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)

    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.”!

      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

        4 days later

        Greetings. Ona clarification, consciousness, at least some aspects of it, can indeed be measured. There are scales like the Glasgow coma scale and others used in the clinic; and there are other more abstract, so to speak, measures of consciousness still too early to be applied in the clinic. We have to consider that consciousness is our term to describe a constellation of phenomena, from sensing and acting to emotions and self-awareness. Many of these aspects can in fact be very well measured, and the reasons as to why some of these phenomena occur are more or less well understood. I could advise you to read my book on the subject matter but I am afraid I am not allowed to disclose my identity.
        As you mention in your essay, it is true that people are obsessed with measuring and quantifying, and some reasons for this I ventured in my essay. I prefer A. T. Winfree's perspective, as he said in his book 'The Geometry of Biological Time': "My deeper motivation is a feeling that numerical exactitude is alien to the diversity of organic evolution, and pretense of exactitude often obscures the qualitative essentials that I find more meaningful"

          Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
          To clarify, I DID in fact note in my essay that “unlike conscious experience, awareness and knowledge, the physical world, including any physical correlates of consciousness, is potentially measurable.”

          Conscious experience, awareness and knowledge is never measured: only any physical correlates of consciousness are measurable. Measurable aspects of the world are (e.g.) categories like mass, relative position, voltage, charge etc. What you get from measurement are numerals (symbols) that apply to a measurement category (also represented by symbols).

          So, if you tried to measure the physical correlates of very bad pain, you might say that the pain is 9.5 on a scale of 10, or something like that. But “pain= 9.5/10” tells you almost nothing about the living conscious experience of pain: you can’t reverse engineer or re-construct the pain experience out of “pain= 9.5/10”.

          “numerical exactitude is alien to the diversity of organic evolution”

          I don’t agree with A. T. Winfree's perspective, that you quote. As physics has shown, numerical exactitude and law of nature relationships are the firm foundation upon which the world is built. I think that “organic evolution” has shown that there are additional aspects of the world that are needed to explain the behaviour of living thing. This is because the survival of living things, even tiny primitive worms, relies on the logical analysis and collation of information coming from their environment.

          But the logical analysis and collation of information (which applies to categories of information, and the numbers that apply to these categories) is an aspect of the world that can’t be derived from laws of nature (which are merely fixed mathematical relationships between these categories of information). So, this implies that an aspect of the world that can perform logical analysis and collation of information is as fundamental and necessary an aspect of the world as are the laws of nature.

            Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
            P.S.
            Physics’ law of nature equations represent invisible relationships that exist between the measurable bits of the world (the measurable bits are categories like relative mass or position), where the mathematical operators and the equals signs in the equations represent the aspects of the world that can’t be measured.

            Similarly, consciousness can probably only exist as logical connections between the measurable bits of the world, where the logical connective symbols (IF, AND, OR, THEN, IS TRUE) also represent aspects of the world that can’t be measured.

              Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
              P.P.S.

              "I prefer A. T. Winfree's perspective, as he said in his book 'The Geometry of Biological Time': "My deeper motivation is a feeling that numerical exactitude is alien to the diversity of organic evolution, and pretense of exactitude often obscures the qualitative essentials that I find more meaningful"

              Here is my analysis of the situation: Looking at the work that physicists do, it is clear that the only types of information that they deal with are categories, relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to these categories. The categories are measurable, and the result of measurement is a number, but the crucial relationships (represented via the use of mathematical operators including equals signs) are invisible, and can’t be measured. All information in the world seems to have this format whereby only these types of mathematical categories are measurable. And as opposed to an equation written on a piece of paper, these categories, relationships and numbers have real power in the world.

              Importantly, the above 3 types of information that characterise the physical world can’t merely exist, because the mere existence of information implies nothing, unless there also exists a knowledge component to the world whereby this type of information is known to the world, or at least known by local parts of the world like particles or atoms or molecules.

              But it is clear that life is using the above 3 types of information to build “higher-level” information via the use of logical connectives (represented as (e.g.) IF, AND, OR, THEN, IS TRUE) to collate and analyse the lower-level information, in order to build an accurate picture of its surrounding world, which is so important for survival in the world. But just like the abovementioned mathematical operators and equals signs represent aspects of the world that are powerful but not measurable, the logical connectives also represent aspects of the word that are powerful but not measurable. And the higher-level “logical categories” that can be built, using logical connectives, out of the lower-level mathematical categories, need to be precise and exact in order to build a reasonably accurate picture of the surrounding world. But these “logical categories” are not necessarily measurable in the same way that lower-level mathematical categories of information are measurable. Despite the physical architecture of the brain, including any special molecules and cells, these higher-level “logical categories” of information are seemingly not measurable because measuring instruments can’t account for the logical connectives.

