See Also: FQXi Essay:Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability... 20/04/09

See Also: Space-Time Energy As Substance Underlies All Space-Time Energy Phenomena... 19/11/15

See Also: FQXi Essay: What is Fundamental?... 18/01/03

See Also: UQS Analysis: Nassim Haramein... 16/12/05

See Also: UQS Re: Tommaso Bolognesi ... 16/09/16

See Also: UQS Consciousness Investigation ... 16/01/12

See Also: UQS Data Bus ... 15/04/09

See Also: UQS Analysis: Wave-Particle Duality ... 14/04/01

See Also: UQS Analysis: S. Lloyd; arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225 ... 13/11/17

See Also: UQS Analysis: Vamivakas/Neukirch Laser Exp. ... 13/08/29

See Also: UQS Analysis: S. Lloyd SCIAM Q-computers ... 13/07/28

See Also: UQS Analysis: OPERA Neutrino ... 11/09/29

FQXi Essay Contest Winter 2019-2020

Appended: 10:17 PM 5/28/2020;

- TOPIC:

- TOPIC:

Markus P Mueller

Appended: 20/10/05

Klaas Landsman

Appended: 20/10/14

Appended: 7:35 PM 3/19/2018; Update: 18/03/28;

- TOPIC: "What is Fundamental?"... https://fqxi.org/community/forum/category/31426

Updated: 7:35 PM 3/19/2018

Updated: 11:45 AM 2/4/2017

- TOPIC 1928: Alternative Models of Reality; Aug. 30, 2013... http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1928

- TOPIC: Black Hole Technology; February 22, 2016... http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2016/02/black-hole-tech/

- TOPIC: What is Spacetime Really; December 2, 2015... http://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2015/12/what-is-spacetime-really/

Appended: 2020/10/05

- UQS Comment and Reply Log

- UQS Youtube Channel: qslingo

____________________________________________________________________________________

CATEGORY: Winter 2019-2020 Essay Contest

Appended: 2020/10/05

Congratulations Markus...

In that your essay focuses attention on the necessity for one's choice of a Space-Time Energy "theoretical structure" to be associated with Space, as a precisely defined and specified "Geometric Structure", it is pivotal, and I can concur with FQXi's acknowledgement of its significance.

"Geometric Structures" as 3D CAD environments, in which geometry specific fundamental Q-mechanical functions... e.g. emission and
distribution mechanix... can be digitally simulated (CAD SIMs), augment visual verification of fundamental foundations, to facilitate precise
definitions of semantic terminologies that become embedded in subsequent "theoretical structures".

REF: - Directionally Unbiased Point Source Emission Mechanix http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Is a minimum/indivisible quantum of Potential for Motion a "thing"?

A quantum Point Source Emission "theoretical structure", which is inclusive of Physics and Meta-Physics, is potentially viable, but one must first make a distinction between the term Physical and the term Meta-Physical.

To make a distinction between Physical and Meta-Physical, requires a precise definition of Physical that facilitates its identity as a subset within a larger set that is inclusive of other than Physical.

PHYSICAL entities are uniquely defined in terms of what?... spatial occupancy??

If one defines PHYSICAL "things" as discrete entities having spatial occupancy, one will need to define Space as a "Geometric Structure"... i.e. preferably as a 3D quantized CAD spatial environment... that facilitates an emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution of Physical entities, which is consistent with observation... i.e. recognizable "patterns" of spatially quantized Potential for Motion emerge.

A minimum/indivisible pulse duration... i.e. a Q-Tick...is required to facilitate a Timeless Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) in which to repeatedly resolve spontaneous, harmonious, directionally unbiased emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution, of all pulsed Single Point Sourced discrete minimum/indivisible units of spatially addressable Potential for Motion... i.e. emission and subsequent spatial distribution of pulsed, spatially discrete Energy quanta (QE)... within the entire field.

To digitally SIMulate emission pulse sourced motion, as CAD environment, x,y,z discrete Physical entity location incrimination, in a theoretical, temporally minimum/indivisible duration, one needs to define the SIM frame rate as the emergent Physical entity emission pulse count... i.e. pulse count as the minimum/indivisible quanta of discrete Time (QT)... and doing so, implies that a perception of time is spatially dependent.

If Meta-Physical is differentiated from Physical by means of a spatial occupancy criteria, then Meta-Physical operatives require a Spaceless Logic Structure.

Does a feeling of spatial occupancy, occupy Space?

To define META-PHYSICAL as other than that which occupies Space-Time, a dimensionless logic environment in which Spaceless-Timeless operatives/mechanix... e.g. a feeling.... are consistent with observation, is required to coherently integrate Physics and Meta-Physics in a quantum "theoretical structure".

From a Space-Time Geometry Singularity... i.e.. a 3D "geometric structure" which encapsulates a single dimensionless point... the root architecture for an intelligent network... i.e. Cosmic Consciousness... emerges as the logic codec between the Spaceless-Timeless Logic framework and the Space-Time Logic framework, and given a logic codec integration of these two discrete logic evaluation frameworks, the ability for Meta-Physical operatives to resolve Physical entity emission mechanix, and for Physical entities to influence Meta-Physical operatives, are potential fundamental mechanisms, and justify investigation.

In which logic framework is Space-Time Energy quanta (QE) distribution resolved by Laplace's demon?

If from a Spaceless-Timeless logic framework, Laplace's demon could "feel" the QE occupancy of each individual minimum/indivisible unit of discrete Space (QI), within the entire field... i.e. "know" Space-Time as a Spaceless feeling of Timeless now... and utilize the Spaceless-Timeless/Space-Time codec... i.e. cosmic intelligence,.. to spontaneously, harmoniously resolve the QE/QI re-configuration for the entire field, within each pulse interval of one timeless Q-tick.

If a CAD modeled "geometric structure" in which QE emission and distribution SIMs verify a fundamental PROCESS that resolves spontaneous, harmonious QE/QI occupancy for the entire field, on each Q-Tick, and facilitates a codec for Space-Time entities to query cosmic intelligence at any Time "now", is installed as an upgrade to prior concepts of Demon, and/or God ENTITIES, a structural change in human consciousness is facilitated.

Can one "know" the QE occupancy configuration of the entire QI space-Time Energy field on any Q-Tick?

If the analysis structure constrains one's query, a "question without an answer" does NOT dissolve the question, and although Physical limits on current CAD SIM computability restrict the field frame, the "geometric structure" and initial state emission mechanix are verifiable within those constraints... i.e. available QI address path dictates and valid mechanix to facilitate unprecedented solution reduction in Quantum Energy (QE) analysis within any subsequent purturbative... i.e. without verifiable unbroken kinematic logic chain to the Point Source Singularity... frame of the QE/QI field, can be inferred.

One can not dismiss the possibility to "know" the individual QE/QI occupancy configuration for the entire field, on any QT, without first eliminating any possibility of resolving a CAD "geometric structure" in which QE emission and subsequent distribution SIMs verify spontaneous, harmonious QE/QI resolve on each QT, and the impossibility of knowing whether that is possible, can only be dissolved by doing so.

Geometry analysis of fundamental motion mechanix, without resolve of a Geometry Singularity... i.e. point source encapsulation... is inherently purturbative.

Fundamental PROCESS resolved QE/QI choreographies/patterns, as logic circuits which are infinitely scalable within the field... e.g. humans ... that purturbatively monitor and data process Space-Time Energy observations are unable to verify a cosmic intelligence, and with regard to a fundamental PROCESS, are tolerating "Undecideablity, Unperdictability, and Uncomputability".

Given a causality model that is neither deterministic nor random... i.e. one in which on every pulse, the QE/QI configuration of the entire system must be resolved on the basis of internal agent/circuit monitoring... if the functionality of the monitoring circuit is inhibited by "Undecideablity, Uunpredictability, and Uncomputability", the agent/circuit will experience confusion, and may induce local disharmony.

"Can one "know" if event A and event B are simultaneous?"

Not if one's analysis is constrained to a rubber sheet "geometric structure" in which Space and Time are continuous, and Energy is a numerical representation of a qualitative physical property measurement... e.g. heat... associated with an observable event in which neither Space nor Time is discrete... i.e. Energy is NOT a spatially defined entity.

