How could science be different?

Lorraine Ford

Three questions: “Why is the universe moving?”, “What exists?”, and “Can everything that exists be measured?” are discussed, illustrating the limitations of the old dogmas of physics.

Download Essay PDF File

cristi marcovici

letters are bad ABCDE... XYZ upper or lower , don't use them , or use them as little as possible
keep friends close and enemy even closer
, or why i cannot escape from this unexpected follower

the space between letters is like what you say there with categories,
or an other person with water in the sink proving the physical laws, or an other person with jigsaw puzzle punched (maybe is the same person i cannot remember)

imagine learning ABCD than on top of that in the middle you add insert AB EF CD it harder to return back to ABCDEF

an other linguistic/ communication problem is
can you express the same meaning no more or no less without using any words .

breaking the fixing meaning ice, means melting in a kafkaesque (dali, escher ,you name it) sea of concepts
it could be god it could be bad no idea

ideally i believe people should sort as little pebble as possible near term ( take care of already sorted, denkmalpflege)
but do extensive meaning molding and mixing what is the word i forgotten ( philosophy ?)
but thats is old word practical philosophy ( to many letters)-, matermatics sounds a little better
perhaps handled (with hands) languages dev kits locally not wiredly

do you need more examples Lorraine Ford ?

words are helpful (or not) for that

but what if ( a counterfactual)

something has two simple contradicting oposite explanations
or a simple explanation causing an other simple explanation for something complicated

or something that s looks like a simple explanation to be complicated and
an explanation that looks complicated explanation to be in fact simple

or a complicated explanation for something complicated
or a complicated explanation for something simple

this sport has lots of potential :pebble sorting ,ping pong book reading on skates (or bike if the area is with mountains)

imagine tables at larger distances and more than two players and some kind of a moving terrain and with obstacles
perhaps also females half participant players speaking klingon to keep the score .

an other essay here concerning the conscious isolated scientist

In open-minded science benefits from questioning taboo

what if a deaf and a singer are stuck in a spaceship with two chambers that needs the invention of a new language

Stefan Weckbach

Lorraine Ford

Dear CornflowerCicada, I like your examination of the relationship between numbers, logical operators and matter very much. It goes very deep into what can reasonably be said about the fundamental nature of reality.

Interestingly, the logical operators allow a certain freedom to construct new things, like you illustrated with the example of the computer programmer. More astonishingly, these operators have the same “qualities” as numbers, they can nowhere be found as natural physical things “in the wild”. They are indeed about relationships and possible outcomes of something that we equally do not fully understand: the changes in the world – and – our terms with whom we want to explain these changes. These terms are for example force, energy, time, space, particles, waves, probabilities and the like. In every scientific theory, these terms either define each other mutually, or they are taken as irreducible – or both.

Your critics of a deterministic world exclusively only held together by numbers (the latter seen as "forces" by many scientists) is very justified, since presumably many scientists conclude that numbers and operators nonetheless can be found as natural things “in the wild” – namely in their own consciousness. Exactly at that place they then conclude with the help of some self-examination of their thoughts that these “numbers and operators” (when they themselves do maths or logics) very obviously exhibit forces that inevitably lead to certain conclusions.

What is wrong about scientists believing in the physicality of “things” like numbers and operators? Well, firstly, if these forces would be physically real and would work like external reality is supposed to work, then no scientist should make any illogical assumptions. That the latter can be seen as disproven should be clear. But moreover, what scientists additionally do not realize is that if they assume numbers and operators to be real physical things qua the sole power of their conscious minds where these things reside, then either consciousness must be very special if compared to the rest of nature, or the rest of nature must be made of immaterial things (numbers and operators) that nonetheless can exhibit forces onto each other (or alternatively spoken, exhibit forces onto other irreducible objects like energy, space, particles, waves, probabilities etc.) with all the consequences the operators provide.

Now some scientists will say that the latter is the case, since they believe that the world is like a computer (simulation). Independently of whether that belief should be considered as rational or not, it does not explain the existence of the needed logics for it to work nor does it explain the needed dynamics for it to work (aka why the world moves).

