• [deleted]

  • Post #21

Hi Frank,

I did read your essay here are some thoughts:

1. You mentioned that "Reductionist thinkers tend to pick apart my essay, as they lack [what is a greater] integrated extensiveness in their thinking."

You chose a difficult road in entering this contest because reductionist thinkers are the vast majority in FQXi. I am a reductionist thinker myself except of course when I am confronted by a tiger, at which point I become a very religious integrated extensive.

2. I agree with your intuition about space-time containing energy, real energy and not the zero point energy kind. My work points to this and I think experiments can be performed to show this.

3. You have had some insight about dreams and how they connect to physical phenomena. You may be correct but you have not shown me in a way I can understand how to get to this realization.

4. It is like Zeno telling the world that reality is pure being, and physical object reality along with thinking is an illusion. It is my belief that Zeno did not make much headway with his saying over and over again that reality is pure being. That is when he wrote his book of paradoxes that at least can be appreciated by all those reductionist Greeks.

5. You work has expanded the range of the essay contest. And the judging is yet to be done.

Best of Luck,

Don L.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #22

ATTN: ALL -- Consider that the following is central to any proper and complete understanding of both thought and experience in general:

Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well.

How do you think that memory is possible?: By making thought more like sensory experience in general. Dreams are much like memory. But an expanded definition/understanding of memory and dreams is at hand. Memory integrates experience -- that is HUGE.

Now, I will give you all great, valuable, useful, meaningful, and original definitions/understandings of both memory and dreams:

Memory integrates experience and is necessary for the improved integration of a greater totality of experience; and here lies its connection with the advancement of consciousness and genius. Memory increases (or adds to) the extensiveness, desirability, predictability, and intentionality of experience. Memory is an aid with regard to the extensiveness of intentionality in regard to experience. The loss (or reduction) in both memory and the intentionality of experience that occurs in the dream helps to explain why we are basically (or significantly) without the use of our body therein.

Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism).

I encourage the important efforts of the FQXi participants regarding what is the interactive nature of being and experience. Do any of you have any questions for me?

  • [deleted]

  • Post #23

Frank,

I have a question. Can you simplify what you are saying down to the bare bones? In other words, words can shape the emotions of the reader. People trained in hard core physics and mathematics understand this. But words can also be used to hide lack of thoughtful content. I often have to boil my own ideas down to their bare bones meaning; which makes the actual mechanics of the idea more clear. Dictionaries are a great example. They tell you the meaning as clearly, and with as few words as possible. Can you tell us what you mean as tersely, in as few words, as absolutely necessary to convey your idea?

  • [deleted]

  • Post #24

All FQXi participants: IMPORTANT -- Compared to the blackness of space, the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations is very important. This allows us to see farther. But this also means, again, that space is becoming increasingly invisible/transparent. This occurs in dreams, as space is increasingly invisible in dreams; in fact, the experience of space in dreams is both invisible AND visible. (This is why you may or may not touch what you see in the dream as well.) Astronomical observations, to a significant extent, are interactive creations of thought. My essay talks about this.

The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling in dreams and the increase in the invisibility/transparency of space therein not only relate to the sensory experience [therein] being more like thought, but this also relates to/is consistent with the relative reduction in the brightness/feeling of the red Sun (including the redshift). Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dreams.

Note the transparent space/sky around the larger and red [setting] sun.

The line (or feeling) of gravity is altered/reduced -- in comparison with the Sun being overhead, when it is brighter -- so the Sun appears differently (and is not as bright) when it is in front of us. This is consistent with the reduction of gravity/feeling/brightness in the dream, with the increased invisibility/transparency of the space therein, and with the eyes being (basically) locked forward. (Telescopic/astronomical observations make the objects larger, or they could not be seen at all.)

(Note that thoughts are relatively shifting and variable, so dream vision is also relatively shifting and variable.) In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space, is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy)regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)? Consider objects near Earth in the invisible/transparent space/sky.

Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general, thereby unifying gravity and electromagnetism/light. Note that the Earth is in a relatively smaller space (the transparent/invisible sky) compared to that of the Sun.

The setting Sun looks more like the Earth because it feels more like the Earth WHEN SEEN. (And because it is also seen in/with a transparent/invisible sky.)

The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand.

The world requires and involves man.

