Andrei Kirilyuk
Re “practically structureless”: But what exactly do you mean by structure; what are the basic elements of structure? Don’t the elementary symbols you would use, to represent structure, correspond to the basic elements of structure?

If a state-function that describes the “real-world configuration at that starting moment” exists, then this state-function would seem to represent the knowledge of something with a God’s eye view, or a human being’s view, of the “configuration at that starting moment”. Sorry, but I would doubt that there would have been anything with a God’s eye view (i.e. an objective view) in the early world. Surely there would have been only primitive subjective views and interactions? The same with “self-organisation”: isn’t self-organisation just a God's-eye, bigger-picture view, that doesn’t exist?

Re “In general, however, any real system dynamics is "noncomputable", as opposed to usual computer operation: one more source of usual science problems.”: When you say this, are you in effect agreeing with my essay that physics has no explanation for why the system is moving/ what is the source of movement/ what is driving the system, apart from laws of nature which really only say: “IF something moves THEN something else moves”? However, what is driving the system is also a part of the whole system, and so in order to represent the whole system, what is driving the system must be represented somehow, if only algorithmically. (I would say that, instead of nothing driving the system, it is matter that is driving the system; this can only be represented algorithmically.)

      Lorraine Ford By "practically structureless" I mean the absence of any real structures observable in this world, including all elementary particles. And since "structure" also means "space", there is no common 3D space at the starting system configuration: Even the "empty" (not really) space emerges (together with time) from this interaction development, in a well-defined form and process.

      The interaction unfolding towards real structure is encoded in its "potential energy" (and participating interaction components, with the "simplest" possible but certain, nonzero content), while the state-function describes rather the (evolving) result of the interaction process (it is our "unknown solution to be found", explicitly determined at the start only for that, starting, practically structureless configuration). So, the "God's eye" in your words "sees" that starting interaction potential (and the system components), or the "hidden complexity" of the later emerging world.

      For the "source of movement", the standard science would evoke "forces" or "energy distribution" (let alone "curved time and space"🙂), which are superficial and non-universal answers. Moreover, I state even that the problem is not only why the system is moving, but even what motion is, fundamentally and universally, beyond empirical definitions. I provide such motion definition and without going in details here, I would insist that any causally complete (i.e. truly rigorous) science must consistently derive such fundamental motion definition in terms of emerging process. Indeed, how can one discuss any reliable "laws of motion" without knowing what motion actually is, beyond empirical word plays like "motion is change"?

          Andrei Kirilyuk
          Thanks for explaining. But in my view, the basic elements of structure are categories and relationships, as well as numbers. It doesn’t matter what the particular categories are, or what the particular relationships are: it could be mass or position, or momentum or energy. The basic necessary types of element (the types of element are categories, relationships, and numbers) were there from the start.

          Also in my view, “motion” could be defined as number jumps in one or more of the categories (e.g. the position category), the consequence of which is further number jumps in other categories, due solely to the existence of lawful relationships or ratios between categories. Number jumps are motion, because there is no such thing as smooth, infinitesimal number change. Thanks for answering my questions! 🙂

            6 days later

            Eckard Blumschein In the essay, I specify what it means, how it can be achieved and why it is critically important right now. Some of us can still remember times when fundamental science was great (or at least had that real social status). But now we need even much more than that previous high level…

              Like the "Global Externalities" essay, "Causually Complete Science" does rightfully point out the dominant economic power structures that saturate our cultures and thus our science organization, this essay saying that feature more related to our social system and planetary civilization and thus the "socially important reason why we should make science great again by passing to the superior level of causally complete, intrinsically realistic and therefore truly reliable knowledge." Current essay is rather dense. Not sure how you pass into this truly reliable knowledge. Probably requires closer reading on my part.