              So contrary to what you imply, I think that “numerical exactitude” is always there, and precise mathematical and/or logical categories and relationships exist, but seemingly only the type of mathematical categories that are found in the mathematical law of nature relationships are measurable.

                Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
                P.P.P.S.
                Another way of looking at it is:
                If living things, including human beings, are to form a reasonably accurate conscious picture of their surroundings, given the information coming via the senses, then the logical analysis has to be pretty spot on. Otherwise, the living things would not have a reasonable chance of survival.

                But what is the “raw material” upon which the presumably-existing logical connectives (represented as e.g. IF, AND, OR, THEN, IS TRUE) can operate? The only “raw material” upon which this logic can operate are the types of information that actually exist in the real world, i.e., existing categories, existing lawful relationships, and existing numbers, and possibly also the above-hypothesised “logical categories”.

                It is not enough for researchers to construct true-false behavioural truth tables, because the “raw material”, upon which the truth table logical connectives operate, necessarily has to be the types of information that actually exist in the world, from the point of view of the cells and other elements that together make up the living thing. The only way for living things to build the reasonably accurate picture of the surrounding world that they need to survive in the world, is to use: 1) genuinely existing and available information; and 2) genuine logical analysis of the categories and numbers that comprise this genuinely existing information. A reasonably accurate conscious picture of the surrounding world cannot be built any other way.

                    Lorraine Ford
                    But what is information?
                    Underlying all surface appearances, if you want to talk about the fundamental nature of the world, you need to use the tried and true language of physics. The underlying fundamental nature of the world can only be represented in terms of categories (like relative position, mass, momentum, energy), lawful relationships that exist between these categories, and the numbers that apply to these categories. Leaving aside the question of what matter itself is, the relevant types of information that apply to matter are expressed in the language of physics. E.g., the mass of an electron might be symbolically represented as: “m = 0.511 MeV”.

                    While this symbolic form might represent information from the point of view of physicists, how would one symbolically represent the type of on-the-spot information that is available from the point of view of a particle? The only possible way that symbols could be used to represent this on-the-spot point of view information is in the following type of form: “(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE”, using the logical connective “IS TRUE”.

                    My point is that zeroes and ones DO NOT and CANNOT EVER represent real-world information: there is absolutely no real-world information content represented by a zero symbol or a one symbol, or any combination of zero and one symbols. The above type of form, which uses categories, numbers, equals signs and the logical connective “IS TRUE”, is the only valid way to represent real-world information.

                        Lorraine Ford
                        I might sarcastically add, in relation to the issue of “information”:
                        What a shame that poor old Shannon didn’t know the difference between real-world information, and the symbols that people use to represent information. Shannon’s misuse of the word “information” is yet another case of a blind, human-centred, anthropocentric view of the world.

                            Lorraine Ford
                            "consciousness
                            is the aspect of the world involved with the mathematical and logical connections, links,
                            and relationships between things"
                            What about the following deduction from the logical statement:
                            In 1911 Planck had deduced the following result:
                            "The integral of action of a resonator is exactly equal to his constant h and so the energy of the resonator is quatified"
                            In 2023 I had deduced the following result:
                            "The integral of action times K/L where K is the stiffness of the resonator and L its mass should have the dimension of a power. So the energy of the resonator have the form of Planck formulae OR it can have another form as a new universal constant having the dimension of a power times the inertial time of the resonator "
                            How much I can go from my deduction? Perhaps resolving the problem of disparency of vacuum energy between QM and GR, perhaps giving an entropy to vacuum, perhaps showing the limits of René Descartes of his assumption "I think so I am", perhaps extracting energy from vacuum...etc.

                                Alaya Kouki
                                I was suggesting that unmeasurable consciousness might be more about the unmeasurable links and relationships between the measurable aspects of the world. As opposed to the categories that are measurable or calculatable (like mass, energy, momentum, or position), consciousness is more about the unmeasurable mathematical operators, equals signs, and logical connectives. In particular, from the point of view of living things including human beings, consciousness is more about the unmeasurable logical IFs, ANDs, ORs, THENs and IS TRUEs, and similarly unmeasurable logical structures that can be built using these logical connectives.

                                  6 days later

                                  What is the difference between the logical connectives as used by philosophers, and the logical connectives as used by computer programmers in computer programs? As a former computer programmer and analyst myself, this is something I deeply understand, but I think that I didn’t explain this issue very clearly in my essay. And I think that many people without my deep hands-on experience in the industry would not be aware that there is a difference.