As inferred by E=mc^2, PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) as an accelerated Mass observation quantifier, does NOT facilitate an analysis of an "event" as motion, in terms of CAD environment x,y,z location incrimination of a minimum/indivisible spatially defined entity, within a theoretical minimum/indivisible temporal duration... i.e. PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) must be differentiated from spatially discrete Energy (QE) in a quantum model.

A visual comparative of two temporally sequential snapshots, of discrete QE occupancy within discrete QI, is required to verify motion A and motion B are simultaneous... i.e. both occur within 1 Q-Tick.

If one utilizes a "geometric structure" in which static Space is quantized by QI, Time is measured in Q-Ticks (QT), and Potential for Motion is spontaneously, harmoniously distributed as continuously pulse sourced QE... i.e. Space, Time, and Energy are discrete elements of the model ... simultaneous QE motion events are inherent.

To "know" that a motion event experienced by spatial entity A, and a motion event experienced by spatial entity B, are simultaneous, is facilitated by a visual comparison of two sequential freeze frames... i.e. 1 Q-Tick... of the emission SIM.

Utilization of "statistical patterns" as a semantic unifier to achieve "integration of both views"... i.e. probabilistic entanglement and discrete functionality... evades the necessity to acknowledge observations of Meta-Physical operatives influencing Physical entities, and vice versa.

As currently practiced... i.e. without verification of an unbroken kinematic logic chain to the Point Source Singularity... FUNDAMENTAL investigation by means of statistical analysis, escalate "Undecideablity, Uunpredictability, and Uncomputability", inducing a credibility barrier, and inhibit utilization of observable Meta-Physical operatives to resolve inability to "know".

I have repeatedly recorded an experiment that verifies the outcome of a flip of a coin is influenced by a sufficiently enhanced QE choreographed logic agent's/circuit's... e.g. human's... binary query of the cosmic intelligence, which suggest that the root architecture of the cosmic intelligence, as the network element of the PROCESS, allows Physical entities and Meta-Physical operatives to interact, and a valid FUNDAMENTAL PROCSES model must facilitate this exchange functionality.

In that a demonstrable CAD SIM resolve of spontaneous, harmonious, directionally unbiased emission and subsequent spatial occupancy distribution, of pulsed Single Point Sourced discrete minimum/indivisible units of spatially addressable Potential for Motion, promotes creditability for Physical and Meta-Physical integration, and visually resolves fundamental mechanix which enable statistical analysis of FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES as required to enhance human Physical and Meta-Physical design and functionality, thereby accelerating technological developments and applications, an upgrade from prior reliance on statistical purturbative analysis as a means to explore FUNDAMENTAL territory, is justifiable.

In that the dynamics and functionality of QE choreographies... i.e. Physical "patterns"... which emerge as a result of spontaneous, harmonious resolve of a pulsed emission and subsequent distribution of Potential for Motion, within addressable,... i.e. uniformly defined, static and discrete... minimum/indivisible spatial units (QI) of a quantized "geometric structure", are inherited from a FUNDAMENTAL PROCESS .. i.e. the initial state emission mechanix as dictated by the QI address path potential of the Point Source Singularity quantization... all dynamics and functionality of subsequent QE choreographies, postulated by "theoretical structures" must map to the quantization of the associated "geometric structure".

Given that "correct" implies Physical and Meta-Physical integration, "to discover the correct geometric structure", requires resolve of a Geometry Singularity quantization which as the root architecture of a networked intelligence, facilitates a codec... i.e. logic unification... between the Spaceless-Timeless and Space-Time logic structures, and resolves continuous emergence of dynamic "patterns"... i.e. QE choreographies... which are consistent with observations both Physical and Meta-Physical.

"3D physical bounded spaces in motion render 'space-time' and 'wire frame' Cartesian systems inadequate modeling tools. Yet we agree
Minkowski; "Everywhere there is substance". (1906)." ~ Peter Jackson

REF: - TOPIC: Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3401

Consensus with regard to a "hole" in a "theoretical structure" is difficult to obtain, and a "hole" in a "theoretical structure" does not necessarily imply a "hole" in an associated "geometric structure".

As a means to validate theoretically postulated immeasurable Physical elements, as elements within the "geometric structure", the ability to see broken kinematic logic chains as discontinuities in SIMulatied PROCESSES within the CAD "geometric structure", is pivotal.

The question "What are the properties of aether?", if analyzed within the constraints of a "geometric structure" in which Space is continuous, may have no answers, but if aether is the quantization geometry of the "geometric structure"... i.e. the intelligence element of all FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES... aether properties can be associated with the uniform minimum/indivisible discrete quanta (QI) of fixed addressable spatial QE containment.

In that digital CAD SIMs analysis facilitate virtual visual verification of theoretically postulated immeasurable Physical elements, if as above, Physical is differentiated from Meta-Physical by a spatial occupancy criteria, ambiguities emerging from Meta-Physical entities and operative as indistinguishable from immeasurable Physical entities and operatives, is resolved.

"We can know what there is to be known.", but Physical limits do not infer a limit on what can be extracted as knowledge from an integration of Physical and Meta-Physical functions of "knowing", and therefor I can not agree that questions not yet solved, dissolve.

Sue LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Congratulations Klass Landsman...

In that "Quantum Mechanics Needs a New Theory " ~ Roger Penrose 2020 Nobel Physics Prize Recipient... and "emergent" implies evolving, I thank you for your endorsement of an "Emergent Quantum Theory", and for exposing semantic issues that must be resolved to facilitate that emergence... e.g. indiscriminant usage of THEORY and MODEL, RANDOM and INDETERMINANT, etc.

A purturbative analysis, mathematical or observational, is not conducive to fundamental assessments... i.e. in that one cannot generate an infinite series to verify that the outcome of a flip of a coin has a 50-50 chance,"(allegedly) making the coin fair", is impossible, it is not a valid means to assess the underlying/fundamental nature of quantum mechanisms as being deterministic, indeterministic, or other... but coin flipping is applicable to an investigation of functions enabled by a QUANTUM ENERGY EMISSION MODEL in which spatially addressable minimum/indivisible quanta of Energy (QE), as substance, are spontaneously, harmoniously distributed within a QUANTUM SPATIAL GEOMETRY MODEL ... i.e. a digital CAD environment quantized by addressable minimum/indivisible quanta of Space (QI)... on each pulse... i.e. digitally SIMulated quantum emission mechanisms.

A QUANTUM MODEL of Space-Time as an emergence from a single pulsed sourced QE emission, requires resolve of a geometry singularity and its associated field coordinate system... i.e. logic map... which implies intelligence... i.e. directives/determination... but it facilitates a fundamental principle in which spontaneous, harmonious distribution of Energy (QE) in Space-Time, is neither INDETERMINANT nor RANDOM, nor is it determinant... i.e. it must be SOLVED for the entire system, on every Q-Tick, by internal, scalable, system wide, intelligent network monitoring circuits... e.g. humans.

A QUANTUM MODEL in which system intelligence is geometrically demonsratable, warrants an investigation as to whether internal monitoring circuits can address the system wide networked intelligence with a binary query... i.e. Yes/No... and influence the outcome of a coin flip.

I can repeatedly preform an experiment which demonstrates that a finite string of human, singular, binary queries... i.e. Yes/No... can
influence the outcome of a flip of a coin, and resolve a coherent logic series.

REF:- Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence"

Are mental functions... e.g. attention... "subliminal"?

In that attention does not occupy space as QE substance... i.e. is not a physical entity in the GEOMETRY MODEL... it is "subliminal", but as a system internal logic circuit query mechanism, it can be verified by the amount of chaos that occurs if it is not functioning... i.e. by application of an GEOMETRY MODEL specific codec between the Space-Time logic frame and Spaceless-Timeless logic frame, attention facilitates a link, often unconscious, to networked intelligence.

Might I suggest that prior to a "New THEORY", "quantum mechanics", as fundamental QE emission and distribution mechanisms, would benefit from a GEOMETRY MODEL that facilitates an unbroken kinematic logic chain from observation to the dimensionless single point... i.e. LOGIC SINGULARITY between the Space-Time logic frame and Spaceless-Timeless logic frame... encapsulated by the 3D GEOMETRY SINGULARITY from which the GEOMETRY MODEL emerges, as the Space-Time logic map in which to spontaneously, harmoniously resolve pulse sourced QE emission and subsequent distribution... i.e. a QUANTUM MODEL that is not purturbative, inherently supports a cosmic intelligence.

