Dr. Casey Blood,

Thank you for your response. I will post a reply about your ideas in your forum.

I did know, of course, that the equation is not exact. The work I do is still developing at an elementary level, so, I look forward to refining it later. I am not dismissing the margin of error. I know it is important to determine why that is the case. However, the lure of unity is a powerful attractor. I do not mean this in an argumentative manner. My work and its results do not, admittedly, rise anywhere near the level necessary to compete with the high quality of today's theories. Still, I feel certain that the fundamental properties used in those theories are theoretical inventions. It is my problem to demonstrate that that is the case. It won't involve anyone else. When I posted my messages about your essay, I did not mean to involve you in a discussion about mine. I purposefully write my essays so that they do not put my theoretical work forward for consideration. Instead I write those things that I think might help sow the seed of doubt about the givens of today's theories.

The goal, for me, is to discover fundamental unity. I will be working toward this goal, for now, from the fundamental level. The purpose is to drive out all misdirections that have slipped into theoretical physics. It is my opinion that they exist even with f=ma. In my essay, I simply introduce the possibility that misinterpretation might exist at that simple level. I do not develop a case for that possibility. I believe I already know the answer and have worked it out. However, I do not enter these contests in order to promote my work, which is still very elementary and definitely incomplete.

James

6 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #22

It almost reads like a political manifesto, but its conclusions seem not irrelevant to me.

Andreas Martin Lisewski,

Thank you for letting me know that you see worth to what I have to say. When I write, I feel that I am stating what is on my mind in a conversational manner. However, when I read it after posting it does seem to communicate impatience and confrontation. I will work on trying to come across as someone who appreciates the give and take and the benefit of conversing with others. I have printed your essay and read it once. Yours is challenging for me to follow. So, I will be reading it several times before commenting on it. I wish to use other author's time constructively. Your opinion, ideas, and expertise are appreciated.

James

4 days later

James Arthur Putnam,

I believe that I have enjoyed your essay more than any other I have read (and I've read about 40 of them.)

I also enjoyed your response to Steve when he informed you that he had mistakenly given you a low score. Your answer was so gracious that it changed my own attitude of frustration at my relatively low score, and reminded me of the debt we owe FQXi for the opportunity to present and read fresh ideas.

Your first comment on my essay was to express your appreciation of my pointing out that recent papers use "postulated, but never seen, phenomena" to explain other "postulated but never seen phenomena". You then stated that you would come back to my essay. I hope that you did. I would invite you to (re-)read it and leave me feedback.

You use the term 'awareness' a few times and 'intelligence' many times. I like to separate the two, because I think they are "physically" different. I define

consciousness = awareness plus volition(free will)

as a field property, and

intelligence = consciousness plus logic (circuitry)

as the combination of the field interacting with matter (hardware). I agree with you that "dumbness evolving into intelligence does not make sense."

My concept of consciousness as a continuum or field property of the universe, one that has been here since the big bang, is I believe, very much related to your investigation of the "source of cause". Although you point out that the assignment of equations to physics tends to induce a "mechanical" interpretation, I have nothing mechanical in mind when I consider the innate "free will" of the consciousness field, but there is no 'intelligence' until the field interacts with logic circuitry (which it evolves from matter over time.) The 'models' or 'thoughts' are "constructed" in the brain, but the *understanding* or, more specifically, the awareness of such thought is in the consciousness field local to the brain.

The primitive, primordial awareness of the consciousness field is not "intelligent" in the sense that it does not possess logic, but it is aware of increased 'mechanical' complexity and apparently 'favors' the evolution of such increase in material complexity.

Some essays in this contest assert that conscious awareness is 'non-physical', but this is counter to our experience.

Other essays believe in a Platonic universe in which mathematical forms exist as 'mechanical' ideals, and that these somehow become physical. I reject this.

My essay begins by assuming that there is no 'law' of physics imposed from outside the physical universe, but that it is through the interaction of the "one-thing" universe (the primordial field) with itself that it governs its own behavior, giving rise to physics. This sentence is easy to formulate symbolically, yielding a 'master equation' that quickly reduces to Newton's equation and also produces a generalized form of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

You state in your comments that you are beginning to rethink the uncertainty principle, as the first step in your goal to re-evaluate quantum theory. I would suggest that you might find it valuable to consider using the generalized uncertainty principle as a starting point. Since it can be reformulated as Heisenberg's format, you lose nothing and you might gain something from this approach, as it focuses more on the flow of matter than upon uncertainty in position, etc. I believe it is a "deeper" version of the uncertainty principle.

