaling up the concept, getting other scientists to include it in their research etc. is much more expensive. So that is a real barrier for an independent scholar. Help in that arena will be essential for the new science to be successful. Hope this has been helpful. Regards. Thanks again for your comments
Dear FlaxTern,
interesting essay. For example that your successful creation processes did originate out of some undefinable chaos with its constituents having the potential to be somewhat sentient. You wrote that
“Inclusion of this level solves the infinite regression problem of “who/what created the creator””.
I don't think that your attempt solves the infinite regression problem, since we also can ask who/what created the undefinable chaos you assume to having existed before your successful creation process began. Sure, per definition there can be no other creation be possible before your successful creation process began. But I at first had to believe in that successful creation process for afterwards “concluding” that “undefinable chaos” wasn't created at all – it must be considered as somewhat timeless.
As long as this chaos is thought of as having resided outside of time before successful creation took place, one can say that this chaos was timeless and therefore does not need a creative predecessor to create it. But the latter is also true for God.
You write that your current essay is just an "outline" of your ideas, and there may be more papers from you elsewhere. But there is also the bible with its creation story. Must one study both literary works or is it sufficient to only study one of the two?
Hello AquamarineTapir. Thanks for your comments. Successful creation creates and becomes “all of the order in existence”. This includes all of the religions - not just the abrahamic religions. So successful creation includes all of the religions as well as all of the sciences and provides the means to unite all of the above with/in one theory. The introduction to these ideas were expressed 7 years ago in a paper I co - authored for the 2016 ESSAT conference, it’s tile was Self-Creating and Quantum Theories of Human Spirituality: Developing a Unifying Theory of Science and Religion. The paper expresses the fundamentals needed to unify all of the religions - not just the Abrahamic religions- within one theory. That would be valuable for religion with or without the inclusion of the sciences - but why limit it to just the religions? While this is not the latest developments in the successful creation theory, it presents the beginning concepts. If you would send me your e-mail address I can send you a copy of that paper which suggests potential collaborations that could produce meaningful results. Regards
Hi FlaxTern, thanks for your reply. Sorry, but I have read that much the last weeks that I am not in the mood to read more papers. I was only interested in what you may will answer when I point to the bible and that therein God is mentioned as the one who is the ruler over chaos, and not the other way round. I find that interesting.
John Crowell
Hello FlaxTern. First of all, sorry for the big delay. Somehow your reply slipped past all the too-many goings on I deal with recently.
About your questions: trans-abstractable means in basic definition, all that which can't be defined in "structural," mathematical terms. So not like talking about geometry, numbers, configurations and the like. It means to include "essences" like feelings and the way colors look. This does affect creation, but creation can involve abstractions too. Creation involving the trans-abstract is richer though than the "arid" world of the mathematizable.
I need to read up on your reform of math. It's hard to see how to do all the same things but without the use of the old tools infinitesimals etc. Measurement problem: I'm not sure what "what is not working" means in the selection of a quantum possibility. I might have a beamsplitter that can direct to either detector A or detector B. They are essentially equivalent, a photon hitting either one is "working out" as well as the other. There isn't a reason for one to be better than the other, altho one might have more chance of happening than the other. Your description of how consciousness works in creation is interesting and itself creative, I would need to work on that since it isn't ? a simple deduction from very basic principles. Regards in turn.
Neil Bates hello Catshark. In response to “what is not working”. As conscious creativity progressively “tries the possibilities”, the possibilities -to be selected - must return to/as its source and repeat. Those that do not do this dissipate and disappear. As the progression continues, successful creation can “feel” the pain and pleasure produced in the processing. The process that produces the shortest, fastest, most efficient processing which produces the shortest durations of less intense pains is the one chosen. Note: This is similar to finding the best pathway using Feynman diagrams in quantum mechanics.
I do not know what can be read about my reformulation of math except the Clarification of Physics paper I previously mentioned. If you find something, let me know. I have other thoughts about “..are we machines” etc. that I will be sending in a future post. Must go now. Will reconnect later.