TO: All FQXi judges and reviewers of this essay, and Jonathan, Don, Ray, Steve, and Florin as well:

I have demonstrated the equivalency of extension in time and space at a three to one ratio in keeping with the following (below). I have shown that the integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time. What I will now demonstrate with regard to time alone is GIGANTIC.

Dreams unify gravity and electromagnetism/light by involving what is [the gravitational and electromagnetic/light] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. Gravity and electromagnetism/light are both attractive and repulsive in the dream.

I have demonstrated gravity as attractive and repulsive, in keeping with relatively constant (and proper) lighting, energy, and brightness, in a space that is (at once) understood to be larger/additive and relatively smaller. The space is also invisible and visible at once. The distance (or size) of space in the dream is dynamic or variable as well.

Electromagnetism/light is not only associated with extremes of size (e.g., photons and the Sun, in comparison with the Earth and typical/ordinary space), but also with extremes of gravity (or gravitational influence).

I have demonstrated electromagnetism/light as gravitational space; as space manifests as both gravitational and electromagnetic/light energy (involving constant energy as well).

Now comes definitive and further mathematical proof regarding said unification; and, importantly, this comes in addition to what is the already known/demonstrated mathematical union of Maxwell's and Einstein's theories in a fourth dimension of space.

This further mathematical demonstration/proof of the subject unification is now provided in what is also a fundamental, simple, and convincing fashion; as I have shown the three to one (one third) relation of both space (the three space dimensions in relation to the fourth space dimension) and time (3 to 1 in Einstein's theory of gravity) in dreams; as dreams occur during the one third of our lives that we spend sleeping. In other words, the extension in space (three to one, or one third) is consistent with extension in time as well. Note: there are three parts of time -- past, present, future.

Since the self has extensiveness of being and experience (in and with time) in conjunction with the integrated and natural extensiveness of sensory experience, we spend less time dreaming (and sleeping) than waking. The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand in hand.

Dreams are an emotional experience that occur during the one third of our lives that we spend sleeping, because emotion is one part (or one third) of feeling, emotion, and thought. Consistent with this, both feeling and thought are proportionately reduced in the dream. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. Dreams are essential for thoughtful and emotional balance, integration, comprehensiveness, consistency, and resiliency. Indeed, emotion that is comprehensive and balanced advances consciousness. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.

The reduction in the range of feeling that occurs during dream experience is associated with a reduction in both thought and experience in general.

Thought involves a relative reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling. In keeping with this, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. Accordingly, both thought and also the range and extensiveness of feeling are proportionately reduced in the dream. (This reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is consistent with the fact that the experience of smell very rarely occurs therein.) Since there is a proportionate reduction of both thought and feeling during dreams, the experience of the body is generally (or significantly) lacking; for thought is fundamentally rendered more like sensory experience in general. Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings. By involving the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling during dreams is why there is less memory and thought therein.

----------

What is ultimately possible in physics (including mathematically) is necessarily tied to the integrated, interactive, and natural extensiveness of being, thought, and [sensory] experience. In fact, reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to (or involving) what is the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought). --- It is readily apparent that my essay rating is ridiculously incompetent/unfair/inaccurate on this basis alone.

Moreover, what my essay says about astronomical observations (and my posts under my essay) is HUGE.

Finally, what my essay says about sensory experience in general is HUGE.

The significance of my essay in regard to being central to an improved understanding of physics in general is undeniable.

I have demonstrated the sensory (i.e., physical) experience/basis of the unification of gravity (GR) and electromagnetism/light (Maxwell's theory of light) in a fourth dimension of space.

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

This physical law is said unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis/correspondence of/to this law is dream experience. I have proven this overwhelmingly (in detail and with specifics).

Many of you will be shocked, but shouldn't be, when I win this essay contest. Although there are many fine essays in this contest, I have earned it; and I deserve it.

From Jonathan Dickau (essay contestant), and I quote him in the following two paragraphs:

"I just re-read your second post above and it made a bit more sense of something you were saying in the earlier post. Your statement at the end "How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea." is right on. Perhaps the key, as you say, is to recognize that there is both an attractive and repulsive component at work - which changes the effective action at different levels of scale. This makes unification simpler."

"We end up 1) Balancing/unifying scale and 2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravitationally and electromagnetically. (Think wave/particle)."