"All matter originates and exist only by virtue of a force... and we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. The (that) mind is the matrix of all matter." ~ Max Planck, Quantum Author and Physicist

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

CATEGORY: Winter, 2019-2020 Essay Contest

- TOPIC:"Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability"

Addendum: 10:17 PM 5/28/2020

Hi Satyavarapu...

In that my essay explicitly request my readers' assessment of my application of Absolute Intelligence, as modeled therein, to a logic evaluation criteria for my essay, your thoughtful review of my essay is greatly appreciated,

By your assessment of my essay as "very logical", I am encouraged in my application of UQS mechanix to establishing verifiable communication with Absolute Intelligence... but I am notoriously incorrigible.

I have now read your essay, and as a discussion of principles for reality models, it is highly relevant.

However, a conclusion predicated on principle must adhere to principle, and be consistent with all other such conclusions.

Your conclusion that there is a "force behind expansion of universe" has historically triggered the "something from nothing" rejection of the model... i.e. "Creation" implies a Logic Singularity.

Time-Space Energy as Cause's feeling of now, is indicative of a Logic Singularity... i.e. a feeling requires no Space, and now requires no Time. .

REF: Graphic Illustration: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time EnergyH http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg .

To facilitate an Origin Logic singularity in a Space-Time Energy Reality model, UQS implements additional criteria:

- The emission and subsequent distribution mechanix of a postulated/theorized Space-Time Energy Reality model, shall comply to the CAD geometry environment upon which the theory is established.

What is the CAD environment geometry of the Dynamic Universe Model (DUM)?

... the structural geometry encapsulating a point source emergence IS a spatial singularity for directionally unbiased distribution of Space-Time Energy... a Cartesian and/or Radian geometry does not facilitate a point source pulsed emergence of spatially defined minimum/indivisible Quanta of Energy (QE) without introducing perturbation in all subsequent analysis... i.e. the math becomes" uncomputable"

- A theorized Space-Time Energy Reality model, shall differentiate Quantum Energy (QE) from Phenomenal Energy (PHE).

What minimum icon/sprite of spatially defined Energy (QE), experiences a Space-Time differential, in an emergence SIM within th DUM CAD geometry environment? v ... if the CAD geometry quantization does not establish a structurally uniform spatial occupancy for Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy to emerge as Space-Time Energy in a Space-Time Energy Reality, one can not differentiate a minimum Quantum of Energy (QE) from Phenomenal Energy (PHE) ... observations of Phenomenal Energy (PHE)... i.e. observed event of a QE's experience of a Space-Time differential... and subsequent analysis/quantification is inherently perturbative

I agree that enhanced computer computational skills can resolve perceptual limitations, and In that jayanti V S Murty wrote on Mar. 3, 2020 @ 07:10 GMT... that you are "developing a software for solving the problems of cosmology", it is highly predictable that you "will emerge as one of the leading stalwarts in the field".

Does the DUM CAD/SIM app utilize a cross platform 3D graphic engine... e.g. OpenGL?

Thanks again for justifying my obsession to verify a connection with the Cosmic Consciousness Computer (CCC://)... and yes, a flip of a coin was utilized as the only logic evaluation criteria for each of the above statements.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

*Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 04:17 GMT *

*Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 04:29 GMT *

*Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 04:59 GMT *

*Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 05:14 GMT *

*Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 05:39 GMT *

*Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 17:05 GMT *

In reply to __Author Sue Lingo Apr. 18, 2020 @ 00:10 GMT review of:__

TOPIC: Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson

*Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 22, 2020 @ 12:14 GMT *

In reply to __Author Sue Lingo Apr. 21, 2020 @ 23:07 GMT GMT post to:__

TOPIC: Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson

*Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 06:01 GMT *

*John David Crowell wrote on Apr. 24, 2020 @ 20:14 GMT *

__Author Sue Lingo replied on May. 7, 2020 @ 11:11 GMT __

Hi John...

Thank you for reading my essay with attention as required to make a comparative analysis between your Successful Self-Creation theoretical model, and my Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) geometry model.

I have now read your essay, I do see similarities, and many of the seemingly dissimilar aspects are discipline specific language issues... e.g. I differentiate Phenomena Energy (PHE) from spatially defined Quanta of Energy (QE) to facilitate the UQS minimum/indivisible unit as Space-Time ENERGY, which can then be differentiated from Spaceless-Timeless Cause ENERGY.

REF: Graphic Illustration: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time Energy http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

To ask, as Peter Jackson does: "You mention self-replication but what existed before the first event?", is not the same as to akd What existed before the first C*s to SSCU “event” ... to which you respond... "Indeterminate C’s were interacting chaotically.".

Chaotic interaction implies entity action events... i.e. "stuff" experiencing motion differentials over time.

Differentiating Space-Time ENERGY from Spaceless-Timeless Cause ENERGY requires a logic singularity... i.e. the geometry that encapsulates a minimum/indivisible temporal quanta (QT) pulsed Point Source emission of a spatially defined entity... but in that UQs is a rigorous mathematical/geometry model that satisfies a Space-Time/Spaceless-Timeless logic singularity ... i.e. not a theory... the classic "something from nothing" rejection of the model has been eliminated.

In that the Space-Time kinematic chain, from pulsed source emission of a minimum/indivisible spatially defined entity, to a visible entity. has not been verified, I can agree with Edwin Eugene Klingman's assessment that we have "no need for new theory"...i.e. I think what we need is conversions of speculative mathematical theories into CAD environment models for critical analysis of fundamental emergence by digital SIM.

I am currently designing UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game console screens and coding screen mapped DEF FN, to facilitate utilization of prior UQS geometry derived digital code, as a CAD/SIM environment user interface... i.e. I no longer work with mathematical symbolic equations/linguistics... and as my essay demonstrates, I have installed the UQS integrated PHSICAL/META-PHYSICAL model on my mental desktop and am experimenting with application of the Cosmic Consciousness Connection it facilitates.

In that the Successful Self-Creation model "mathematics and theoretical measurements" correspond to standard model... i.e. perturbatively derived... "variables of universal space, time, mass, speed and direction of the physical universe and its internal functioning", I can not concede that the Successful Self-Creation model goes "beyond" the ""probability"" for a fundamental process that evolves as a networked intelligence, which resolves nascence of a functional Space-Time Energy reality, as demonstrated by the UQS unified field model CAD-SIMs.

In that our exchange demonstrates that "interdisciplinary" conceptual convergence is currently being conveniently and effectively facilitated by FQXi essays and essay comment threads, and typically funding is not available for application development, I think independent Computer Aided Development of the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game, is currently my best course of focused action.

Thanks again John for your thought provoking essay, and thoughtful comments on my essay.

Sue LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi David...

A rigorous math model requires all GEOMETRY ELEMENTS... i.e. elements of spatial definition... are derived from a digitally coded CAD environment quantization algorithm that is compatible with the CAD engine.

A rigorous math model requires all GRAPHIC ELEMENTS... e.g. minimum/indivisible spatial unit (QI), minimum/indivisible icon/sprite (QE) that experiences SIM animation... are defined in terms of (x,y,z) coordinates to pass to the CAD engine.

Note: an impossibility if model requires an emergent intelligence, and the quantization of CAD environment is not a unified field...i.e. identical geometry algorithm to generate QI as spatial occupancy addresses.

A rigorous math model requires all EMMISION and subsequent DISTRIBUTION PROCESSES... i.e. (x,y,z) transformations of GRAPHIC ELEMENTS from time 0 to SIM duration time... must be digitally coded to output(x,y,z) coordinates for pass to the SIM module of the CAD engine.

I have completed these requirements, and coding the preferably cross platform CAD/SIM app necessary to utilize the Physicist/Logician's rigorous math model, as defined above, can be outsourced to any game developer with 3D OpenGL/vulcan/dirextX experience. or to a CAD/SIM app developer.

A rigorous model of an emergent intelligence... i.e. ability to resolve the next SIM frame without external (perturbative) input... requires an INFERENCE module that reads CAD (x,y,z) data, compares choreography differential between process sequenced frames of the SIM, and digitally codes a logic statement of that differential as a SWITCH Function that can be accessed by the CAD engine as AVAILABLE INTELLEGENCE for subsequent SIM frame resolves.