Also, if one accepts (for purposes of argument) that a consciousness field has awareness and volition then the awareness covers your statement that:

"one electron knows about the existence of another electron."

Actually, the field is aware of both and affects both particles.

If the field can be said to in any way exhibit "free will", then there is an inherent unpredictability that would manifest itself as probabilitic behavior at the quantum level, as opposed to deterministic. This approach resembles somewhat the 'hidden variable' interpretation, although it's clear that Bohm did not anticipate a consciousness field guiding the particles.

Two more points:

First, almost everyone in this contest is "selling" and very few are "buying". Frustrating, but not surprising. It's the nature of the event.

Second, I often find that a long period of "vocabulary synchronization" is necessary before two experts in different fields can really begin to communicate. This is most particularly true with terms like, mind, awareness, intelligence, free will, cause, matter, life, knowledge, information, and purpose.

I find your thinking exceedingly clear,and your selling very low key. I plan to look at some of your other work. And although you fairly clearly state that you're going your own way and working out your own ideas, I believe that you might find my approach complementary and helpful. And while I have satisfied myself that the C-field interpretation of quantum mechanics (as a variation on the hidden variable approach) makes sense and is compatible with the facts of QM as they are known, I would be very interested in any analysis that you might come up with. I encourage you to (re-) read my essay and respond with your comments. I would be very interested in reading them.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dr. Klingman,

Thank you very much for that kind message. I have read your essay several times and will prepare some comments. I think your work is very important. I have not rated any essays yet. However, I will be giving you a high rating. I was waiting for any temptations, that may or may not have occurred, to pull others down with low ratings to be over with. Now maybe the ratings will rise. I will be posting a message in your forum and another response here in mine. Thank you again.

James

Dr. Klingman,

Thank you for your kind message. I have read your essay several times. I will post a comments message in your forum.

I have been on the Internet for several years. This included participation in science forums and the establishment of my own website http://newphysicstheory.com. The reception has usually been hostile. I do not bother with the science forums any longer. There is a prevalent prejudice toward defending the status quo. The restrictiveness is due to moderators and not participants. Participants are expected to challenge the ideas of others. The moderators tend to not want different viewpoints from their own expressed any longer than it takes for them to offer their viewpoint as proof that the subject thread is not scientifically worthwhile. Also, I do not give out personal information. The reason is because critics often turn to attacking the messenger instead of the message. So, I leave only the message available. They can either criticize it or say nothing. FQXi is definitely different. Their contests and forums are a valuable contribution to science on the Internet.

I said above that the reception has usually been hostile. That is not true for my website. If you were to search the words new physics theory or new theoretical physics you will find my website at the top of the list. Even the words physics theory will result in my being close to or at the top. It stays there due to its own merits. I do not point this out to promote myself here. My work is very much out of the mainstream and is unrecognized by the physics community. Still, many visitors download what I have to say and keep my website at the top. Here is the first reason for bringing this up: I applaud the efforts of physicists who try to push their science beyond mechanics and reach toward including awareness, consciousness, intelligence and life.

Others who attempt this important work do not need to be in agreement with me for me to appreciate their work. I think your essay and some others presented here are very important examples of how one might proceed. I do not know what the correct path is. I have chosen one for myself to follow. However, I have not even begun to free my work from the mechanical mindset. I do not know how to do this. I proceed on the possibility that correct physics theory might indicate the correct path to all properties of the universe. The most I strive for at this time is to establish a theory based upon fundamental unity beginning at the very beginning. If there is only one mechanical source of cause, then hopefully it can be translated into the original source of intelligence. In any case, I look forward to the possibility that the correct mathematical analysis of the universe, even from the mechanical perspective, will be applicable to some important degree to the analysis of intelligent life.