And in my opinion now comes the blockbuster: these scientists will explain the latter (a moving world) by what I wrote above, namely by their subjective experience of numbers and operators in their consciousness as forces. They obviously think that they are forced to think like they think – by their very own and subjective attributions they give to numbers and operators within the realm of their consciousness.

So it is no wonder that many scientists hang on to the belief that nature must be strictly deterministic, since they forgot that they defined it in that manner in the first place. However, that they are forced to do so must be an illogical conclusion, since no subjectively defined thing can force someone to think certain things – or can it?

Well, by the explanation I gave so far obviously it can (on a yet unknown level), and that is a huge problem. Therefore, in my own essay I argue for strictly discriminating between beliefs and knowledge, at least for the sake of freeing us from many self-contained explanation schemes that are inherently incomplete if considered in a more logical manner than has been done in the past.

Lorraine Ford

The technical article “Logic Signal Voltage Levels” (https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/digital/chpt-3/logic-signal-voltage-levels ) explains the connection between voltage and binary digits/ “logic states” in computers. This technical article gives the educated reader pretty much all the information they will ever need to conclude that computers/ AIs could never, ever be conscious.

The educated reader of this technical article will notice that there is no necessary connection between voltage (a measurable aspect of the world) and binary digits, which are not a measurable aspect of the world. The educated reader of this article must inevitably conclude that binary digits/ “logic states” are merely an idea that human beings have imposed on voltages.

Binary digits are not things that actually exist in the world (except in the human imagination) because they are not measurable aspects of the world. However, people who don’t seem to know about, or care about, the nitty-gritty technical details of how computers actually work, including a number of authors in this essay competition, continue to feel that computers are, could be, or will be, conscious.

In my essay, one of my conclusions is that “Science could progress if physicists ditched the old conscious machines dogma, and instead examined the essential differences between what can actually exist, and what can only exist in individual subjective human minds and imaginations.”

Vladimir Rogozhin

Lorraine Ford
A good essay with super radical ideas for a great discussion and interested brainstorming on the basics of knowledge.
About "existence", "matter", "movement" and "numbers".

John Archibald Wheeler, "unsung paragon of science", left important philosophical testaments to theoretical physicists:
"We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
"To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'"

A good testament to understanding matter as a holistic generating process was left by Albert Einstein:
“I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified."

The modern conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical/ontological basis of fundamental science is, first of all, a "crisis of understanding" ("J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), and as a result - mutual understanding between scientists and people. Mathematics also has problems with foundations for more than a hundred years, manifesting itself as a "loss of certainty" ((Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"). "Loss of certainty" and in logic (D. Zaitsev "True, following and modern logic").
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A. Zenkin notes in "" SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS":
"Thirty years ago, for the sake of sporting interest, I began to collect various "logics" used in modern logico-mathematical treatises. When their number crossed the second hundred, it became clear: if logic can be chosen "to taste" (or even constructed "according to need" ), then such a thing as "science" becomes simply inappropriate here.
Perhaps, the situation in some sense resembles the famous "Babylonian" epic: the sounds-symbols of abstract speeches are almost the same, and each has its own meaning, if any. How the First Babylon ended is described in the Bible ... "
As a result, A. Zenkin concludes "the truth must be drawn ..."
[http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm]

Unfortunately, you do not give a definition of MATTER. And this is very important! Today, a new understanding of matter is needed on the basis of the paradigm of the world as an holistic generating process, taking into account the testament of the mathematician and philosopher V. Nalimov - the construction of a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World." ("The Self-Aware Universe" ) https://web.archive.org/web/20111205183605/http://v-nalimov.ru/articles/111/395/
I agree with the main thoughts of V. Nalimov: "We know that the spatial perception of physical reality is set not so much by the World around us, but by the ability initially given to our consciousness to see the World as spatially ordered. We can also learn to perceive the World of meanings spatially if we are able to way to set the image of the semantic field. So we can geometrize our ideas about consciousness and create a language close to the language of modern physics. "... But I do not agree with the approach of V. Nalimov...
So, based on the paradigm of the world as an holistic generating process, MATTER is that from which all meanings, forms, structures are born.
Understanding is "events of grasping the structure" (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse").
Note that N. Bourbaki in his work "ARCHITECTURE OF MATHEMATICS", introduced a good concept of parent / generative structure "les structure mère ", but they do not give the main generating structure of "La Structure Mère ".
Also in physics and cosmology.
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yu.S.Vladimirov notes in the article "PRINCIPLES OF METAPHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS" (No. 1, 2017, page 10):