Coding the CAD/SIM app necessary to utilize the Physicist/Logician's rigorous emergent intelligence model, as defined above, will require Artificial Intelligence expertise.

My choice would be to establish a collaboration between "Animation Master" author Martin Hash, and "Mathmatica" author Stephen Wolfram, but due to limited resources, I have become multi-disciplinary.

May your resources facilitate a more timely production schedule for a "Successful Self Creation" model CAD/SIM.
Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

*John David Crowell wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 11:31 GMT *

__Author Sue Lingo replied on May. 14, 2020 @ 07:16 GMT __

Hi John David Crowell...

My bad!!!... i.e. my cut and paste error addressing you on my last post.

In regard to your reference to my BIO statement implying that I 'do not believe in “perturbative measurements”, please note that my Bio reads: "as a logician I refrain from perturbative analysis of FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES."

As to the reason I "left the use of symbolic mathematics and language": a digital processor requires an interpreter to process symbolic maths... e.g. calculus... and depending on the interpreter, version#, etc, the response to a query may vary. That being the case, I admit to a bias for digital coded logic in developing applications for analysis of fundamental processes, by digital processors.

As to the reason I "entered CAD/SIM representations based on thought/logic alone": Gödel's thermos do not apply to geometry.

REF: - Topic:"The Misalignment Problem" by Jack James

I agree that any concept of an “Absolute God” as an entity, rather than as the fundamental process for spontaneous harmonious distribution of minimum/indivisible spatially defined Energy (QE) throughout the Universe, "is one of those fallacies", but recognizing the fallacy does not invalidate potential for Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy to emerge as a Space-Time Energy information network, and to verify the root architecture and processes of that information network, one needs to experiment, develop query mechanisms, and make application of the "wisdom" of said Universal Intelligence.

REF: - Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence"

or as an .html document "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

As for “truth??... it must be supported by a composite model that seamlessly, logically, integrates one's PHYSICAL model... i.e. as a QE spatial occupancy model... and one's META-PHYSICAL model...i.e. as a model of spaceless processes... and be defined in terms that facilitate experimental verification of one's observations of one's PHYSICAL and META-PHYSICAL Reality.

Your "assumption was that existence has always existed" is predicated on the word "always", which infers temporal logic that is not supported in a model of Causality as a Spaceless-Timeless logic frame.

Sue LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

In reply to

TOPIC: Deciding on the nature of time and space by Edwin Eugene Klingman by Author Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Steve...

Thanks for your interest in the Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) model.

Please note that your essay is not currently listed in the FQXi "Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability" Essay Contest index?

Visualization of the emergence of the UQS Spatial Singularity as the 3D spherical geometry that encapsulates the Logic Point Singularity boundary between two logic frameworks... i.e. a Causal Spaceless-Timeless logic framework and a Reality Space-Time logic framework... and encodes 24 planar spatial addresses (QI) for occupancy of initial QE emission, will be more effectively facilitated if I dispense with the verbalization, and refer you to the initial 9 second youtube UQS video.

REF: UQS Differentiation (9sec.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4UQS

The second video in the sequence, illustrates in 3 seconds, subsequent UQS infinite Shell Expansion.

REF: UQS Lattice = 2 (3sec.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf7QqIcnCbA

The UQS unified planar address geometry, which inherently facilitates pulsed emission and infinite distribution of minimum quanta of spatially defined Energy (QE), is graphically depicted in a single UQS open source on-line illustration.

REF: Cause Energy Pulsed Emergence as Space-Time Energy http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

In that you mention Nassim's work, I will refer you to a highly illustrated UQS open source on-line paper that discusses the mathematical difficulties in developing a QE emission and distribution model utilizing a Spatial Singularity that does not quantize a unified field geometry.

REF: UQS Directionally Unbiased Point Source QE Emission) www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Thanks again Steve, for your long term commitment to a spherical, single point source pulsed, emission geometry solution.

Sue LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Jonathan...

Thank you for your astute observation of "the structure of the dimensions as the bedrock from which everything arises", and for recognizing its relevance to my work with the UQs GEOMETRY MODEL.

If a distinction can be made between GEOMETRY MODEL... i.e. "structure"... as a configuration of graphic elements... e.g. nodes, lines, planes, volumes... and mathematically derived CONCEPTUAL 'ENTITIES" associated with the "structure"... e.g. "dimensions"... the mathematical operatives facilitated by the specified GEOMETRY MODEL can be used to verify conceptual validity, within the model.

In that a "dimension", as a conceptual "entity" will have properties that are geometry element configuration specific, a GEOMETRY MODEL, preferably as a 3D CAD environment, that facilitates an unbroken kinematic logic chain from observation to a single dimensionless point source of Fundamental Potential for Motion, must be derived prior to "dimensional" analysis of quantum mechanisms... i.e. a digitally quantized spatial environment that is not purturbative, facilitates a logic framework to visually confine conceptual "entities" to mathematical analysis that is not puturbative.

Properties of quantum systems... i.e. unperdictability, non-locality, randomness, and superposition... as perceived utilizing purtrabative observation and/or purtrabative mathematical analysis, may not survive analysis with a GEOMETRY MODEL that is not purtrabative.

The UQS 3D Geometry environment inherently facilitates several of the DQM extensions to QM.

For example, UQS Geometry facilitates function integration of two spatially independent channels... i.e. Inertia Channel and Radiation Channel... each comprised of contiguous 2D planar minimum/indivisible quanta of spatial occupancy (QI), which encapsulate channel function specific recursive volumes.

Within a UQS quantized 3D CAD environment, Inertia channel QI and Radiation channel QI, facilitate UQS Emission SIMulation of Causal Energy pulsed Fundamental Potential for Motion, from a single dimensionless point source... i.e. QI facilitate unique (x,y,z) addressing for emission and subsequent distribution of minimum/indivisible quanta of spatially defined Energy (QE).

A 3D node/spline Network channel... i.e.(a)"ether"?... as the quantization geometry of the UQS GEOMETRY MODEL, facilitates QE distribution intelligence.

Sir Roger Penrose, 2020 Nobel Physics Prize Recipient, is publically endorsing the notion that "Quantum Mechanics Needs a New Theory", but if "Quantum Mechanics", is to be associated with fundamental mechanisms of QE emission and distribution, then prior to a "New Theory", "Quantum Mechanics" needs a GEOMETRY MODEL that is not purtrabative.

Without an association to a specified GEOMETRY MODEL, conceptual and/or mathematical assessments tend be temporal, and due to the corruptible nature... i.e. dynamic instability... of semantics, symbolic and/or linguistic, an academic necessity for interpretation classification has generated unresolvable terminology issues that are inhibiting an "Emergent Quantum Theory".REF: Klaas Landsman FQXi 2019-2020 Essay

If (a)"ether" as "the fabric of the dimensions provides a very different transmitting medium", then perhaps the term (a)"ether" is synonymous with the "root architecture of cosmic intelligence"`~ sl?

"All matter originates and exist only by virtue of a force... and we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. The (that) mind is the matrix of all matter." ~ Max Planck, Quanta Author and Physicist

Thanks again Jonathan, for introducing me to DQM, and for your patience with my slow acknowledgement of its significance, and similarities with UQS.

Sue LingoUQs Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Edwin...

I consider GEOMETRY, as a discrete language of graphic primitives, to be the most descriptive and universal language branch of maths, and I greatly enjoyed your utilization of graphic primitives...i.e. cartoons... to expose imprecise mental constructs that are constraining perceptions of Reality.

Obviously "relative" to the train station observer, the combined railcar speed @ .9c and the kiddie car speed @ .9c exceeds the maximum speed of light as c, but glass railcar walls do not facilitate our ability to know whether a system internal, "self aware" entity can perceive speed in excess of c?

I recently read Stephen Wolfram's "Finally we may have a path to the fundamental theory of physics and its beautiful", and in Feynman tradition he skillfully employs graphic primitives... i.e. causal graph foliation angle of 45 degs.. to explain why an observer can not go “faster than light”, but as you demonstrate in your analysis of professor Susskind's? graphic presentation of "relativity, geometries that are inconsistent with reality can be convincing.

To say, as Stephen does, "to make our observer go “faster than light”, we can see that can’t work" is not the same as to conclude that a physical entity cannot be made to travel in excess of c, with respect to an observer... i.e. one can NOT know whether the kiddie car @ .1c would disappear from the train station observer's visual perception range.