Now, the second reason for this lengthy message. If it would be of interest to you, I could provide, at my website, information and links to your work and the work of some other participants here. I have not, in the past, placed the work of others nor any outside links at my website. However, for PhD physicists who are seriously pursuing real connection between physics theory and intelligent life, I would be pleased and honored to help provide Internet exposure for their work. Agreement with my work is definitely not required nor expected. Variety is desirable. It is the quality that matters. Maybe you and others already have the kind of Internet exposure that you are satisfied with. However, if my website could be of value, I am offering it. You will probably want to be aware of how very different my own work is before considering this offer. Take some time and evaluate it. If you prefer to decline it, I understand. I still admire you for your work.

James

James Arthur Putnam,

Thanks for all of your remarks, including the last one.

This is to advise you that I have posted comments on Stefan Weckbach's essay and on Johnathan J Dickau's essay and on Terry Padden's essay, all of which I believe you may find interesting. I have also mentioned your essay on Terry Padden's.

This is proving to be quite an informative and enjoyable contest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

  • Post #28

Dear James,

I am reading your paper. I understand you have questions about Theoretical Physics. If you are going to dissect the meaning of F=ma, you are undoing Centuries of fruitful work. Whether it is right or wrong, this is how we have been trying to deduce "Natural Philosophy" for Centuries. I do however agree with you that we need to better understand what mass is. You focus so much on action that I'm surprised you didn't tackle action-at-a-distance or quantum entanglement.

The foundation of all physical knowledge is Experimental Data. From data, we build simple understandable models (usually based on mathematics) that lead to Hypotheses, Theories and Laws. These Hypotheses, Theories and Laws should in turn reproduce data via the interpretation of our models.

But the system is not perfect. Data can be manipulated. It reminds me of the old Bob Seger lyrics "Deadlines and commitments. What to leave in, what to leave out?" An experimentalist can skew the data with chosen "cuts". Likewise, it is difficult to directly challenge a successful Theory. For instance, we know that General Relativity doesn't work at microscopic/ quantum scales, but we also know that it works well at cosmic scales. Do we throw it in the garbage, or do we accept the fact that it (like all of us) has limitations? Einstein won his Nobel Prize for the Photoelectric Effect - it wasn't as controversial as Relativity and it was easier to prove in a laboratory. We know that we don't have "THE TOE" yet - even though I am proposing a candidate model. A true TOE may be difficult to prove in the laboratory. And who's to say that we will reach the peak of that mountain only to discover a taller mountain behind it?

Perhaps the problem is that we take our Hypotheses, Theories and Laws too seriously, and derive Philosophical "truths" from our theories. Is it better to build all of our "theories" into a computer program that always give the right answer, but we don't have any clue to the processes involved? Or is it better to take our "theories" too literally and lose ourselves in one possible successful explanation of a process?

You proposed an interesting equation: h=kec. Of course you mention that the units don't match up (k has an inverse Kelvin that none of the other terms contain), and thus the "equal sign" is a misnomer. If you want to play with oddball mathematical similarities, my favorite is Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis. I think there is real physics behind that crazy number 1040.

Physics by itself does not actually attempt to explain the emergence of life or intelligence. The Origin of Life is that strange transition from non-living Organic Chemistry (inanimate objects bouncing around) into living Biology (with free-will and not deterministic robots?). This is still an open subject of debate in the sciences (Physics, Chemistry and Biology). The increase in complexity of life is generally attributed to Evolution, although Darwinian and non-Darwinian (such as Punctuated Equilibrium) models exist, and there may have been multiple processes leading to the modern diversity of life. Still, this emergence of complex life and intelligence involves Biology and Information Theory more so than Physics. As a non-Biologist/ non-Information theorist trying to explain this concept, the increasing complexity component of Darwin's model was assumed in "Survival of the Fittest" (somehow the survivor is smarter, stronger, or better adapted, thus implying increased complexity over the failed individuals), and Claude Shannon's Information Theory says that information or complexity scales as N ln(N), where N is the number of information bits. The most critical part that Physics explains is how heavy elements such as Carbon, Calcium, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Iron (that were not created in the Big Bang along with Hydrogen and Helium) were cooked up by Supernova explosions. I prefer to think of myself as recycled "star dust", not recycled worm-food. Although I am a fan of the Anthropic Principle (which is more philosophy than physics), and don't believe that the entire Universe can be random, and I understand that this biases my opinions, I still think we need to use Physical Processes to explain Physical Phenomena.