<<At present, the main goal of theoretical physicists is to build a holistic (monistic) physical picture of the world based on a single generalized category. At this point in time, it is "seen" (interpreted) differently from the standpoint of the three named paradigms: a single vacuum in the field theory approach, a single geometry in the geometric worldview, or a single system of relations (structure) in the relational worldview. In our opinion, these are different names for the same desired physical (metaphysical) first-beginning.>>
[https://lib.rudn.ru/file/Метафизика%20№1_23_2017%20печать.pdf]
But Yu.Vladimirov does not give a "single generalized category", which will be the basis not only for the "sciences about Nature", but also for the "sciences about the spirit". As a result, there is no structure of a single "physical (metaphysical) first-beginning".

So, returning to the philosophical testament of John A. Wheeler, in order to understand "EXISTENCE itself" means to "grasp" (understand) the nature of the primordial TENSION of the Cosmos. And for this it is necessary to "grasp" the primordial ontological structure of matter as an eternal holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures (material and ideal). That is, to build a model "being-nothing/otherbeing-becoming", taking into account all the modern achievements of science and problems in the foundations of knowledge ("crisis of understanding").

On the nature of numbers. There is such a good metaphysical maxim:
"God created the Universe according to the Logos. Numbers are the work of man."
The Logos is understood in the spirit of Heraclitus as the LAW (meta-law) that governs the Cosmos. By the way, the concept of "meta-law" is used by Lee Smolin in "Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe".

So, There are three and only three absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states) - an integral generative triad: absolute rest (linear state, Absolute Continuum) + absolute motion (vortical, circular, Absolute Discretuum) + absolute becoming (absolute wave, Absolute DisContinuum). What is especially important: each absolute form of the existence of matter has its own ONTOLOGICAL PATH (bivector of the absolute state). Accordingly, SPACE (absolute, ontological, existential) has three ontological dimensions and nine gnoseological dimensions. It is necessary to “dig” deeper into ontology in order to “grasp” the MetaNoumenon — ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, “soul of matter”, its measure. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory is that "nothing" that holds, preserves, develops and directs matter (enteleschia, nous, Aristotelian mind, "prime mover"). Physicists at one time threw out the absolute rest of matter from the picture of the world. This is the main mistake.

About "artificial intelligence". This concept is a marketing metaphor. And this metaphor misleads the mind. The adding machine can also be called "artificial intelligence".. Philosophically true: "artificial quasi-intelligence".

That is, the Big Ontological revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics".
A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.”
P. Florensky: “We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding."

Lorraine Ford

Vladimir Rogozhin
Just a brief initial reply:

Thanks for your kind review/ evaluation of my essay.

I agree that I have not defined “matter”. I was aware of that, but I am leaving it open at this stage (in my own mind) in order to discuss other aspects of the world, that I think physics needs to clarify.

Lorraine Ford

Vladimir Rogozhin
Re “MATTER is that from which all meanings, forms, structures are born”:
I appreciate what you are saying, but I have a slightly different view, a more specific view. Firstly, physics has shown that very specific things about the world are true. Physics has shown, there is no question about it, that the physical world has a certain type of structure: measurable categories that only exist in relationship to other such categories, where the result of measurement is a number. I would go further and say that this type of category-relationship structure is necessary, because one can’t build a world out of things that have no relationship to other things. For example, you can’t build a world out of numbers alone, e.g. numbers represented using the binary digit number system, because unlike categories, numbers are things that have no inherent relationship to anything else. This alone does not explain what matter is, but it is part of the answer.