                                  With physics’ equations that represent the laws of nature, only the categories that apply to matter (like mass or relative position) are potentially measurable. The very important linking bits that connect and hold the world together, represented by the mathematical operators and the equals signs, are aspects of the world that are assumed to exist, but these symbols represent aspects of the world that are not measurable.

                                  Similarly, if these same categories that apply to matter, with their associated current on-the-spot numbers, were symbolically represented as a logical proposition in a logical statement, e.g.

                                  “IF (P IS TRUE) AND (Q IS TRUE) THEN (R IS TRUE)”,

                                  only the truth of the logical proposition aspect, e.g.

                                  “(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE”

                                  would be potentially verifiable. The logical connectives themselves (like IF, THEN, AND, and IS TRUE) would represent aspects of the world that are not themselves measurable or verifiable.

                                  And, seemingly, there is in fact a logical aspect to the world, just like there is a mathematical-lawful aspect to the world. But, at least one of the logical connective symbols used by philosophers has a different meaning to the same logical connective symbol used by computer programmers in computer programs. The THEN logical connective used by philosophers has a completely different meaning to the THEN connective used by computer programmers in computer programs.

                                  In philosophy, the “THEN” means “logically implies”, but when a computer programmer writes a “THEN” as part of a statement in a computer program, the “THEN” part of the statement is NOT logically implied by the “IF” part of the statement: the “THEN” part of the statement is essentially a product of the creatively free imagination of the computer programmer. However, once written and uploaded to a computer setup, and the computer program is running, the THEN statement becomes a mathematically necessary instruction for the computer to follow, due to the laws of nature.

                                  In computer programming, like in other aspects of real life in the real world, the “THEN” is not logically or mathematically implied by the "IF". In other words, in the real world, free will exists (at least for computer programmers!! 😊 ).

                                    here you want to explain / accentuate the confusion of the fact that , what happens in the programming of the computer is telling, inducing, creating, real true statements about the underlying voltage circuitry that are more or less , remotely related with other physical true statement/experienced phenomena .

                                    this confusion leads to potentially cognitive behaviors language consequences
                                    in philosophy / science the intent is to fix things, discern , clarify, simplify and in programing the intent is to give options

                                    so how this confusion might works, ? if you type something and there are no compilation errors then this gives the impression that the statement is more true than actually is .
                                    or apply after learning (compare and use ) ,the way of how a computer work , distorting to other situations that are not in the same scenario .

                                    i use this statement if - (then) a lot, how do you Lorraine Ford evaluate my written presence ?

                                        cristi marcovici
                                        I will only respond to properly constructed sentences, and a properly constructed argument. I will not waste my time trying to divine what on earth you are talking about.

                                            Lorraine Ford
                                            As opposed to the computer programmer’s “THEN” which, as explained above, is about a logical-creative aspect of the world, philosophy’s “THEN” is actually about the mathematical-lawful aspect of the world. So, while the philosopher and the physicist can see only law, the computer programmer and the artist can see creativity, because the “THEN’” is not implied by the “IF”.

                                            But, is there in fact a genuine creative aspect of the world, where the “THEN’” is not implied by the “IF”, or are the “IF”s and “THEN”s just the superficial appearance of an underlying purely mathematical-lawful world? Seemingly quantum events are showing that at the foundations of the world, the “THEN’” is in fact not implied by the “IF”.

                                            However, hordes of people can’t believe that genuine creativity could exist, and they are furiously trying to find a mathematical-lawful basis for the abhorrent-to-them idea that a genuine logical-creative-knowledge aspect of the world (IF, THEN, AND, OR, IS TRUE) could exist, underlying both the physics of the world, and the appearance of living things. But in my essay I’m contending that a logical-creative aspect of the world is necessary for the world-system to work:

                                            When analysed from a systems point of view, it is easy to see that physics does not have an adequate explanation for why the system (i.e. the world) is moving, i.e. why the numbers are moving and changing. Physics can only ever say: IF some numbers change, THEN other numbers will change (where the ratios between the categories are prescribed by laws of nature). The essential systems issue is that, despite any delta symbols, equations can only ever show relationships between categories, equations can’t ever explain number change in a system. Looking at the world as a system, an adequate explanation of the number change issue requires a completely different aspect of the world: a logical-creative aspect of the world that regularly jumps the numbers to keep the system moving.

                                              Lorraine Ford AmaranthLion
                                              I will only respond to properly constructed sentences, and a properly constructed argument. I will not waste my time trying to divine what on earth you are talking about.