Clearly, this (as well) is why my essay is going to (and should) win!

It is important to read ALL of my prior posts under my essay in order to properly understand, rate, and judge this essay. Anyone who rates this essay should be providing comments. It is much easier to be critical than correct.

From a prior post of mine, I have written:

"The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general. I agree with the geometrical approach -- the mathematically proven outcome in a fourth dimension of space -- as it has unified gravity and electromagnetism/light.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by demonstrating gravity as repulsive and attractive AS electromagnetic energy/light is required. It is critical to demonstrate electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space. The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space is central to:

1) Balancing/unifying scale and...

2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. Think wave/particle.

These ideas need to be applied to atomic structure/interactions, and to electromagnetism/light and gravity generally. How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea."

Your thoughtful, significant, meaningful, constructive, and/or accurate/truthful comments and questions are very welcome, and they will be responded to.

Frank Martin DiMeglio

Why I am going to win this essay contest and also The Nobel Prize in Physics:

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..." -- Einstein

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Einstein

James Clerk Maxwell - "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies' book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"! --- PERFECT!

IMPORTANTLY, now consider ALL of the above with what follows:

This physical and "general" law is the known unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light. The physical (and sensory) reality/experience/basis of this law (and unification) is dream experience, whereby thought is more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light). The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience -- this clearly relates to memory, art, genius, dreams, being "one with the music", and telescopic/astronomical observations.

To think that the unification of General Relativity and Maxwell's Theory of Light -- that is already mathematically PROVEN by the addition of a spatial dimension to Einstein's theory -- is not readily and significantly apparent in our experience is one of the greatest oversights or blunders of common sense that has ever occurred. I have definitively proven and demonstrated that this unification occurs in/as dream experience.

Do you agree? -- Yes or no? -- If not, then why? If I am correct (and I am), I am entitled to/deserving of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Also, do you agree with the following?:

In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations (that makes these

observations possible) -- is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy) regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)? Consider this in conjunction with objects near Earth (in the invisible/transparent space/sky). Isn't the redshift consistent with/indicative of the increased transparency/invisibility of space that makes such astronomical/telescopic observations possible? Is all of this not true as well? -- Yes or no please? If not, then why, specifically please? Thanks.

It is important to also read (and closely consider) all of my posts under my essay as well.

MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF AS TO WHY I DESERVE TO WIN THIS ESSAY CONTEST AND THE NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS:

This essay explains why/how it is the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations that makes these observations possible, AS IT ALLOWS US TO SEE FARTHER.

THE INCREASING TRANSPARENCY/INVISIBILITY OF SPACE IN ASTRONOMICAL/TELESCOPIC OBSERVATIONS EXPLAINS THE REDSHIFT.

Astronomical/telescopic observations and dreams both involve a narrowing/"telescoping" of vision. Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dreams. Both dreams and astronomical/telescopic observations involve increasing invisibility/transparency of space. Telescopic/astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought to a significant extent.

Telescopes are known to be a sort of big eye. Witness the red Sun and the clear/transparent sky/space around it. See the connection? Why do you think that the LARGER Sun then looks AND feels (on/at the eye) more like the Earth?

That dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience (including thought) at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense is consistent with the self representing, forming, and experiencing a comprehensive approximation of experience in general. The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience by combining unconscious and conscious experience. Experience then becomes a more direct expression of the self that is increasingly representative of a greater totality of experience as well. That the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of the totality of experience is evident in both our waking and dream experiences. Indeed, the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Francis Bacon: "..., all perceptions, both of sense and mind, are relative to man, not to the universe."

Thought is incorporated [bodily] into/as part of WHAT IS A RANGE OF GRAVITATIONAL FEELING. Our very ability to describe gravity is inseparable from our experience of gravity. The 90 degree angle of the body (while dreaming and waking) is consistent with our ability to fully and properly describe, understand, and experience gravity. The [relative] reduction in the range and extensiveness of gravitational feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant. Gravity is fairly constant at/near the surface of the Earth. That is consistent with the understanding in general.

The completion and balancing that dreams/sleep give to the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is consistent with the 90 degree angle of the two experiences/states (waking and dreaming). Note that electromagnetic space (e.g., the Sun and photons) is both larger AND smaller than ordinary or typical space/objects (such as the Earth). In dream experience, space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy. Note the particle/wave nature of dreams. Balancing, combining, and including invisible and visible space is key.