Secondly, the physics’ view does not explain why the world is moving and changing: though physics’ law of nature equations acknowledge the fact of change, they do not explain change. The physics’ view is that nothing causes “random” number jumps; my view is that matter causes its own number jumps; i.e. matter has limited free will over some of its own numbers, where this number change can in turn cause other numbers to change, due to lawful relationships. This might correspond to your “MATTER is that from which all … forms, structures are born”.

Thirdly, the physics’ view does not explain what consciousness is. My view is that the unmeasurable aspect of consciousness is all about the unmeasurable logical connectives (IF, THEN, AND, OR, IS TRUE) and the unmeasurable mathematical operators that link the world. This might correspond to your “MATTER is that from which all meanings … are born”.

Lorraine Ford

Vladimir Rogozhin

Unfortunately, you do not give a definition of MATTER. And this is very important!

Vladimir, this is my answer to your 17th May challenge:

When fundamental-level matter is measured, or calculations about fundamental-level matter are made from other measurements, resulting in categories of information (like mass in MeV/c2, or charge) with their associated numbers, what is the material substance whose properties are being measured? My answer is that there is no material substance other than information which is logically connected (e.g. by logical ANDs) to other such information.

But what is information itself? The three necessary aspects of real-world information are: categories (like mass or charge); context (like mathematical relationships between the categories); and numbers that apply to the categories. Numbers, without category or context, are not information. Yes/no answers, without questions and other associated context, are not information.

Lorraine Ford

Complaints department:

At least one essay author revealed his/ her actual name, by replying to another essay author using their actual name instead of their pseudonym: presumably they should be disqualified?
One essay (a good essay) appeared for the first time only 8 hours ago on the QSpace Essay Competition forums!
Some essays (mine included) have no, or less than 3 ratings. Every essay author was assigned 3 essays to “review” (this means “rate”) so that their own essay would be “eligible for review by the Expert Panel”. So presumably every essay should end up with at least 3 ratings, if the system was working the way it was supposed to work.

……………..

Note that, unlike other essay authors, I have every right to complain.

Seemingly the majority of essay authors believe that every outcome is some combination of inevitability and randomness, so they have no right to complain if the outcome of inevitability and randomness was (e.g.) the rejection of their arXiv paper. If they were truly consistent in their beliefs, their complaints should be directed to the universe; let them impotently rage against the unfairness of the universe’s inevitability and randomness.

I, on the other hand, am saying that people (shock! horror!) actually, at least partially, create their own outcomes: I am saying that people are literally responsible for their own outcomes. I have every right to complain about what people do, because I believe that the FQxI people and the arXiv people are genuinely responsible for what they do.

Roger Schlafly

You say:

"These isolated numbers are concepts that exist in
subjective consciousness, and they would seemingly have physical correlates that exist
in a person’s brain, but just like fairy tales, they only exist in the human imagination, they
can’t exist anywhere else.

You seem to be rejecting the idea that numbers have anything to do with the physical world. This makes no sense to me. We have numbers everywhere.

Lorraine Ford

Roger Schlafly
As I commented to you on your own essay page, the real physical world, including bodies, brains, and the physical correlates of consciousness, is built out of real-physical-world categories (examples would be mass, energy, position), real-physical-world lawful relationships, and real-physical-world numbers. Number symbols are used by people to represent these real-physical-world numbers, when people measure the real physical world.

There is an enormous difference between the real physical world (e.g. a real-world number associated with relative position) and the symbols that people use to represent aspects of the real physical world (e.g. a string of number symbols). Although symbols may be made out of measurable physical matter, the symbol aspect of the matter only exists from the point of view of people. Symbols, including number symbols, are things that only exist in the human imagination: they don’t exist “out there” in the real physical world.

What I am saying in my essay is:

“Science could progress if physicists … examined the essential differences between what can actually exist, and what can only exist in individual subjective human minds and imaginations.”