You said "Even particles, at their simple level, know about the existence of each other. That is why they react with one another. They are in communication with one another." I think this idea is compatible with my geometrical approach towards a TOE. The elementary particles all share a "lattice" and they each know their nearest-neighbors (whom they can transform into) within the lattice.

So where does that leave us? I think we do our best to explain that which can be explained. Will we ever know everything? Most likely not, but it is Human to keep trying to learn through trial and error...

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray,

Thank you for reading my essay. I will post a later message to address the major thrust of your message; however, I have just enough time to make one point. That sample equation (or non-equation) was offered as an example. I thought it might be received as something demanding attention. I was wrong. As I wrote to Dr. Casey, that equation was derived within the context of a new theory. With respect to f=ma that is the equation that was re-interpreted and led to the equation posted. Here is my immediate point: There are other equations that also were derived where the units also did not match. More examples of these equations can be viewed at my website http://newphysicstheory.com in the essay titled A Physics Challenge. What I wish to say in this message is that the units do match in the theory that produced them. I don't think that they represent a numbers game. However, your opinion would be valued.

I have been reading your essay. Your work is more sophisticated (skillfull) than mine. So, it is taking some time for me to comment on it. I am impressed with your innovation. As soon as I feel confident I will send you a message in your forum.

James

Dear Ray,

"If you are going to dissect the meaning of F=ma, you are undoing Centuries of fruitful work."

This is the part of my work that I hesitated to put forward outside of my website. The reason is the same as what you have said above. I think there is no point in trying to say that I am undoing Centuries of fruitful work.

"I do however agree with you that we need to better understand what mass is.'

Mass must be properly interpreted or all else will be wrong.

"You focus so much on action that I'm surprised you didn't tackle action-at-a-distance or quantum entanglement."

I had the same challenge that you had. We had to make minimal case to fit it within ten pages. My work is more extensive than my essay.

"The foundation of all physical knowledge is Experimental Data."

That is why I returned to f=ma to reconsider physics theory. The evidence is always in terms of ratios of distance with respect to time. The data is brought to us by photons and their information, from a mechanical interpretation, is distance per unit of time.

"Theories and Laws should in turn reproduce data via the interpretation of our models."

And I agree. Since good theories and laws are based upon good data, they should reflect or predict additional good data. That is until they reach the limitations of the patterns of empirical evidence upon which they are based.

"...it is difficult to directly challenge a successful Theory. For instance, we know that General Relativity doesn't work at microscopic/ quantum scales, but we also know that it works well at cosmic scales. Do we throw it in the garbage, or do we accept the fact that it (like all of us) has limitations?"

I understand how difficult it is. I understand that it is a lengthy ongoing process that does not have a clear ending. The reason that I challenge relativity theory, and many more theoretical ideas, is that it was not based upon sufficient empirical evidence. What I mean by this is that if relativity theory were fundamentally correct then it would have arisen naturally from the fundamentals. The use of transform equations, I think, betrays its lack of fundamental support and allowed it to avoid referrencing itself to comprehensive empirical data. It is either valid from cause and effect data or it should be challenged. It cannot be based upon properties such as space and time, for which we have no ability whatsoever to experiment upon. I think its limitations derive from the weakness of its derivation.

"You proposed an interesting equation: h=kec. Of course you mention that the units don't match up (k has an inverse Kelvin that none of the other terms contain), and thus the "equal sign" is a misnomer. If you want to play with oddball mathematical similarities, my favorite is Dirac's Large Numbers Hypothesis. I think there is real physics behind that crazy number 1040."

I addressed this in an introductory manner in my previous message. Let me know what you think.

"Physics by itself does not actually attempt to explain the emergence of life or intelligence."

I think, physics has to provide the basis for life and intelligence or it loses it status as the foundational science.

"The increase in complexity of life is generally attributed to Evolution, although Darwinian and non-Darwinian (such as Punctuated Equilibrium) models exist, and there may have been multiple processes leading to the modern diversity of life. Still, this emergence of complex life and intelligence involves Biology and Information Theory more so than Physics. As a non-Biologist/ non-Information theorist trying to explain this concept, the increasing complexity component of Darwin's model was assumed in "Survival of the Fittest" (somehow the survivor is smarter, stronger, or better adapted, thus implying increased complexity over the failed individuals), and Claude Shannon's Information Theory says that information or complexity scales as N ln(N), where N is the number of information bits."