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. How do you think that language, dreams, and memory (of feeling, thoughts, emotions, language, etc.) are possible? Dreams are much like memory. Memory integrates experience -- another great FACT.

Electromagnetic space (e.g., photons and the Sun) is both larger and smaller than ordinary or typical space (such as the Earth). When space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (as it does in dreams), scale is then balanced; and space is particle/wave, invisible/visible, and larger/smaller. Accordingly, the space is both repulsive (additive/larger) and attractive (subtractive/smaller) as well, in conjunction with its varying distance/size.

Hello again Frank,

I have a question for you, or an idea to bounce off of you. If it is granted that the observable universe (the material or physical) is part of a larger whole that includes the realm of the abstract or of abstractions, some of your ideas might make sense - as applicable to a physical theory - however, some questions still remain. We must ask whether the 'real' or 'universal' abstract is comparable with our ideas of the subjective realm, or if the process stages (and levels of abstraction) involved in generating the form we can observe are instead different from those we use to cognize observable reality. In Constructive Mathematics, it is found that a similar set of steps are usable in determining a particular condition, whether we mean 'to measure' or 'to construct' by the word determination.

It may be true, therefore, that we can make a comparison of the cognitive process and the generative process, as I did in Quantum Biosystems Vol 1- no 1. However; you have not shown a clear basis for this kind of assumption in your essay and forum entries. It seems that you have a vague notion about how dreams should relate to Physics, but there is considerable work required for you to show how the two are connected. I am trying to put some tools in your hands which may or may not be helpful. But the questions remain.

Is nature's version of the abstract realm the same as our version relating to subjective experience? What aspects do the two share, or are they entirely different? Is nature perhaps more mathematical or logical, and human dreams more emotional? Or are the two comparable in your view? If so, can you explain why this is so, or why nature does not seem to respond to our emotional outbursts? There may be a similarity between the two landscapes, but I am still confused as to how the experience we have in dreams can allow a unification of Electromagnetism with Gravity. Are we to understand that since we are not constrained to remain on the ground in our dreams, we have somehow conquered a conceptual difficulty that keeps us rooted to the Earth in the waking state?

I don't mean to be obtuse, but I figure that if some of the relevant issues and objections are spelled out, it may help you to deal with them. And if you can spell some of the answers out, maybe some of us who are too dense to fly - even in our dreams - can get a clue about why you feel they are so important to our evolving a better Physics. So you can label me as unconvinced but still willing to open my mind to your ideas. I would like to understand what it is you are trying to say, and why you feel it is important to Physics.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan. You said that I have "a vague notion about how dreams should relate to Physics". Are you serious? Did you read the essay? My explanation is clear, complete, consistent, simple, and convincing.

Electromagnetic space (e.g., photons and the Sun/outer space) is both larger and smaller than ordinary or typical space/objects (such as the Earth/transparent sky). When space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy (as it does in dreams), scale is then balanced; and space is particle/wave, invisible/visible, and larger/smaller. Accordingly, space is both repulsive and attractive as well. Witness the variable size/distance of space in dreams. Energy is constant, brightness is adjusted perfectly, and vision/visibility is very well adjusted/discernible. Note that the space is integrated and yet disintegrated as well. Is it hard to see how my ideas apply to physics? Not hardly. This is way too much to just pass over Jonathan. Dreams make sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general more like thought. Couple this with the fact that the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience, and it is readily apparent that the known mathematical union of Einstein's gravity and Maxwell's electromagnetism/light in a fourth spatial dimension requires dreams. Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, experience, and thought at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. (Note that thoughts are relatively shifting and variable, so dream vision is also relatively shifting and variable.) The dream represents the underlying and fundamental process/manifestation by which the totality of experience is attained to and known/understood at its deepest level. The world requires and involves man. The fundamental laws of physics must be unified and also understood in a fashion that allows life and experience (in general) to be. Consistent with this, dream experience is essential to the proper (and complete) understanding of both life and experience (including sensory experience) in general. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. I deserve the Nobel Prize in Physics.

James Clerk Maxwell - "The only laws of matter are those that our minds must fabricate and the only laws of mind are fabricated for it by matter."

You do not see how this fits with/relates to dream AND waking experience?