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear CornflowerCicada,
I completely agree with you that “matter is the causal entity”, which has “additional powers” - to move.
I caught myself not answering this very important question in my essay, which you voiced in your essay - “Why is the universe moving?”. Therefore, I immediately appreciated your essay.
Unfortunately, on this site, not many will be able to understand what you were trying to say.
In my opinion, you have chosen an unfortunate form by assigning changes in numbers to moving matter, instead of using changes in the parameters of the movement of matter elements.
In my essay, I focused on the problems of tendentious interpretation of the results of experiments and actually came to understand the reason for the motion of the elements of matter relative to each other.
The driving force of motion of the elements of matter is the gravitational potential in the material soliton gravitational field. Those. any element of matter in a gravitational field is affected by a force in the direction that corresponds to the minimization of the interaction energy in a soliton gravitational field, which consists of particles of matter and which also move along approximately circular trajectories, being in potential wells. Those. the gravitational field drags the orbiting bodies.
For example, it was experimentally established by the "Pioneers" that all the planets of the solar system revolve around the Sun in toroidal gravitational fields of pilot wave potential holes. The gradient of the gravitational potential of the toroidal field is equal to the gravitational potential in orbit from the Sun, but the gradients are oppositely directed. Therefore, Nature does not waste energy on the formation of the force of attraction to the Sun and the force of centrifugal inertia. Those. Newton's law between cosmic bodies does not apply.
According to the same principle of formation of pilot wave potential wells, all elements of matter from micro to macrostructures of the Universe are forced to move.
This understanding of potential pits must be at the heart of another Science.
I wish you success!

Lorraine Ford

Vladimir Fedorov
Thanks for taking a look at my essay, and thanks for the good wishes, and good luck to you too. But what my essay says about number change seems to be the exact opposite of your lengthy description of your own essay. And I never said or implied any such thing: "you have chosen an unfortunate form by assigning changes in numbers to moving matter, instead of using changes in the parameters of the movement of matter elements". I am not taking seriously your statement that you “immediately appreciated [my] essay”.

Lorraine Ford

What CeruleanJackal says, and his essay, seem to be a good example of the error in thinking of many physicists (not including the QBists), and their unthinking followers:

In these people’s imaginations, and written papers and essays, all cause, all movement, and all outcomes, can be completely sewn up at the ground level of reality, leaving human beings, and what human beings do, to be mere impotent, ghostly, and superficial shapes that the complex system assumes as it evolves.

Not to worry though, because apart from the QBists, these people are not in the slightest bit troubled by holistic considerations of the nature of the world.

Lorraine Ford

Stefan Weckbach
Thanks very much for reading and appreciating my essay.

I should have more carefully distinguished between consciousness in general, and human consciousness in particular. I’m not so concerned with the experiential aspect of consciousness because I think that experience is one of the aspects of the world that has to be seen as a given, irreducible: experience is just the way that knowledge and beliefs exist. I’m putting forward the idea that consciousness is a necessary, universal aspect of the world that is associated with the genuinely existing aspects of the world that we would represent using logical connectives and mathematical operators; but these connectives and operators are merely symbols that don’t define consciousness. The experiential aspect of consciousness is experience of relationship; this experience can’t be measured, just like logical connectives and mathematical operators can’t be measured. And, as you mention, the logical connectives “allow a certain freedom to construct new things”. But the physical correlates of consciousness (that are connected via these logical and mathematical operators) can potentially be measured, where what can be measured always has a category and a number.

The difference between beliefs and knowledge (in your words), and the difference between what exists “out there” and what only exists in the human imagination (in my words) is not just relevant to science, it is relevant to human affairs in general. I guess all “more advanced” consciousnesses have a tendency to come to incorrect conclusions, and imagine things that are not actually there. For example, a cat will chase a rounded brown leaf blown by the wind, seemingly mistakenly imagining for a brief moment that the leaf is a mouse. Somewhat similarly, I think that a lot of mathematics and number theory only exists in the human imagination, it doesn’t exist “out there” in the real measurable physical world; I guess they exist in the human imagination because it is important for living things, for their own survival, to correctly deduce valid relationships between things. But in general, I guess people can easily build, in their private imaginations, an edifice of incorrect conclusions about the world, seeing a rounded brown leaf, blown by the wind, as a mouse.