                                              i could say the same about your words, i have no idea what your voice is like, if read i have a default voice that potentially sound like my own voice

                                              i'm interested how ( much) this deviate ,or in what ways, compared to spoken language of a person 1400 years ago, before the printing was invented

                                              , you might be even a literate deaf person that use sign language in the ordinary life , that's even more intriguing
                                              are you a deaf ? since birth, or later in life

                                              are you a man or a woman ?

                                                  cristi marcovici
                                                  As you would know, a disordered jumble of mathematical symbols cannot communicate mathematical ideas to other people. Similarly, a disordered jumble of symbols does not make a computer program that will work; and even the incoming data has to be ordered, or at least in a form that the computer program is set up to processes. Similarly, a disordered jumble of word symbols cannot communicate specific ideas or thoughts to other people, if in fact the communicator has any specific ideas or thoughts that he/she wants to communicate to another person.

                                                  Given that every person or living thing has an entirely different world inside their heads to any other person or living thing, it is up to the communicator to strive to bridge the gap, by using a common ordered language, and also by trying to avoid non sequiturs. The essence of communication, the ideal, is that another person might have an understanding of the communicator’s ideas or thoughts. Communication is hard work, and requires the communicator to consider whether or not what he/she says would make any sense at all to the person being communicated to.

                                                      Lorraine Ford
                                                      Re Symbols:
                                                      How could science be different? Physicists need to notice the difference between the symbols that people use to represent information, and the real-world information itself.

                                                      The human use of symbols requires people to do a high-level analysis of low-level oncoming light and sound data – it’s the sort of thing that human beings specialise in. Speech symbols are not just sound waves, but ordered sound waves; written symbols are not just ink on paper, but ordered ink on paper. While the laws of nature apply to sound waves, ink, paper, and light waves coming from the ink on the paper, the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of ink on paper (i.e. man-made written symbols), and the laws of nature do not apply to the arrangements of sound waves (i.e. man-made spoken symbols). Logical analysis is required to decipher man-made symbols, which are special arrangements of matter.

                                                      Similarly in computers, people have arranged it so that special arrangements and arrays of voltages, within the context of the whole computer setup, can be used as symbols. People have arranged it so that the individual voltages themselves, which have a whole range of actual numeric values, can be used to symbolise just two values, zero and one, i.e. the man-made binary digit concept. And people have arranged it so that the higher voltages in the range can be used to symbolise the binary digit zero OR the lower voltages in the range can be used to symbolise the binary digit zero.

                                                      But the real world (the universe) is not founded on symbols, because the use of symbols requires high-level analysis: the sort of thing that human beings specialise in, and the sort of thing that people can get computers to do. The types of information that the underlying real world uses are: categories, that are inherently related to other such categories, and numbers that apply to these categories. Information in the real world is founded on inherent mathematical interrelationship, i.e. no high-level logical analysis is required.

                                                        As I said in my essay, physics can’t explain why the world is moving and changing: the most that physics can say is that IF some numbers (for some categories like energy, position or momentum) change, THEN other numbers (for other categories) will change.

                                                        As an analyst, this is my further, more detailed, analysis of this issue:
                                                        The physics’ assumption is that some unknown thing provided the initial number change for some of the abovementioned categories at the start of the universe, and the numbers have been changing ever since, on the strength of that single, initial number change for some of the categories, and also on the strength of the laws of nature which mediate the “THEN”, i.e. the consequent number changes for the other categories.

                                                        But that assumption, that a single initial set of number changes is all that is required to drive all subsequent number change, is clearly a fallacy because, when the world is looked at as a system of mathematical relationships, every “THEN”/ consequent number change, arising from that initial number change, is instantaneous i.e. completely outside of time. This is because:

                                                        1) Time is just one of the categories (just like mass and relative position) that make up the mathematical relationships. A system of mathematical relationships does not exist inside one of its own categories. I.e. the mathematical relationships exist as part of the system, but they do not exist in time, which is just a category.

                                                        2) All the “THEN”/ consequent number changes are nothing but lawful mathematical relationships, i.e. they are instantaneous, they “occur” completely outside of time. The number change is instantaneous because the number change is nothing but a mathematical relationship.

                                                        So, the initial “IF” number changes, and all the “THEN”/ consequent number changes, comprise one single step. And then the system stops moving. The system stops moving unless there are more “IF” number changes input to the system. I.e. seen as a system, the world requires the continual input of new numbers if it is to keep moving.

                                                        P.S.
                                                        “Random” quantum events are, objectively, the input of new numbers to the system. So, rather than such quantum events being a problem for the system, as a result of the above analysis, I would conclude that such quantum events are necessary in order for the system to function, i.e. in order for the system to move.