When considering an alternative path that science could or should have taken, we are faced with the dilemma of deciding which formative assumptions would need to change. In this essay, we take a more dramatic approach - of wiping the slate clean and seeing how science could have emerged assumption-free from pure logic alone. This leads us down a surprisingly simple geometric path of least action in which qualia is more fundamental than quanta and conservation of neutrality most fundamental of all.
Science in Search of Neutral Ground
Dear CinnabarHoverfly,
One can consider the nothing to be everything when there is a balance of opposites at play. In the no space, no time, no mass and no charge of the no contrast giant liquid helium singularity. The He the Father, God particle puts a Helium Bose Einstein Condensate (He-BEC) at centre stage in the formation of the universe. I consider the functional role of nothing and everything from nothing as not being constructive with respect to the first law of thermodynamics, where energy cannot be created nor destroyed but only transformed. If everything stated in an isotropic homogenous state of the He-BEC singularity, then the new science of SUSY inversion and singularity physics model provides a framework in which nothing is everything and the one thing was all things. If you are interested in exploring the mathematics of singularity physics please take a look at [https://www.qbri.org].
Kind regards Dr Keryn Johnson PhD MSc BSc
:
Advertising?
9 days later
Imagine a dimensionless point (coordinate) in NOTHING. (really nothing, no space, no time, no fluctuations). The dimensionless point becomes like NOTHING. and is NOTHING. ONE dimensionless point is only NOTHING when it is consciously observed, then it becomes ONE. (as you consciously imagined). Reality is an infinity of dimensionless points=nothing. ALL = NOTHING.
6 days later
I especially liked the deliberately amusing parts throughout this essay. Certainly starting over would change science. The proposed replacement based on ideology, change to the base used in counting,and a different relationship with math. Male and female, human and machine, pansychism and materialism, spirituality and science, are not exactly opposites but have differences. 'Middle ' ground that is neither is not superior. Asexual reproduction is less effective at producing diversity. Placebo and nocebo effects are recognised, psychology affecting physiology. Which is different from pharmacologic effects. Inbetween makes no sense.So on for the other pairs mentioned.
You write:
<<So, rather than attempting to mark-up the existing map of science with some alternate assumptions, a more prudent path may be to draw a new map assumption-free and then see what minimal science would necessarily emerge from simple logic alone.> >
<<If nature truly operates in the simplest and most logical way, then our alternative science should be the very model of simplicity and logic itself – a streamlined intellectual enterprise that would make even Spock smile.>>
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Alexander Zenkin in the article "SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS" wrote:
"About thirty years ago, for the sake of "sports interest" I began to collect various "logics" used in modern logical-mathematical treatises. When their amount exceeded the second hundred, it has become clear: if the logic can be selected" on a taste" (or even can be constructed "on a need"), such notion as "science" becomes here simply inappropriate.
Perhaps, the situation is somewhat reminiscent of the famous "Babylon" epic: the sounds – symbols of abstract speeches are almost the same, but the sense, if that is present, of everyone is peculiar. What was the end of the First Babylon is described in The Holy Bible..."
What is the "simple logic" in your picture of the world that gives rise to all other logics?
Have you ever dealt with the problem "with a hundred-year-old beard" - ontological basification (substantiation) of mathematics, and hence knowledge in general?
Have you tried to model (build) on the basis of "simple logic" the dialectical triad "Being-Nothing/OtherBeing-Becoming"?
Georgina Woodward Thanks for your feedback. The neutral ground I'm suggesting in my essay is more along the lines of paired polarities working together in a complementary and balanced way rather than a averaged middle ground which, as you rightly suggest, would be less effective. To me it's this relational polarity which seems to give rise to many forms of dynamic neutrality in nature such as vibration, symmetry, energy/mass equivalence and the conservation laws. As such, polarized qualities need not necessarily be exact opposites which "cancel out" in a physical sense to embody neutrality but rather complementary states which allow a positive/negative range for diversity and complexity to emerge.
Vladimir Rogozhin The foundational logic upon which my essay is based is that everything in reality, including logic itself, must begin from a neutral state of possibility. However, as nothing can be created nor destroyed, that neutrality should be preserved every "if-then" step of the way in any logical treatise within science. As geometry is arguably the simplest and thus most logical way of describing reality, I suggest that everything follows a simple geometric progression from 0D point to 1D line to 2D cycle and 3D vibration. But to retain neutrality, that geometry at each step would need to be polarized: from a polarized pair of points (i.e. matter/antimatter) to a line centered about the origin to a bi-rotational cycle to a bi-directional standing wave vibration. The problem with many scientific theories in my view is that they violate this idea of neutrality by assuming reality is a one-way street, of some creation event of "something from from nothing" such as a singular Big Bang and perpetually expanding universe in forward time without a polarized counterpart/contraction/reverse stage to maintain neutrality. I am not familiar with the "hundred-year-old beard" problem or dialectical triad you mention but thanks for your question and feedback.
4 days later
I like the way the essay searches for similarities in nature. With that it hints at some overal concept from which these similarities may have come from.