I’m interested in what actually exists “out there” as opposed to what only exists in the human imagination. Because of what physics has shown to be true about the structure of the world, I would identify the characteristics of what exists “out there” as categories, logical and mathematical relationships and numbers, where numbers can only exist if they are equated to a category: I’m assuming that nothing can physically exist “out there” without logical or mathematical relationship to something else. It is not only unattached numbers that don’t exist “out there”, written and spoken symbols also don’t exist “out there”: while what is seen and heard involves physically measurable aspects of the world, it is the symbol part that only exists from the point of view of the human imagination. I think it is important for scientists and philosophers to be clear in their own minds what types of things can only exist in the human imagination, as opposed to what can actually exist “out there”.

I like your “it is no wonder that many scientists hang on to the belief that nature must be strictly deterministic, since they forgot that they defined it in that manner in the first place.” And I agree that “discriminating between beliefs and knowledge” or, as I would put it, what exists “out there” and what only exists in the human imagination, is a huge problem.

I have been reading your essay, and I will comment on it later.

Stefan Weckbach

Lorraine Ford

Hi CornflowerCicada, much thanks for your extended reply and that you like to share your thoughts on my own essay!

Stefan Weckbach

Dear CornflowerCicada,

I want to thank you so much for our exchange of thoughts. I just read your essay again and I highly recommend it for everybody to read and contemplate it. This is good and solid work you have done and worth much more attention than it has received so far in my opinion.

Best wishes
AquamarineTapir

Stefan Weckbach

I think this comment of mine, made on the essay page of CornflowerCicada, should also appear here.

Stefan Weckbach Dear CornflowerCicada,

I want to thank you so much for our exchange of thoughts. I just read your essay again and I highly recommend it for everybody to read and contemplate it. This is good and solid work you have done and worth much more attention than it has received so far in my opinion.

Best wishes
AquamarineTapir

Lorraine Ford

Stefan Weckbach
Dear AquamarineTapir,

Thanks very much for your kind words about my essay, and I like your essay very much too. I also want to thank you, because our exchange has helped me clarify my thoughts. And I am very glad to converse with you because we seem to think about the world in very similar ways.

Best wishes,
CornflowerCicada

Stefan Weckbach

Lorraine Ford

Dear CornflowerCicada,

after a few days absent from the forum, I am back and first of all want to thank you for your kind words. I really do enjoy the exchange with you, since we are on a similar wavelength and that enabled me to also clarify my thoughts, so thanks again to you for your engagement in conversing with me!

Best wishes
AquamarineTapir

Sue Lingo

Right on the mark!!!... with 3 questions that expose the degree to which Science unjustifiably promotes Fact-less abstraction.

IF Fact does not precede abstraction, THEN dogma proliferates.

Given recent technologically enhanced capacity to resolve differentials that facilitate more precise measurements... e.g. the James Webb sky scope/receiver, and the CERN upgrade... it has become increasingly difficult to deny the existence of observable dynamic processes that are indicative of non-measurable substance and structure.

To investigate the bottom line fundamental Fact underlying the motion of the universe requires a unbroken kinematic logic chain, from the measured motion event to the fundamental momentum mechanism.

Such is highly unlikely in a perturbative analysis environment.

However, if one constructs a non-perturbative virtual/digital CAD SIM visual emergence analysis environment... i.e. a conceptual kinematic chain tool... that facilitates visual objectification of a fundamental momentum mechanism, substance, and distribution structure, one can give universal dynamics a basis in Fact.

The derived terms of abstraction... e.g. space, energy, entity, existence etc... would only apply within the specified logic framework, but IF Fact exist prior to abstraction, THEN knowledge can be directly derived from the expression of Fact, AND IF the logic framework and its substance emergence distribution mechanix are consistent with reality, THEN application of derived knowledge to reality, will yield accomplishment.

Although my 2023FQXi Essay: "Digital Science: Emergence of Quantum Consciousness" (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) was intended as a demonstration of how a non-perturbative analysis framework would change science, the demonstration utilized a single point pulse sourced emission of spatially defined minimum/indivisible quanta of Energy (QE), which inherently resolves all forces as derived of a single force, and consequently FQXi rejected my essay as being an "alternative ""theory of everything"", not an essay about how science could be different."