You do not see how this all fits with/relates to this GREAT FACT: The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings.

The integrated extensiveness of being and experience go hand-in-hand in and with time. I have demonstrated this.

I have demonstrated how the coordinated/unified growth and development of the self/body is generally possible at varying/various scales given said unification, and how this may be understood (or linked to the understanding) as well. Dreams involve/demonstrate making larger spaces smaller and smaller spaces larger. Think about it.

I have also demonstrated how the improved understanding of experience in general is possible as well. The integrated extensiveness of thought(s) is improved in the truly superior mind.

You need to read all that I have written about desire as well. (Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well.)

I have extensive writings that relate to your other questions.

Balance and completeness go hand-in-hand, remember that.

Dreams are much like memory. Read the essay, and study it hard. Much of your confusion is due to the fact that you do not understand this statement:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Believe me, it is a fact of gigantic significance, in physics and in general.

You should read all of my posts in this discussion please. I have other important/relevant posts elsewhere on this FQXi site as well.

Thank you Frank,

I appreciate your taking time for a detailed answer here. Please understand that even when I am in relative agreement with an author, I still like to ask questions, partly in an attempt to see if that author can prove his or her point by stating things differently, rather than merely quoting themselves. When I read the essay of Robert Oldershaw, for example, I thought I agreed with almost every point he made. But when I asked him to explain or justify his reasoning, the conversation rapidly broke down, in part because he feels that if I accept that the universe has no beginning, questions like 'why?' or 'how did it get the way it is?' are meaningless. So while I thought I understood and agreed with 90% of his essay, he apparently felt that unless I accepted the parts I thought were questionable, I really didn't agree with his ideas at all.

So Robert and I are at an impasse, at least until I can do more reading of materials that support his premises. I fear you and I may be at an impasse too, but your response shows me that you are at least willing to try explaining what I do not yet understand and this is good. It may be necessary for you to spell the same ideas out a number of ways, before it really makes sense to everyone. That's the great thing about having this forum. Some of the core ideas of Darryl Leiter's essay were cryptically worded, but when those ideas came out in the forum - and were re-explained - it became apparent that his theory is brilliant. The thing is that he is steeped in explaining things a certain way, and that way didn't quite make sense to some others. So your idea may be brilliant too, but unless you can re-frame the essential concepts effectively, people may not figure that out.

I sense that there is a meaningful message behind your words. But that doesn't mean that everything you have said makes sense to me. I may re-read your essay - keeping some of the explanations in mind, but I make no guarantees I'll get to it before Friday night, or that it will change my opinion to do so. I have a lot on my plate, and I've also got plans to read a few more essays over the next 35 Hours. So; we'll have to see.

But I wish you the best of luck, getting your message out and across.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Frank,

I know that you are familiar with Edwin Eugene Klingman's essay that unites Gravity and Consciousness. His ideas are as original as yours that unify the Dream, Gravity and Electromagnetism. In my opinion, you are both appealing to a Consciousness/ Dream/ Mind/ Soul that may actually be more complicated and less understood than the Gravitational phenomena you are trying to describe. The important distinction is that EE is using models and mathematics to build a framework to support his ideas. On originality of concept, you both deserve an "A". On follow-though and model-building, EE deserves a "Nobel effort". This is where your idea lacks detail. The problem with both ideas is that falsification does not seem possible. How do we measure EE's "C" consciousness field? How do we analyze the Dream? With new theories/ models/ ideas there is a higher probability that the model is incorrect rather than correct. If a theory/ model/ idea cannot be proven or disproven, then it is really difficult to call it science.

I consider myself a physicist and a mathematician. Admittedly, I try to keep my philosophy as separate as possible (although I agree with Petkov's essay that the two must be integrated), and I don't normally put psychology in the same category, but I understand your background and emphasis. My TOE model may also have problems with falsification. I would appeal to two expectations: 1) my model uses existing lattice symmetries such as tetrahedral (FCC), octahedral, icosahedral, Gosset and Leech, and 2) I expect a new class of particles at the 104 TeV scale that cosmic rays may be able to analyze (see my book).

The advantage of a contest like this is that we have the opportunity to read other intelligent and interesting people's ideas and build relationships and alliances with those people. Lawrence Crowell and I have been sharing ideas for the past few months. I expect it to be mutually beneficial. You could learn a lot from people such as EE...