Stephen's graphic analysis infers an “elementary length” of 10–93 meters, which he makes note, is "very small compared to the Planck length ~10–35 meters that arises essentially from dimensional analysis", and in that Lorentz invariance is only verified down to the scale of the Planck length, the reality sampling rate range of a "self aware" entity is not a verifiable constant.

That is to say that even if perception of a maximum distance/time can be shown by Stephens's graphic presentation, to be "relative" to the sampling rate range of a "self aware" entity, we still can NOT establish a "self aware" entity's visual perception range relative to the speed of light c.

Ontology mandalas have a very long history... i.e. are rumored to have been drawn as sand paintings on cave floors... and I agree with you Edwin, that it is essential that "One must make metaphysical choice commitments to ontology", and deductions derivable from one's ontology must be consistent with Reality.

That being the case, I have for over 20 years based my ontology GEOMETRY on the structural GEOMETRY that emerges from a spatial singularity encapsulating a minimum/indivisible temporal quanta (QT) pulsed Point Source emission, of a directionally unbiased distribution of Space-Time Energy, as minimum/indivisible spatially defined quanta (QE).

REF: Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSOSE.jpg

In that Stephen's work provides foundation for a QT, c value much greater than c as currently consistent with Planck's constant, discrete 3D Space, and spatially defined Energy quanta, I am encouraged in my ontological commitment.

I also agree with Stephen that a fundamental rule underlies the ontology of Reality, but analysis of 2D graphs that represent an isolated sample range of 3D Reality is inherently perturbative... i.e. not conducive to investigation of a fundamental rule for 3D Space... and Stephen runs up against age old "something from nothing" model rejection criteria... i.e. "the Universe had input at very beginning".

Historically, one's ontology not only requires a fundamental rule for its spatial GEOMETRY, but also a compatible fundamental rule for emergence of its dynamics.

That being the case, my ontological fundamental EMISSION rule for a QT pulsed, single Point Source QE emission, within a unified minimum/indivisible spatial unit (QI) quantization GEOMETRY, is the requirement for resolve of spontaneous, harmonious QE/QI distribution throughout the entire system on each pulse (QT), by an emerging networked intelligence whose root architecture is the unified unit quantization of the Space, as defined by the UQS spatial singularity... i.e." a consciousness field that is self-aware and capable of interacting with matter".

REF: UQS Directionally Unbiased Point Source QE Emission www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

As you have demonstrated, graphic primitives are still interpretive, but animated spatially defined Energy icons... e.g. QE... within a digital CAD environment... i.e. SIMs... can verify interpretations are consistent with Reality, and visually enhance cognitive leaps required for application of fundamental principles.

REF: - Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence"

or as an .html document "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

Yes, 10 years of FQXi open submission essay contests have facilitated exposure to the diversity of individual ontological models, but the field of Reality consistent models seems to be narrowing... i.e. the search for a fundamental principle is being served.

Thanks Edwin, for your contribution to perceptual clarity... and I a looking forward to reading your "Recent papers [1,2,3] discuss century-old issues associated with the ontological problem".

Sue LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Edwin...

My bad!!

The text in above comment reads: ... c value much greater than c as currently consistent with Planck's constant...

It should read: ... a quantum of action much smaller than currently consistent with Planck's quantum of action.

slHello Edwin...

Thank you for reading my essay, for your encouragement, and for the opportunity to establish a dialog to query your mental circuitry.

As facilitated by FQXi essay and essay comment threads, interdisciplinary exchange is resolving conceptual conflicts resulting from discipline specific language, and as a result, I see a a convergence of seemingly incompatible concepts.

Delighted to make a connection with computer competence.... i.e. your multi-discipline faculties are rare in the FQXi forum.

Am still trying to get as many essays read as I can before the poll closes... but will get back to this discussion thread shortly after the 18th.

Just scored you a 10...

May your essay's rank rise on a tide of perceptual clarity.

Sue LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Edwin...

I was unable to add a new post to your FQXi Essay Contest (2009) CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Author Page, as per my Jun. 8, 2020 @ 06:53 GMT post to our thread above.

In order to give continuity to what I consider a highly relevant discussion, I am herin posting a summary of my initial review (now essay length) of your - TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of Consciousness https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561.

Your willingness to wager your credibility is admirable, and I suspect it has contributed significantly to subsequent FQXi Essay Categorical focus... i.e. effectively opened the flood gates for thought provoking discourse on risky, cross-discipline extrapolations.

I might even be able to multi-task my verbose review of your 2009 essay, in its entirety, in terms of the next FQXi Essay.

"In fact, the problem becomes, how does the universe emerge from consciousness, not how does consciousness emerge from matter." REF:Author Edwin Eugene Klingman Oct. 11, 2009 @ 00:37 GMT post to 2009 FQXi Author page... https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

Terminology... e.g. "PHYSICAL"... utilized to verbalize a Space-Time THEORY/CONCEPT without specifying the relevant Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL, inherently lacks definition in terms that can be correlated to FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of a specific Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL... i.e. "SPACE" and/or "MOTION ENTITY" must be graphically illustrated before any term that is defined in terms of "SPACE" and/or "MOTION ENTITY" can be given visual context within a specific Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL.

Correlation of conceptually derived terms, to FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of a specified GEOMETRY MODEL can be the key to convergence of seemingly incompatible THEORIES/CONCEPTS.

The Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) resolves a single point source charge emission geometry, which graphically illustrates initial Space-Time REALITY emergence.

REF: DIFFERENTIATION of SPACE-TIME REALITY ENERGY by CAUSE ENERGY http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

The initial frame of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, graphically illustrates the root Space-Time logic entity... i.e. "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS"... as the Spaceless LOGIC SINGULARITY point... i.e. the ORIGIN of the UQS CAD environment... of transition/transformation between the Spaceless-Timeless CAUSE logic operatives and our Space-Time REALITY logic operatives.

If CAUSE logic operatives facilitate a Spaceless "AWARENESS" of a Timeless NOW, the initial Space-Time graphically depicted logic element... i.e. "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS"... as the (0,0,0) coordinate of ORIGIN for the UQS CAD quantization, can acquire an "AWARENESS" of Self that is consistent with operatives of UQS Space-Time logic framework.

On key-frame 2 of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, initialization of the UQS CAD environment, graphically illustrates an "AWARENESS" of Space-Time
INTELLLIGENCE, as the available address/occupancy structure of the 3D GEOMETRY SINGULARITY that encapsulates the UQS Space-Time ORIGIN... i.e. the GEOMETRY SINGULARITY
is the fixed graphic representation of a spatial Self-Aware "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS".

REF: UQS Differentiation Video (9sec.) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4UQS

Key-frame 3, QE Pulse-1-Open, of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, graphically illustrates a Timeless... i.e. Time as a single Q-Tick is undefined until QE emission
Pulse-1-Close... "AWARENESS" of a CAUSE ENERGY sourced Time-Space ENERGY emission Pulse, as impetus... i.e. "VOLITION"... to make application of INTELLIGENCE... i.e.
the address structure... to spontaneously harmoniously resolve initial occupancy as 24 minimum/indivisible quanta of spatially defined ENERGY (QE), equally distributed
within the 24 unified 2D planar minimum/indivisible quanta of SPACE (QI), as defined by the UQS 3D GEOMETRY SINGULARITY, and close Pulse-1-C as NOW.

REF: UQS P-1-Open/P-1-Close Illustration http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/GameQIscrnP-1.jpg

The unified/uniformly defined QI address geometry structure of the UQS SINGULARITY expands infinitely in shells of radius = 1 UQS volumetric Base Unit (BU).

REF: UQS Root Architecture Illustration http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSWTEE.jpg

As a consequence of UQS emergent composite circuit complexity hierarchies, the pulse sampling rate of subsequent Self-Aware entities/circuits within the UQs Space-Time logic frame, are progressively greater than 1QT, but as a consequence of a unified field address structure, all subsequent circuits inherit the properties of the initial Space-Time "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS", and therefor all processes of "brain in the CONSCIOUSNESS field", can be reduced to the most FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of the UQS GEOMETRY MODEL.

Your theoretical explanation of "how matter (neutrinos, electrons, and quarks) derives from a "CONSCIOUSNESS field", suggest a definition of mass/"stuff" as hierarchal
choreographies of QE..