In that the 2023 FQXi competition implementation of alias submission, does not facilitate exchange of participant essays to be utilized as background for discussion in comments, one's ability to enhance the level of the discussion without excessive reiteration is constrained, and FQXi's rejection Of my essay was perhaps serendipitous... i.e. I can herein provide a link to the rejected essay: "Digital Science: Emergence of Quantum Consciousness" (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) ... and the therein proposed logic framework can be utilized to investigate your 3 questions, without danger of proliferating dogma.

“Why is the universe moving?”

Resolve of the underlying mechanix of the numeric differentials requires a mechanical description of emergence fundamentals... i.e. a momentum mechanism, substance, and distribution structure... and the logic component function of each as an operative of the emergence process.

IF given a single source pulsed emission of substance, as a momentum mechanism, a visually objectified minimum/indivisible unit of spatially defined Energy (QE) as substance, and a QE distribution structure quantized by a minimum/indivisible unit of Space (QI), THEN are there observational properties of motion that could not be abstracted from the proposed logic framework and associated emergence mechanix?

Utilizing the proposed logic framework and emergence mechanix associated with a single sourced pulsed emission, QE spin as a consequence of momentum mechanism dynamics, is inherent in Space-Time Energy emergence.

Application of QE scale spin to observable reality, resolves a potential kinematic logic trace, from the fundamental momentum mechanism, with which to derive the QE choreographies of unobservable entities, which underlay observable motion of indeterminate causality.

“What exists?”

To examine "the essential differences between what can actually exist, and what can only exist in individual subjective human minds and imaginations" requires a definition of "exist".

IF physical implies substance occupancy of space, AND space is objectified as the logic structure in which substance dynamics are choreographed by a pulse sourced momentum mechanism, which Spontaneously Harmoniously Resolves (SHR) substance distribution throughout the entire universe, THEN do all manifestations of substance, either as a minimum/indivisible quantum of Energy (QE), or composites thereof, "exist" as physical entities?

Utilizing the proposed logic framework and emergence mechanix associated with a single sourced pulsed emission, a consciousness hierarchy is differentiated, which can be abstracted to imply QE composites that have SOUrceLink (SOUL) access, and other QE composites that do not.

Application of differentiated consciousness hierarchy to reality, resolves a potential uniqueness between humans as digital circuits... i.e. QE composites... manifest by emergence mechanix, and AI as digital circuits... i.e. QE composites... configured by humans from QE composites, manifest by emergence mechanix, that do not have a SOUrceLink.

“Can everything that exists be measured?”

IF the unit of measurement is a minimum/indivisible unit of space (QI), and QE as the minimum/indivisible units of substance, can occupy QI... i.e. QE are spatially defined quanta of potential momentum... does information contained within a QI... e.g. spin direction and quantity of its QE occupants... on a given pulse of the fundamental momentum mechanism "exist" as a measurable physical entity?

Utilizing the proposed logic framework and emergence mechanix associated with a single sourced pulsed emission, a networked intelligence emerges, which can be abstracted to imply a SOURceLinked entities responsibility for monitor and resolve of the "I Am" body as substance, mind as structure, in accord with the Spontaneous Harmonious Resolve (SHR) of QE distribution throughout the entire universe in which we are all embedded.

Acknowledgment of the individual human's function as monitor and resolve of "I Am" body as substance, mind as structure, has application to self healing, and social stability,

In that my essay was rejected, I am unable to vote your essay the 10 rating it deserves, but thank you for your well justified recognition "that non-measurable aspects of the world do in fact exist", and that the views that Science promotes "have implications for how human beings see themselves and the world they live in, including philosophical ideas of ""free will""... i.e. Science's denial of "non-measurable aspects" absolves the individual human being from taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.

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

Lorraine Ford

Sue Lingo
Thank you. As you say: “Science's denial of "non-measurable aspects" absolves the individual human being from taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.”!