Darwin's model is not suffcient and he recognized this. He did not address the development intelligence. In this sense he accepted a level of understanding that is reflected in physics theory. In other words, put the parts together and watch them attempt to win their cause. However, the parts have no cause unless there is reason and purpose. Intelligence must be included from the beginning or nothing put forward has a basis for its the meaningful results.

"Although I am a fan of the Anthropic Principle (which is more philosophy than physics), and don't believe that the entire Universe can be random, and I understand that this biases my opinions, I still think we need to use Physical Processes to explain Physical Phenomena."

The point is that these physical processes are currently based upon theoretical causes that exclude the intelligent purpose that they actually need to produce results that lead to intelligent life. I am saying that I believe that the causes put forward to us by theoretical physics are imaginary and are the cause for the rift between theoretical physics and intelligent life.

"You said "Even particles, at their simple level, know about the existence of each other. That is why they react with one another. They are in communication with one another." I think this idea is compatible with my geometrical approach towards a TOE. The elementary particles all share a "lattice" and they each know their nearest-neighbors (whom they can transform into) within the lattice."

Your approach is opposed to my approach. I do not mean that I think mine is superior to yours. I mean that I need to know what it is that you think and have accomplished. I will continue to digest your essay and comment as quickly as I can. Thank you for your respectful criticism.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #31

Dear James,

Yesterday, I posted a friendly critique of your work, and today I will post friendly responses to your responses. My score drops every day - I'm getting a bit tired of this, but I'll be nice...

It is good to question space, time and mass. In another essay, Hans-Thomas Elze is proposing that spacetime may be fundamentally discrete. If this is true, we should expect small-scale modifications to Relativity. Certainly, we don't understand the nature of time - FQXi had a contest about that and the entries were quite varied. We don't understand mass. Is there just one Higgs boson? If so, we might understand mass once we discover it and research its properties. But the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model expects a complex scalar doublet coupling to top quarks, and another complex scalar doublet coupling to bottom quarks, and this leads to a family of Higgs particles (light, heavy, pseudoscalar, charged- positive and negative). Discovering and analyzing the properties of all of those Higgs bosons may take a lifetime. To make matters worse, my model predicts a hierarchy of Higgs-like scalar bosons.

Regarding cause and effect - yes, we all had limitations. I understand why you didn't tackle action-at-a-distance or quantum entanglement.

All I am saying is that we have the benefit of Centuries worth of trial and error (an advantage of intelligence coupled with language), and we have inherited a system that seems to work. Does it work like Ptolemy's epicycles and deferents? If so, there may be room for simplification and clarification. I am biased in that I think you need to study a field in order to overthrow it. For example, I purposely studied the Standard Model and Renormalization to try to overthrow those ideas. If you read my book (link on my blog site), you may get a better understanding of the evolution of my ideas on GUT/ TOE. Lawrence Crowell knows General Relativity, and he would be a good person to attack that idea. My friend, Steve Dufourny calls Lawrence and I the two "mavericks". But you also need to think you have insight that others don't have, and dedicate your life to making it happen, because it may take your lifetime to work out the details and convince the rest of the Physics Community that you have a worthwhile idea (Lawrence and I aren't so young anymore). Some of these theoretical ideas are deeply rooted.

I would prefer not to talk about equations with wierd units. Maybe you have discovered a new fundamental constant of order 1 with wierd units, or maybe it is just coincidence. I have seen a lot of numbers that could be just coincidence. Last year, I corresponded with Mohamed El Naschie. He does a lot of things with the Golden Ratio (which is rooted in the icosahedron - which is part of my model) and Fractals that are quite interesting. But without understanding the theory behind the numbers, these coincidences don't really make any sense.

You confuse me some. You seem to make a big deal out of the emergence of life and intelligence, but you never mention the buzz words of Anthropic Principle or Design. I guess you wanted people to read your entire paper and not prejudge you on a buzz word. Michael Behe makes arguments for Design based on irreducible complexity. Using the eye as an example, how can we argue a step-by-step evolution of the eye? For instance, a lowly-evolved eye that functions at only 10% might not be much of an advantage towards survival.