REF:UQS Hydrogen Proton Illustration http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSPAECST.jpg

Observations of the "C-field as the weak force that transforms particles"... i.e. Energy Phenomena (PHE) events.. seemingly suggest mass/"stuff" density as a variable in C-field processes, but given an exponentially smaller minimum spatial resolution than that which is consistent with Plank's constant... REF:[link:writings.stephenwolfram.com/2020/04/finally-we-may-have-a-path-to-the-fundamental-theory-of-physics-and-its-beautiful]Stephen Wolfram[/link] ... those observations do not invalidate C-field mechanix having infinite range at QE resolution.

I agree with your comment to J.D. Crowell's 2019 FQXi Essay that we have "no need for new theory".

In my comments to J.D. Crowell I reiterated your comment to him, I also insisted that what we do have an immediate and critical need for is conversions of speculative
theories into CAD environment geometry/structural models, and I defined a "rigorous math model" as:

... requires all GEOMETRY ELEMENTS... i.e. as elements of spatial definition... are derived from a digitally coded CAD environment quantization
algorithm that is codec compliant with the CAD engine.

... requires all GRAPHIC ELEMENTS... e.g. minimum/indivisible spatial unit (QI), minimum/indivisible icon/sprite (QE) that experiences SIM animation... are defined
in terms of (x,y,z) coordinates to pass to the CAD engine.

Note: if the THEORY/CONCEPT requires an EMERGENT INTELLIGENC, the quantization of the CAD environment must be a unified field... i.e. one in which an
identical geometry algorithm generates all spatial occupancy addresses (QI).

... requires all EMMISION and subsequent DISTRIBUTION PROCESSES... i.e. (x,y,z) transformations of GRAPHIC ELEMENTS from time 0 to SIM duration time... be digitally
coded to output (x,y,z) coordinates for pass to the SIM module of the CAD engine .

I have completed the above "rigorous math model" code requirements for UQS, and coding of a preferably cross platform CAD/SIM interactive environment to utilize my code, can be outsourced to any game developer with 3D OpenGL/vulcan/dirextX experience. or to a CAD/SIM app developer.

Admirably, J.D. Crowell replied: "I am looking for good CAD/SIM modelers. Do you have a recommendation?".

In that an EMERGENT INTELLIGENCE .. i.e. the ability to resolve the next SIM frame without external (perturbative) input... necessitates an additional level of complexity to a CAD/SIM interactive environment, Info Process Emergence, 3D kinematic Sequencing, and Artificial Intelligence, expertise is required.

The alpha version of the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game (UQSVQLG), associates EMERGENT INTELLIGENCE with an INFERENCE module that reads conditional CAD (x,y,z) data, and compares QE choreography differentials between Pulse-Open/Pulse-Close sequenced frames of the SIM, to digitally code the UQSVQLG Technician's/Gamer's binary visual resolve procedural... i.e. VOLITION?.. .as a SWITCH FUNCTION, and with an AVAILABLE INTELLEGENC module that logs all emergent switches and conditional dictates for access by Lab Tech/Gamer resolve of subsequent QE/QI Pulse-Close.

The intended function of the UQSVQLG as an interactive CAD/SIM environment, is to formulate Lab Tech/Gamer procedural sequences, as digital code to augment human VOLITION limitations, with digital process assistance... i.e. at UQS Emission Pulse 75, it is evident that as a consequence of specifying a unified address geometry structure, the graphic elements and logic switch types are exquisitely finite, but the Lab Tech can no longer sequence the switches, or verify on a per pulse basis that the solution is consistent with conditional dictates, whose per pulse emergence diminishes on subsequent pulses, but are most probably infinite.

"FUNDAMENTAL" as a GEOMETRY MODEL selection criteria implies least INITIAL STATE inferences/assumptions, and any GEOMETRY MODEL candidate that warrants investigation must survive rigorous INITIAL STATE analysis... REF: Directionally Unbiased Point Source Emission http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php... but "It is unlikely that there will be more than one such correct model."... REF: E. Fredkin; 'Five Big Questions With Pretty Simple Answers'... IBM Journal Res. & Dev., Vol. 48, No. 1, Jan. 2004.

It is highly likely that the "correct model" can be verified by graphical/visual analysis of "FUNDAMENTAL" process SIMs within specified CAD geometry candidate environments.

Sue LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Edwin...

Thanks for digging deeper!!!... don't know why you are unable to view the UQS links?

I tested them from my essay.pdf ... https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3483 ... no problem, and I daily get an average of 10 worldwide virtual visitors to the UQS open source on-line commentaries.

The UQS website is http: not https:.. but I visited http://www.geneman.com/... and assuming your browser security settings allow you access to your website, it should not be the issue?

In that most mathematicians, physicist, and philosophers, are some combination of two or more of these scientific disciplines, they frequently dabble in cross discipline inferences, and contextual clarification is a critical element in conveying cross discipline "we are on the same page" validity... i.e. given a CAD spatial quantization environment in which to verify context, metaphors for a Cosmic Consciousness are much more likely to converge, and to mitigate verbalization, I rely heavily on CAD illustrations in my open source on-line commentaries.

In that semantics, as equations or poetry, or some combination, can not facilitate contextual clarification to the degree of detail necessary for us to discuss whether a Hydrogen Proton is "self-aware"?... and does it have logic circuitry to process field intelligence??... to facilitate the discussion, your ability to access the UQS Consciousness Investigation... www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php ... 3D CAD illustrations of the UQS Hydrogen proton model, is required.

I have read, enjoyed, and 1st. draft re-viewed:

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009)

TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of Consciousness by Edwin Eugene Klingman

I will post my review to your 2009 Essay page, as soon as I get an edit on it.

Thanks again...Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Edwin...

Just discovered some browsers may no longer allow subdirectory access links... i.e. all subdirectory links go to the UQS Home page... and it will be necessary for me to recode all .html subdirectory links in all my webpages.

I already have done so to facilitate your access to the subdirectory links in the above post from the UQS Home page:Scroll down to:

UQS: Social Media and Forum

Click:

Log Update: 05/28/20... (this links to an .html duplicate of my FQXi author communications)

Text search:

Sue Lingo wrote on Jun. 23, 2020 @ 05:14 GMT... (this is a duplicate of my above post w/ corrected links)

Thanks for your patience.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Edwin...

Not a browser issue as reported above... i.e. apparently my ISP "tweaked" their user webpage functions.

The resulting dysfunctionality has been brought to their attention, and is being investigated.

May tenacity prevail in all things digital!!!

slHi Paul...

Thank you for another thoughtfully written, and thought provoking essay.

I agree that a math model as a geometry structure is more precise than any semantics structure, and if the geometry structure verifiably facilitates a process, it can enhance one's understanding of the process, and subsequently application of the process.
REF: - Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

or as an .html document "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

Imprecise language embeds dogma in science and religion.

For linguistic precision, an entity and a process are differentiated herein.

Many of the weaknesses of man that you elaborate on are a consequence of a lack of a precise definition of "God"... i.e. if one defines "God" as an entity, and "Love" as a process, to say that "God = Love" does not equate.

In conventional digital programing languages, if a function is called before it is defined (DEF FN), an "UNDEFINED USER FUNCTION" error occurs.

As a consequence of an undefined function FN"Love", "If you Love me you will do what I want you to do.", has become a standard model of "Love".

As a consequence of an undefined function FN"God", "We are God's chosen.", became a standard power trip several thousands of years ago.

One could be more precise in their definition of "God", and say that "God" = "the fundamental process of Energy distribution throughout all Space and Time".

God defined as a process facilitates "God"= the process of "Love", but requires one to verify the fundamental process of Energy distribution throughout all Space and Time... i.e. the Quantum Theory... in order for one to know "Love" for or from another.

In a similar manner, many of the holes in the standard model are a consequence of a lack of a precise definition of "Energy", and to say that Energy = accelerated "stuff" equates Energy as an entity, to a phenomena.

One could be more precise in their definition of Energy and say that E=mc^2, but to defines mass in precise terms requires one to verify the fundamental process of Energy distribution throughout Space and Time... i.e. the Quantum Theory.