I agree that there must at least exist some possibility for “nothing” to at all become “something”. However, I do not agree about your explanation for that possibility.
You started with an abstract state of neutrality for that “nothing” as your initial assumption. You end up with saying that everything is love. Thus, what you say is that neutrality equals love.
Now here comes a logical, ethical and moral problem, since love is not a state or form of neutrality. For example love does not love to hate, nor does it love lies and deception. Therefore, love is never neutral. Moreover, usually, people love their own lifes more than other's lifes and therefore they fear death and destruction for themselves.
In my opinion, loving literally everthing at some assumed endpoint of “gaining awareness of itself through polarized expressions of itself “ is the old esoteric concept of presuming that every animate thing is essentially a God in the becoming. I think that line of reasoning can be disproven logically by simply looking at the past and current state of our world.
Bravo!!!... "wipe the slate clean".
I also find it expedient to reason from the specific to the general, and it intrigues me that a numerological analysis of Logic emergence, validates the six sector distribution structure mandated by my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay []2023](https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php.)analysis of Logic emergence as a consequence of single point pulsed physical entity dynamics.
Thanks!!!
S. Lingo
UQS Author/Logician
www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com
Nicky The geometric model I'm describing is not quite suggesting that love equals neutrality, as love is definitely not neutral as you astutely point out, but rather that the overall prime vibration waveform is neutral by virtue of the non-neutral asymmetries of its twelve positions/qualia balancing out.
Position 6 (geometry of love) is one of those asymmetries as it falls below the neutral axis as an intersection between the two polarized waves, but which is balanced out by positions 0 (starting potential) and 12 (cycle completion) which occur above the neutral axis. So, although position 6 is neutral "horizontally" in terms of opposite polarities cancelling out in a central point of unity, it is not neutral "vertically" in terms of amplitude/quality. As such, position 6 can be considered the biased perspective of love relative to which everything is compared while the rest of the twelve positions are the other experiential themes/states which enable us to understand what love is from what it isn't. If reality is fundamentally vibrational then any state must presumably have an equal and opposite polarity/amplitude to even exist, including love.
That to me is the underlying paradox my model suggests - to fully know love is to fully experience the polarity of non-love in all its forms. The challenge for humanity is to explore both sides of that coin objectively and to see value in both the light and the dark, but always returning to a center biased towards love. Yes, humanity's track record shows how easily we can veer off towards negativity and self-interest but I'm hopeful for a more harmonious and "neutral" future. Thanks for your thoughtful feedback.
Thank you for your explanation.
The challenge you mentioned sounds like an overal “plan”, implicit in what you defined as “nothing”. If humanity will be destroyed by some unexpected event, that plan did not work out. Your assumption about humanity being destined to experience all the evil and hate in the world is surely a kind of fatalism, one that may even invite certain people to do evil things – for the “good of humanity”. As a matter of fact, such people exist and not even need a philosophical basis for doing what they do. This fact in my opinion counteracts your assumption that humanity always returns to a center biased towards love. If humanity does not destroy itself but further veers off towards negativity and self-interest, only certain priviledged people will at all be able to return to that center, thanking destiny to be the ones that do not have to suffer in the name of humanity. This state of affairs in my opinion is already existent in the world, and many people (as well as animals) do not experience any kind of love during their (short?) lifetimes, but only violence. So you would need a kind of balanced justice for them.
11 days later
5 days later
Hi.
So I don't think the phenomenological universe is centered at a zero. The Boltzmann and Schrodinger solutions both imply rather something of the form of '1/2,' which is already a lot of complexity. This is also suggested by the fact that when you collide matter and anti-matter together, it just doesn't (Bloop!) disappear. You get a photon. A crazy short wave photon, with all the mass of the colliding energy of the particles turned into radiation. That is to say, the minimum possible energy of anything is not zero,
Assuming the universe is the phenomenology of mathematics implies the dominant and most repetitive operations of physical processes are basic mathematical operations and identities,
So if the math, as understood, (missing connections/constraints, maybe.) does not completely represent physical phenomena, then it must be the math which is incompletely understood.
Classical logic only applies to the rational and real number systems. My thinking is that the logics of the other three nicely normed infinitely divisible algebras are continuous. (consider this hypothetical. Logic being representations/operations on the unit or center of the algebra. The universe really comes down to number theory.
In a complicated world, you're less the victim if you know the math.
Charles St Pierre
My essay actually agrees with the well supported idea that the phenomenological universe is not centered at zero, but rather possesses a non-zero potential (Higgs ground state) as an inherent asymmetry and baseline complexity. Your example of matter and anti-matter annihilating into a non-zero energy is good evidence for that.