                James Hoover Thank you for your attention. It seems we agree on the necessity of essential changes in science content, organization and practice, leading to a superior level of results. I just propose a rigorously confirmed way of such changes, although presented in the form of a general description in this essay. However, this general presentation has its own importance, since it emphasizes the urgent need for such a change, if we want that the entire science enterprise preserves its role as the irreplaceable progress driver and truly objective, consistent and reliable form of knowledge.

                  6 days later

                  Thanks for your reply (17 days ago). I agree entirely that most issues are caused by our lack of knowledge. I've published a successful if slightly complex 'quantum' measurement interaction sequence reproducing the QM data, or 'predictions', in a top PR journal, but so far ignored as all run away screaming "NO! that can't be right! QM is weird". So knowing you're right doesn't necessarily seem to help advance mans understanding! The intelligent Aliens I seem to 'Interview' agree, and also show how it can unify most physics! A link is in my references, or free access preprint; Springer-Nature; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352056822_The_Measurement_Problem_an_Ontological_Solution
                  Great job on yours, worth a good score. Well done. I think you'll line mine too.

                  Hi PinkJungfowl

                  I see you have 9 ratings and so need one more to qualify for the next stage of the contest. I need another 4. Would you like to help each other get across the line by reading and rating each others essays over the weekend? Mine is titled "Age of Knowledge"

                  Cheers
                  Swan

                    Steven Andresen Hi PersimmonSwan. I must say that any kind of "rating by exchange" is explicitly forbidden by the competition rules, and I think it's reasonable already logically: if many participants do it, there will be unjustified equalization of ratings, which makes the competition senseless as such. All I can say is that I've read your essay a few weeks ago and found it interesting, especially taking into account the current progress of AI technologies. Obviously, I would be pleased to receive your high rating, but only if you do like my ideas about the way science should be changed. After all, the competition is important, but science problems we discuss are finally much more important, especially because of the critical state of fundamental knowledge (and the world) we can see today. That is the ultimate reason for trying our best judgements, in the essays and their ratings. And by the way, as far as I could understand from the rules, it's the average rating value that matters for the competition, not the number of ratings.

                        Andrei Kirilyuk Ive just finished reading your essay. You make some very good points. The paradigm of mathematical formalisms is overwhelmingly dominant at the expense of other approaches. Many scientists of today think this is a desirable result, however you and I know better. I think their inability to depart from their maths is a symptom of them not knowing the bigger universal context, the overview. If something is understood then that context can be represented with words. The fact that science only has mathematical formalism is actually a shortcoming.

                        By contrast, the origin of life and species is largely understood as being Darwinian evolution. And Darwinian evolution lends itself to rich context and descriptions. The point being, if people understand something then that understanding can be articulated. However QM and Cosmology are pretty much devoid of any comparable understanding. Math is powerful, however on its own its like a man with one leg called Hopalong. If we can fill in the absent universe context then we might run along. I believe the missing context is that the universe is also a product of Darwinian progression, and if you recall my discussion with Chat GPT 4 I believe the evidence of this reality is abundant. People are very reluctant to consider this possibility though, even while countless arguments can be made for the affirmative. It must be that it defies their expectations so thoroughly.

                        In any case thank you for writing a wonderful essay and for reading mine. I wish you all the best for your work and for the contest. I will go ahead and rate your essay now.
                        Swan

                            Andrei Kirilyuk I cant imagine its against the rules to request somebody to read and rate their essay, and in kind. And yes, the rating should be legit based on your honest assessment. My understanding is that we each need 10 ratings to qualify for the next round. So I suggest neither of us should settle for less. And you have your 10 now, so congratulations.

                              Steven Andresen Thank you for the exchange. I can add that mathematics can be extended too to avoid current contradictions and separation from the unreduced reality, including much more natural translation between mathematics and usual language with its common-sense logic. In any case, further science progress needs more essential changes than only usual application of the same, fundamentally incomplete framework to new objects and contexts. This qualitative extension of modern science paradigm may seem less obvious, but time has come to try it using the maximum consistency criterion. Good luck to you with the competition and beyond.

                                Write a Reply...