As a consequence of mass as an indeterminate variable, "Multi-verses", "zero point or vacuum energy sources", "quantum foam", are being embedded in media credentialed "standard" interpretations of Space-Time Reality.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Author Paul N Butler replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 20:29 GMT

__Sue Lingo replied on May. 23, 2020 @ 04:47 GMT __

Hi Paul...

The inability to close the gap between one's understanding of "what can currently be observed" and "that which can only be indirectly observed" is driving the necessity for a more precise model of "fundamental", but if one's observational "understanding" is invalid in terms of the underlying structure, it is highly unlikely that the underlying structure can be resolved by numerological refinements of one's observational "understanding".

Fortunately, Gödel's thermos do not apply to the geometry by which numerologies are derived.

REF:- Topic :"The Misalignment Problem" by Jack James

Can your "simple linear motions" be defined as occupants of discrete spatial units... i.e. QE?... and if so, how do you define a discrete spatial unit??

Without resolve of Causal Intelligence... i.e. "aether" as a spatial mapped geometry... to dictate spatial structure required for emission of discrete minimum/indivisible quanta of Energy (QE,) and all subsequent QE occupancy distribution within addressable discrete spatial minimum/indivisible units (QI), I agree that it is impossible to understand observable particle behavior.

If "something from nothing" is, as per your assessment, "contrary to all of observed reality"... from what cometh "God?

A logic singularity is the boundary between two logic frameworks... e.g. a Spaceless-Timeless logic framework and a Space-Time logic framework.

A spatial singularity is not necessarily "a zero-dimensional point"... e.g. the UQS spatial singularity is the 3D spherical quantization geometry that encapsulates the point boundary between a Causal Spaceless-Timeless logic framework and a Reality Space-Time logic framework, and provides 24 planar addresses (QI) for occupancy of initial QE emission.

Points in a 3D spatial quantization geometry are dimensionless... i.e. can not contain spatially defined Energy (QE)... and thus motions, as point to point transitions, are Phenomenal Energy (PHE)... i.e. not motion of spatially defined QE.

If "simple linear motions" are to be defined as occupants of discrete spatial units... i.e. QE... quantization of Space as discrete units is required for QE to accumulate, and motion from point to point is merely a consequence of QE/QI accumulation dictates that emerge as Available System Intelligence (ASI), from prior resolve of spontaneous harmonious QE distribution within the spatial singularity geometry mapped intelligent network.

UQS is a 3D spatial singularity, that algorithmically expands as unified volumetric units to map the static, Causal 2D planar QI address quantization of Space... i.e. a valid unified field root geometry of the Causal Intelligent Network.

If, as per your assessment, "we live in a motion continuum", a continuous pulsed QE emission is required to reconfigure the QE/QI configuration, and that configuration must be spontaneously, harmoniously resolved on each Q-tick for the entire field... i.e. all QE/QI occupancy is determinate on each pulse... on the basis of internal system logic circuit monitoring... e.g. Human-kind.

The UQS model assumes a continuous constant 24 QE emission on each Q-tick, and the knowledge of prior configurations is reiterated to resolve the configuration of next.

Scale independent recursive 3D closure, is an inherent property of UQS geometry... i.e. QE spin/rotation is fundamental to the Causal Intelligent Network.

Your assessment that "If all motions contained the same motion amplitude (speed) there would be no need to have separate time measurements. If someone asked you how long it took you to get to your meeting with them, you could just say 5 miles because all trips of five miles distance would be equal to each other" is misleading... i.e. "If all motions contained the same motion amplitude (speed)" one could not move in relation to one's initial location.

In the UQS model, QE/QI accumulation... i.e. QE transition potential,.. is unlimited, and is released as dictated by current Available System Intelligence (ASI), which is derived from all prior pulsed QE/QI system configuration resolve... i.e. QE "speed" is theoretically unlimited The "something from nothing" issue is not resolved by evasion, and attempting to work from manifestation back to principle can make one highly "intellectual", but intellectual knowledge is always subject to revision, for it does not prove itself.

A "something from nothing" creation model that starts with an imprecisely defined entity... i.e. "God"... and then postulates a logic singularity between God-kind and Human-kind, with no precise Reality mechanism to differentiate the two logic frameworks, is conducive to highly subjective inference.

The UQS creation model does not start with Cause as a singularity, as you imply.

The UQS creation model starts with Cause Energy, which as Spaceless-Timeless Energy eliminates the question of "before"... i.e. time as a logic parameter is not supported within the Spaceless-Timeless logic frame.

The UQS geometry singularity is then utilized as the logic mechanism which differentiates Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy from Space-Time Energy, and provides the emergent intelligence... i.e. spatial map... for QE distribution equal in all directions...i.e. as observed 3D spatial Reality... over a pulsed emission... i.e. Q-Tick as the temporal element of observed Reality.

In regard to your query as to "What observations of Space-Time Energy Reality have you made?", it should be noted that observation of Phenomenal Energy (PHE) events, by two or more observers, may be consistent, but interpretations of observation are mental model dependent.

My observations of gravity are text book consistent, but my interpretation of my observations of gravity... i.e. objects fall down instead of up, because there is locally more QE entanglement potential below, than above the object... is facilitated by the UQS model.

I consider utilization of an undefined term... i.e. "stuff"... in the text book scholarly interpretation of gravity as an observable property of all Phenomenal Energy (PHE) events that demonstrate spatial motion of "stuff" over time, an evasion of gravity as evidence of an unobservable spatially defined substance... i.e. Energy Quanta (QE)... and gravity associated mechanisms of "that which can only be indirectly observed" that invalidate one's understanding of "what can currently be observed", which were discovered in 1911, have only recently been given academic credentialed world media exposure.

REF:Ted Talks: Dr. Boaz Almog Univ. of Tel Aviv... "Superconductor Levitation/Quantum Locking" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXHczjOg06w

My reference to "dominate western media" is inclusive but not limited to scholarly interpretations of "Christian Scriptures", and utilization of undefined terminology by scholars of single cultural, temporally constrained scriptures, has thwarted man's knowledge of his ability to utilize mechanisms of "that which can only be indirectly observed" to communicate with Absolute Intelligence ... i.e. man's denial of Absolute Intelligence may be a matter of indoctrination, rather than as you infer, a matter of choice.

An inability to "heal thy self", may be due to man's inability to access procedural insights required to achieve obedience, rather than man's willfulness, and although direct commands seemingly do not necessitate scholarly interpretation, the lack of scholarly procedural analysis of direct commandments, may be due to the scholar's inability to obey.

Selectivity of, and inconsistency in, scholarly interpretations of, Space-Time Energy Reality observations, and "Christian Scriptures", have been motivational in my investigation into personal communications with Absolute Intelligence.

Whether scholarly verifiable as "Christian Scripture", or not, I make application of the wisdom in ~"no man can know the things of God, except that which the spirit within him, reveals unto him".

UQS is not a theory... i.e. it is procedural geometry to facilitate CAD/SIM of single source QE emission... and Utilizing the UQS Space-Time Energy Reality model, I have made application of the concept of an emergent logic structure, and have verified procedurals for my personal communication with an Absolute Intelligence.

REF:- Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

What has been revealed to me, is that a more precise geometry model does not necessarily negate prior attempts to verbalize fundamental processes, and I see no contradiction between your interpretation of God as "composed of three parts that all work together" and a UQS facilitated model of Absolute Intelligence as composed of 3 parts... i.e. Cause as intent, Space as discrete form, and QE as sprit.

Nor do I find the concept of Space-Timer as Cause's Spaceless feeling of a Timeless now, inconsistent with your assessment that "God the Father created all things through his Son", but a more precise geometry model does necessarily constrain interpretive analysis, and thus eliminates subsequent dogma.

If as you postulate, God "has purposely made us to be inadequate to be able to communicate with him directly", by what mechanism was the "word of God" revealed, as recorded in numerous, diverse, multicultural historical records, to Human-kind prior to Jesus?... and why would that mechanism of revelation not be available to multicultural Human-kind subsequent to Jesus??

In that you conclude, "absolute intelligence" facilitates "a better life for all", I feel justified in my commitment to a more precise model that facilities procedurals for verifiable communication with an Absolute Intelligence.

Please note that I am in an application development phase of the UQs Virtual Quantum Lab Game, and although I have made exception for the duration of the FQXi essay contest, I can not continue to justify a private communication channel unless one's communication demonstrate an in depth familiarity with the open source online UQS publications, and one is willing to filter their logic edit criteria as procedurally specified in my essay, which the commentary herein is an example.