However, I suggest that the non-zero asymmetry we see in physical phenomena emerges from an even more fundamental geometric symmetry/neutrality which is centered at zero, just as complex number rotation is centered about the origin in a mathematical sense as a base-4 cycle or its more versatile and efficient cousin, the base-12 cycle. When the base-12 number cycle is in turn viewed in its simplest form as a cycle of four prime number positions symmetrically placed around the circle (at 1, 5, 7, 11), these four further simplify to two net vectors at positions 7 and 11 which are no longer symmetric (interestingly, creating a 2:1 asymmetry much like the Boltzmann and Schrodinger solutions you mention or the +2/3:-1/3 charges of the fermions). This is how I suggest that non-zero phenomena can emerge from zero-centered neutral geometry.
However, we see that this inherent neutrality is still preserved in natural phenomena when we take a broader view. Returning to your example of matter and anti-matter, they actually do represent the neutrality of zero in terms of equal and opposite charge or in terms of equal and opposite states of energy (matter versus annihilation energy). I also believe that classical logic not only applies to real number systems but also complex numbers when imaginary numbers are viewed as circular potentials not yet manifested onto the real number line. In this perspective, neutrality precedes symmetry which in turn precedes polarized phenomena. Thanks for the comments and feedback.
5 days later
Dear CinnabarHoverfly,
You, by simple logical reasoning, come to the following conclusions:
“Rigorous adherence to the scientific method of careful observation, testable hypotheses and experimental validation would still be crucial to the exploration of reality”.
“… science would be more conscious and conscientious”.
“… then science and its requisite mathematics could have taken a far simpler and more holistic path”.
I come to the same conclusions by analyzing experiments in which the modern concept of science does not see, or does not want to see, new phenomena and laws for the formation of another democratic science.
I wish you success!
- Edited
this essay goes for a scientific discovery in particular that would make all the sciences better , in my opinion i believe there are multiple things that can be done.
for example more woman practicing / learning sports
15 days later
You have to think big!
It is known that Newton determined the gravitational coefficient through the parameters of the orbits of the planets of the solar system. If the gravitational coefficient is determined in a similar way from the parameters of the orbits of electrons in the Hydrogen atom, then the gravitational coefficient of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom becomes 40 orders of magnitude greater than in the solar system. Then the Planck parameters of the Hydrogen atom are the parameters of an electron with its radius equal to the radius of the Compton wave of the electron. Those. each level of fractal matter has its own “Planck parameters”, and the generally accepted Planck parameters are an abstract delusion and have no real meaning at all. Indeed, what relation does the gravitational coefficient from the parameters of the Solar system have to the parameters of the planetary system of the Hydrogen atom? None!!!
You have to think big!
The fine structure constant can be easily calculated with an accuracy of up to 7 digits, assuming that all elements of matter have a fractal structure. Then, therefore, "black holes" do not exist, and there is no event horizon. Those. inside putative "black holes", there is deterministic matter that obeys the simple quantum laws of fractal matter, which unify gravity and quantum phenomena of the deterministic functioning of matter on all scales of the universe [ appendix: https://s3.amazonaws.com/fqxi.data/data/essay-contest-files/16/reference_id_2304.pdf https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2304#control_panel].
a month later
Michael Smith
"The prime vibration, as mentioned above, is the front view perspective of an observer. Its twelve
positions appear from this vantage as varying amplitudes (probabilities), polarities relative to the
neutral axis (charge) and spin direction (angular momentum), up or down – the very same
properties confirmed in particle physics"
what is the energy of the prime vibration? Your idea suggest a reference energy, an universal constant of energy and thus a new universal constant which lead to divide space, time and mass in three new universal constants. Classical physics or GR are emergent theories from this division and quantum mechanics.
How?
We invent the 4-vector identity as equal to (celerity of light times the inertial time, speed of the corpuscle times the inertial time of the corpuscle)-->continue with my comments on my FQXI profile.
The reality is the neutrality of duality: yes the 4-vector identity do the neutrality of the duality wave-corpuscle.
@[deleted]
"The reality is the neutrality of duality"
It is one of the most important phrase which I had read in this competition. The first one is the idea of an antologist in this competition when he consider that a corpsucle has an identity in time and an identity in space. After this I had invent the 4-vector identity in Special relativity but I think that your assertion "the reality is the neutrality of duality" is more important. How?
For wave-corpuscle duality what can be neutralise it?
Mathematically anything as notified 4-vector X. How?:
1-Split the wave-corpuscle duality in two dualities: wave-X duality and X-corpuscle duality.
2-There is an universals constants as follows:
4-vector wave vector= universal constant times 4-vector nameX
4-vector momentum=universal constant times 4-vector nameX
nameX is the name which called the representation of X in time and in space.
Here we will not speak about the wave behaviour or the corpuscle behaviour: we speak about the X behaviour so there is neutrality of the wave-corpuscle duality. The only problem here is what universals constants to measure relatively to
4-vector wave vector= universal constant times 4-vector nameX and relatively to 4-vector momentum=universal constant times 4-vector nameX. What's experiments to realise? we should choose an accessible experiments to do and give X a concrete name to identify.
We can't continue to split dualities as for example as follows:
wave-Y duality and Y-X duality
Y-X duality and Y-corpuscle duality
universals constants will be deduced as ratios of each others.