Regarding the emergence of life and intelligence, this involves Physics, Philosophy, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology, Information Theory, Artificial Intelligence, Language, etc. You make a valid point that there is a level of understanding of this phenomeina at the Physics level. It seems to me that most physicists are specialists, and would not tackle such a broad issue. "Its not my job/ goal/ dream."

You said "Your approach is opposed to my approach. I do not mean that I think mine is superior to yours. I mean that I need to know what it is that you think and have accomplished. I will continue to digest your essay and comment as quickly as I can. Thank you for your respectful criticism." I don't think we are as different as you imply. We are both questioning the apparent ugliness of an inherited system. I question the ugliness of the Standard Model, and you question the ugliness of Relativistic transforms. We have different insights and mathematical methods, but a common goal of trying to make physics more understandable, more simple, more clear.

Good Luck!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray,

Thank you for your lengthy response. I appreciate reading your viewpoint. Since this contest is about the essays that we each posted here, I will try to avoid pressing ideas that I did not cover in my essay. I think I should be working on finishing these essays and try to ask meaningful questions that give the authors an opportunity to say more. I have read each of them one or more times; but, they are challenging reads. There is no need to respond to this message unless you wish to. The rest is for any interested readers.

With regard to my own essay, it was carefully written to present a train of thought. If any point I make along the way doesn't sell, then the rest won't either. So, I will just point any interested readers to my section about the unknown nature of cause. My discussion about f=ma was intended to introduce the idea that we may already be working with contrived units. Since the data that is used to model that equation consists only of distance and time, then, I think the question should be asked: What other valid way or ways could this equation have been interpreted and what units would then have been adopted? I will not refer to kilograms as weird, but rather were they necessary? A new answer would undo centuries of fruitful work; however, perhaps it also would greatly simplify theory and lead us to quicker, easier, and more unified equations. Anyway, it appears clear to me that the original decision was an educated guess instead of a self directing natural advance in theory. For me, that leaves the decision open to question.

James

I encourage everyone to read and rate the essay "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness" by Dr Edwin E. Klingman. There is excellent conversation taking place in his forum.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #34

Me too I agree ,the consciousness is essential .

Some essays are very relevant about the conscious.

Best Regards

Steve

  • [deleted]

  • Post #35

F= ma ....I love it ,fantastic universal link between the mass and the acceleration implying forces .The MRU or MRUA ,....I like so much Newton ,for me it's the better with Borh .These laws are universals and shall rest for ever .The motion ,ah this motion implying all .

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, very very very good ,the royal society with Darwin too has made a good work indeed .Sir Newton thanks a lot .

The gravity and the mass with this motion ,more the rotating spheres are all in an evolution point of vue .Newton and Borh were pragmatics and it is well like that .The pragmatic rests i the rationality ,the team of pseudo sciences and inutile imaginaries extrapolations are on the other side of course .A frontier between them .Fortunally what some people understand .....fortunally for the fundation of sciences .

Mr Borh ,Mr Newton ,Mr Darwin ,.....THANKS.

Regards

Steve

to all what do you think about these equations ?

Let's extrapolate the forces .

Dear Steve,

I see mechanical style physics theory as representing the lowest level of understanding about this universe that gave birth to intelligent life. Mechanics, for me, is a very useful artifact, but, is no more than a human invention in that it is filled with choices that were educated guesses confined by an ideology. The choices themselves leave the theory open to challenge. More importantly, the existence of intelligent life leave all of the mechanical viewpoint open to challenge.

Dr. Klingman joins mechanics with consciousness in a way that unites them. I tend to think that even if mechanics is artificial as I think it is, the kind of work that Dr. Klingman has developed would still be an important step to take before trying to totally remove the mechanical interpretations. So, while I strongly feel that any mechanical interpretation is no more than a mechanically useful idea for mathematically solving mechanical problems, I cannot yet put forward anything more than just another mechanical type theory. Dr. Klingman should be recognized for successfully bringing consciouness into modern physics theory.

The subject of this essay contest is 'What is Ultimately Possible for Physics' It seems clear to me that if physics is to remain the foundational science that, when fully developed, will lead naturally into the other sciences, then it must free itself from its mechanical ideology and make serious moves to produce more comprehensive theory such as Dr. Klingman has done. His essay should be highly rated.

