Could Science Be Different and Improved? Yes. One Specific Proposal.

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

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

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

Neil Bates Hello Catshark. I reread your essay and I have some thoughts about how successful creation may be helpful in your quest to add consciousness as well as qualitative and trans-abstraction aspects into science.
I am saying:

1. C*s are the fundamental “substance” the world is made of and their consciousness and creational capabilities are inheritable as successful creation progresses.
2. Cs deviations and returns to normal produce oscillations which can “travel” in the (Cs in chaos) quantum creating field as waves. C*s are the primordial wave producers.
3. The original progression from C*s to the original Successful Self-Replicator produced repeating processing. That conversion converted quantum creativity to quantum “mechanics”. Self- replication produce copies that in their self-creating field interact, combine and self-organize to become a new self-replicator. The creation of the new self-replicator is the creative part. The repeating processing and its self-replication is the mechanical part. Both are needed for successful creation to progress. So having “mechanical” capabilities is a needed component in successful creation.
4. Successful creation transcends science, religion, philosophy, mathematics, etc. It provides the fundamentals of all of these.
5. Successful creation transcends intelligence. It creates and becomes the logistical, networking, intelligence that solves problems and delivers the successful creating capabilities to the right place, at the right time and in the correct quantities for successful creation to achieve its results - to overcome entropy and satisfy consciousness. Note: Successful creation transcends Panpsychism.
6. Human minds and minding are results of successful creation. Human minding is based on and uses the fundamentals, methods, etc. of successful creation to achieve its capabilities and results.
7. I have been able to “pick out” the fundamentals of major religions in the successful creation processing and results. Examples are Animism, Panpsychism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Hinduism, The Eastern religions, and the Abrahamic religions. So, I believe successful creation transcends these religions.

Note: In my work, I put everything in terms of successful creation. This is similar to your viewing of science through the lenses of consciousness, qualitative aspects and the mechanical measurement problem. Both essays express different ways to “examine” reality and science.

Hope you find this useful. Regards. -FT

Vladimir Rogozhin Hello Vladimir. I was hoping you would read my essay and provide comments. I got my wish. After reading your comments, my answers, and looking at your previous publications, I believe an ongoing discussion would be beneficial for both of us. In this reply, I will just address your comments. In the next reply, I will go into relating and correlating my work with yours - especially your paper on the Crisis of Fundamentality ….

In my essay, if I understand your ground, grounding, and grounded terms correctly, the Cs
"in chaos creating field would be the ground. The conversion of the chaotic Cs into the ordered, original, self-replicator would be the grounding. The resulting self-replicator would be the grounded. This is analogous to the C*s in chaos being the creator, the creating being the conversion and the self-replicator being the created. This process creates and becomes the original, stable, repeating, self-maintaining, space/time/mass processing which in my theory is the “birth” of ontological “being”. This process can be described verbally, mentally followed (drawn) in my mind and described mathematically. This process was introduced in my previous fqxi essay: Clarification of Physics: A Complete, Computable, Predictive Model of our Multiverse. You can access this essay by going to your search engine and typing in: fqxi Clarification of Physics …

In my essay, successful creation creates and uses its own mathematics in its progression to become the physical world. In the development of the successful creation model, I discovered the mathematics in the physical world and developed a successful creation mathematical model. This mathematical model “maps to” the scientific, empirically derived, generally accepted, physical descriptions of the range of change from the constants of Plank actions, to atomic structures, stars, solar systems, galaxies, the visible universe, etc. The success of this mapping provides knowledge about the physical universe and its relationships with mathematics. I believe this provides evidence for the correlations of math and physics.
Note: I introduced the successful creation, mathematical, physical mapping in the same fqxi essay previously mentioned. In the paper I provided some correlations that may be of interest to you.

3. In my theory, the model is the overall description that includes the creation and functioning of all of the order in existence. Algorithms are useful tools in that description.

When I read your comments, I looked up some of your previous papers and selected your January 4th 2018 paper on Crisis of fundamentality … What I did when I read your paper was to put everything in terms of successful creation and also substituted some of my terms in your paper. From my point of view, successful creation “fits” into your paper very well. In my next posting, I will describe some of the important correlations. You will hear from me soon. Best Regards -FlaxTern

John Crowell Hello again Vladimir. Since my last posting I reread your 2018 fqxi paper Crisis of Fundamentality…. and read your 2020 paper on Dialectical- Ontological Modeling of Primordial Generating Process … I thought your review of the philosophical history and selection of the fundamentals needed in the model was brilliant.
In my work there is only one process that generates “all of the order in existence” -successful creation. Successful creation fulfills the requirements you describe. Successful creation is your “Primordial Generating Process and all that it generates. Understanding and use of successful creation as the primordial generating process will provide a paradigm revolution in what is currently presumed to be the fundamentals of the universe and its contents.

As described in my Clarification of Physics essay, the conversion of Cs to the original self- replicator produces equivalent and opposite processes that emerge from and return to/as the creative source and repeats. The creation of the equivalent and opposite processing is the origination of dialectics. These dialectics are the basis of the repeating, stable, unchanging processing of physical (ontological) ‘being”. Both of these occurred in the original Cs conversion to the original self-replicator and are inheritable characteristics in the progression of successful creation.
The progression of successful creation is the progression of your primordial generating process.
When I translate your papers in terms of successful creation and /or substitute sc terms inti the descriptions in your papers their is an amazing correspondence. From my point of view your description of what is needed to be successful and my papers fulfillment of those needs provides a fundamental model of reality.
I am interested in your thoughts. Regards —FT

Jonathan Dickau
Hello LavenderTakin. Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I will try to address your comments.

1. If I understand your “bootstrapping” terminology correctly, successful creation is a bootstrapping process. It creates using what exists in each stage of its progression. It never creates something from nothing and it never uses “outside help” to progress. It becomes a successful self-creating (bootstrapping) process.
   2.In successful creation, there is no “mass free inception” of the universe. C*s are both quantitative - they have a mass - and qualitative - they have an ability to feel compositional changes, create equivalent and opposite processing and return to their “normal” composition without changing their quantitative mass value. So mass never goes to zero and the speed of light never becomes unbounded. It is a constant that is equivalent to the speed of creation.
2. Your thoughts about time, creativity, persistence, memory and success can be correlated to successful creation. They all have a role in successful creation. Mapping of these aspects onto the successful creation progression will provide those correlations.

We are not that far apart in our thinking. If you have more comments/questions/etc. , we should keep up the conversation. Regards - FT