Dear Edwin Eugene,

I also once worked with NASA as an American Society for Engineering Education Summer Faculty Fellow at the Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA - Huntsville, Alabama) during the Summers of '97 and '98. I ran GEANT event simulation studies on their Scintillating Optical Fiber Calorimeter (SOFCAL) Cosmic Ray detector - thus my nickname "Dr. Cosmic Ray". These days, I am more of a business man than a physicist. At least I get to play with physics as a hobby.

Your ideas are probably too original. I like your modeling and mathematics, but ultimately, don't know if your ideas can be falsified. Thus, I don't know how to score your paper. Do you have any responses that may help me in my deliberation?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

19 days later

IMPORTANT -- ALL and FQXi JUDGES:

1) The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams.

2) Also, the theoretical/actual basis of the unification of known mathematical union of Maxwell and Einstein's theories (with the addition of a fourth spatial dimension to Einstein's theory) is dream experience.

Since dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, thought, and experience at the [gravitational] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general. Indeed, how space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy is a central and very valuable concept in relation to physics (and experience) in general. Dream experience offers an expanded (yet relatively unified) perspective in relation to experience (and physics) in general.

The significance of the following, in relation to the above, to physics, experience, being, thought, and to a better understanding of genius as well is not to be underestimated:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

The integrated extensiveness of thought/thinking is improved in the truly superior mind (and in the highest/ideal form of genius).

More on why I am the undisputed winner of this essay contest.

The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

Reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, and experience. Consider this carefully in relation to both astronomical/telescopic observations and dream experience. Consider that dreams and telescopic/astronomical observations are both interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. (Importantly, my essay talks more about this.) Now consider all of this post in keeping with the fact that waking experience (including that of the stars at night) is significantly different in comparison with BOTH dream experience and astronomical/telescopic observations. Dreams have SIGNIFICANT AND VERY IMPORTANT similarities with astronomical/telescopic observations.

I feel strongly that I deserve to win this essay contest, and I expect that other authors in this contest would admit to this in this contest.

IMPORTANT --

Since dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general, the idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is not only demonstrated in dreams (as I have shown), but this idea is then ALSO understood to be NECESSARILY central to an improved understanding of physics/experience IN GENERAL.

According to Jonathan Dickau, my idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is "right on" as a central and valuable idea/concept in physics.

Clearly, I have demonstrated that I deserve to win this essay contest.

THIS (from my prior post).... 2) Also, the theoretical/actual basis of the unification of known mathematical union of Maxwell and Einstein's theories (with the addition of a fourth spatial dimension to Einstein's theory) is dream experience.

IS NOW CORRECTED TO THIS.... 2) Also, the theoretical/actual basis of the unification (that is, the known mathematical union) of Maxwell and Einstein's theories (with the addition of a fourth spatial dimension to Einstein's theory) IS dream experience. It's real simple folks. I deserve to win this essay contest.

IMPORTANT:

The theoretical/actual basis of the known mathematical union of Maxwell and Einstein's theories (with the addition of a fourth spatial dimension to Einstein's theory) IS dream experience. I proved the three to one (one third) relation in BOTH space AND time in my essay as well -- consistent with BOTH general relativity AND said union of Maxwell and Einstein's theories.

We are, in fact, "outsmarted" in the dream, as dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

6 days later

Think of how genius, dreams, memory, and art are possible. Now think of this in keeping with this enormously important fact:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense.

Emotion, thought, feeling, and sensory experience are all fundamentally interactive. Dreams add to (or improve upon) what is the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought. Dreams conceptually/actually unify gravity and electromagnetism/light. It is that simple.

Note the transparent space/sky around the larger and red [setting] sun.

(Telescopic/astronomical observations make the objects larger, or they could not be seen at all.) Importantly, isn't the increased transparency/invisibility of space, in relation to the blackness of night/outer space, the requirement of seeing farther?

LARGER OBJECTS, IN A RELATIVELY SMALLER SPACE -- COMPARABLE TO THE EARTH -- WOULD HAVE HIGHER GRAVITY, WOULD THEY NOT -- CONSIDERING THAT THE INVISIBILITY/TRANSPARENCY OF [THE SPACE] IS INCREASED?

Of huge importance, isn't the increasing transparency/invisibility of space the reason for the redshift?