I encourage visitors to read and rate highly Dr. Klingman's essay 'Fundamental Physics of Consciousness'.

James

  • [deleted]

  • Post #37

Deat James ,

I liked too his essay and his whole point of vue .The consciousness can be interpreted like a result of the building ,this polarisation .

The sciences need this kind of works .

The unification is in all topics with some adaptations of course with the locality and intrinsic parameters .

I think really what the conscious and the complementarity are two fundamentals of our laws .

For the contest ,the title is relevant but I am personally a little sad about the essays ,there is a little lack of creativity this year in the whole .

Nothing about

the astrobiology and the unification of lifes and intelligences in the future ,more the technology ,some extrapolations were interistings about the morphology of adaptation in their environment ....HCNO NH3 CH4 H2O HCN..H2C2 TIME AND ENERGY create amino acids ...their adaptation is incredible if we link with PV=nRT ....More photosynthetic synthesis,chimio adaptation .....the specific factors are important .

Nothing too about our Earth system and its ecology ,it's an ultim aim too in physic because the physic is everywhere.

The propulsion in our space too ,nothing ,

"I invite all people to take a look about a work of Ray Munroe about the propulsion ,he send me some months ago a work ,very interesting about a new propulsion system "

Nothing about the real evolution of our Universe ,some ideas but .

I didn't see too new energetic systems or an ultim improvement about our health and the dead cells .

Nothing too about our solar system and its planets and our galaxy ,their rules ,their complemnatrities ,....

About the fusion too ,nothing .

There are many possibilities for our future ,even about the universal language which is the music ,nothing ,

Etc etc ....the ultim vegetable ,our future intelligence ,our diversity too ,the ultim computer ,the medicaments ....or therapy .....

Nothing about the artificial intelligence ,impossible for me ,and the consiousness link .

But it was a pleasure to read them ,likeable to see so much skills in fact here on FQXi ,many people are supers.It's the most important .

I think really what 1000 scientists on the same problem,even on the same place ,focus together pragmatically are more efficients than 1000 places in competition with one scientist.

The individualism and our global system decrease the velocity of improvement and the speed of evolution .

I wish you ,like Mr Klingman ,Narendra Nath and otehrs a good luck for the results of this essay contest .

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Steve,

I am sure that everyone put forward the best arguments they could within the ten page limit. I could have said much more and so could have everyone else. I plan on returning to comment on Ray Munroe's essay if I think I can say something constructive. I do not believe in nor try to develop that kind of theoretical physics. However, it is for the physics community at large to determine the future direction of their science. So long as symmetry theory is in vogue, then I am interested in learning about it. I save my enthusiasm for theories that move theoretical physics more in line with the higher sciences instead of the higher sciences feeling obliged to distort themselves in an effort to link to the mechanical type ideas of theoretical physics. For whatever it is worth, that is my opinion.

James

I like my own essay and I appreciate everyone who reads and comments on it. Thank you for your input. I encourage visitors to also visit Dr. Klingman's forum. Please read and rate, I hope highly, his essay 'Fundamental Physics of Consciousness'.

James Putnam

  • [deleted]

  • Post #40

Dear James ,

I think like that too .I am tolerant ,it's important ,sometimes I write too quickly .But even if I don't agree I love read their imaginaries extrapolations ,my favorite are Ray ,Jason and Lawrence ...they are a very good team .

The sciences are like that ,it's the life .All is complementary if we synchronize of course the rationality and the physicality with math tools .

What I find fantastic is the potential of a team of scientists focus on the same objectif .All is there ,we can always accelerate the process .

You know let's take for example here the FQXi friends .Let's focus for example on the creation of a flying car with a system of propulsion .

In one week we have elaborated this car which flies and is balanced in the air .

I have an idea with a add of spheres with holes and pression .Like ten spheres under the car and a systems of small holes .The most important is the system of balance .

In fact all that to say what to work in team and focus is the most important to invent ,innovate ,create ,solve ,harmonize .

It's the ultim complementarity ,work together in fact .It's too a message of the universal consciousness ,the unification is everywhere .

Best Regards

Steve