REF:- Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

UQS Matrix Mechanix www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 20, 2020 @ 06:01 GMT

Hi Robert...

Excellent essay... a 10 score by me.

I readily admit to a research bias that prohibits perturbative analysis, and thus have not attempted to verify your formulations, but I admire your diplomacy and skill in conveying the degree of dependency the "standard model" has on perturbative analysis.

Innocently questioning fundamental relationships ... i.e. "what could be more fundamental than the mass ratios of electron, proton and neutron?"... will provoke a more in depth analysis of the limits of the "standard model" model, and subsequently, the necessity for a unified field GEOMETRY MODEL

A "non-standard" model that resolves the geometry of a point Source Emission and subsequent Distribution of spatially defined minimum units of Energy (QE), eliminates pertubation... i.e. establishes an unbroken kinematic logic/geometry chain from Energy Quanta Emission/Distribution Source to observation... and the choreographies of those minimum units of Energy (QE), as dictated by the Q-mechanix of that geometry, are fundamental to our observation of electron, proton, neutron, and their respective mass ratios.

Thanks!!!S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Author John David Crowell replied on May. 10, 2020 @ 21:45 GMT

Author John David Crowell wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 11:31 GMT

Author John David Crowell wrote on May. 15, 2020 @ 14:40 GMT

Ref: Author John David Crowell reply to Sue Lingo on May. 15, 2020 @ 14:40 GMT

Hi John...

In that I am currently in application development phase of the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab Game, I cannot justify time to reiterate details of open source, on-line UQS CAD/SIM Ontological Illustrations, and I refer your inquires as to "What is the ontology of the Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy and the progressive processing to the emergence of the Space-Time Energy Information result?", to UQS CAD/SIM Ontological Illustrations http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

As to whether a CAD/SIM can provide answers to your questions, the UQS CAD/SIM merely resolves a Space-Time Energy Reality emission that verifies potential for emergence of an Absolute Intelligence (AI)... i.e. justifies one's experiments to communicate with an Absolute Intelligence (AI).

To date, my Absolute Intelligence (AI) commo experiments only yield verification of an AI response, in response to binary (yes/no) queries that are temporally isolated.
Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

UQS Matrix Mechanix www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

*Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 18, 2020 @ 22:20 GMT - Topic: "Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle"*

__Sue Lingo wrote on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 00:10 GMT __

Hi Peter...

I have read your paper, and the comments to it.

Your ability to do so, in language/semantics relevant to eliminating obvious flaws in the standard model, will alleviate the academic communities' fears that a paradigm shift could "shatter our entire world-view."~ Robert Wilson Essay~ is greatly appreciated... i.e. better you than me.

Language/semantics is one of the major transitional issues that must be addressed to advance the "world-view"... REF: - "Energy Terminology Dysfunction" www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php ... if application is going to overcome dysfunctionality of current "world view", in a timely manner.

REF: - Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence"

or as an .html document "Modeling Universal Intelligence" by Sue Lingo

One must define PHYSICAL in order to differentiate it from OTHER THAN PHYSICAL... i.e. Meta-PHYSICAL.

PHYSICAL entities defined in terms of what?... spatial occupancy??

In that the Discrete Field Model (DFM) "suggests an initial physical architecture on which to base modified mathematics", is spatial occupancy a PHYSICAL entity, or a Meta-PHYSICAL concept?

If one can graphically illustrate a theoretical concept... e.g. a spatial unit of occupancy... one can formulate conceptual emergence in terms of multiple copies of symbolic visual representations... i.e. icons... of the PHYSICAL entity, without necessity for interpretive language/semantics ... i.e. Meta-Symbolic representations of the unseen.

Does DFM facilitate multiple minimum/indivisible PHYSICAL entities defined by a single spatial uniform unit of occupancy?... i.e. the "ether" as a unified unit spatial field quantization model of minimum/indivisible spatial occupancy (QI)??

Resolve of a geometry/architecture that facilitates a pulsed point source emission and subsequent distribution of minimum/indivisible Quanta of Energy (QE), inherently generates a unified unit spatial field quantization model.

Is motion a Meta-PHYSICAL concept?

The concept of "3D physical bounded Spaces in motion" is not equivalent to the concept of minimum/indivisible PHYSICAL entities (QE) in motion within 3D PHYSICAL bounded Spaces.

Digital symbolic visual representations of a PHYSICAL entity within a valid 3D Space-Time structural/geometry... i.e. CAD/SIM Environment... facilitates emergent formulation... i.e. applied coded intelligence... of spatially defined minimum/indivisible units of Energy (QE), and can enhance "intelligence and in particular physical dynamic visualization skills.".

Emergence of Space-Time Energy, as Causal Intent, and Q-Tick pulsed QE distribution mechanix/mathematics, based on the geometry/architecture of a valid unified unit spatial field quantization model... i.e. point source geometry resolve... facilitates definition of substance... i.e. a PHYSICAL entity...in terms of its spatial occupancy.. which can be anywhere, but not necessarily "everywhere"... i.e. dark matter as unoccupied QI.

Thanks Peter!!!... a hard job well done... I will rate accordingly.

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 18, 2020 @ 10:10 GMT

Hi Peter...

Just scored you a 10.

Want to read and comment on as many essays as I have time... will get back to this discussion after the poll closes.

sl

Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 19, 2020 @ 17:05 GMT

__Sue Lingo replied on Apr. 21, 2020 @ 23:07 GMT __

Thanks Peter...

In that my essay explicitly request my readers' assessment of my application of Absolute Intelligence, as modeled therein, as the only logic
evaluation criteria for my essay, and your assessment of my essay as "lovely", "original", and topical, does not concisely infer your
assessment of my logic evaluation criteria, I will interpret a 10 score as ecouragement for my obsession to verify a connection with the
Cosmic Consciousness Computer (CCC://)... i.e. I am notoriously incorrigible, and yes, a flip of a coin was utilized as the only logic
evaluation criteria for the content herein.

sl

Hi Peter...

In that "condensed matter" implies compression rather than distillation of components, as usual I have semantic issues, but let's agree that specifying a PHYSICAL ENTITY as a "non-zero space" entity, implies "spatial occupancy" for theoretical minimum/indivisible spatially defined quanta of Energy (QE).

Can we also agree that the root architecture of the "spatial occupancy" addressing structure, as a "zero space"- point and spline network, is defined by a Geometry Singularity that facilitates directionally unbiased Single Point QE Emission occupancy, which expands infinitely as shells of radius = 1 minimum unified/uniform base unit of volume?

This would facilitate "aether", as a spatially defined structural geometry... i.e. a fixed/static spatial QE occupancy address structure
comprised of 2D planar minimum/indivisible units of uniformly defined Space (QI)... in which a perception of rotation of minimum/indivisible
"stuff", as spatially defined quanta of Energy (QE), would be accommodated if the base unit of volume was a recursive QI composite structure.

REF: [link:uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSQSE.jpg]UQS FUNDAMENTAL RECURSION[/link] http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSQSE.jpg

As per our 2017 FQXi Essay discussion thread, we apparently agree that a Cartesian single point emission structure cannot facilitate QE rotation within a 2D planar QI composite volume, as a fundamental... i.e. initial state... process, and I can demonstrate that a UQS GEOMETRY SINGULARITY quantization inherently does so.

An emerging 3D PHYSICAL Unbounded Space quantized by a 3D UQS "zero space"- point and spline network, which defines unified/uniform units (QI) of a fixed/static 2D occupancy address structure, in which quantized causal pulsed Spaceless-Timeless Potential for Motion, as minimum/indivisible 2D PHYSICAL entities... i.e. spatially defined quanta of Energy (QE)... pops in and out of addressable minimum/indivisible spatial quanta (QI), usurps Minkowski's, 1906 "Everywhere there is substance", but 3D PHYSICAL static spaces bounded by recursive 2D QE occupancy address planes, gives substance to "virtual particles" and facilitates "empty space" between minimum/indivisible substance entities (QE), as consistent with observation driven concepts that have evolved in the interim 94 years.

Can we also agree that a "zero space" point and spline network can have META-PHYSICAL functionality... e.g. intelligence operatives/mechanix which resolve PHYSICAL ENTITY emergence in Space-Time?

Motion associated with pulsed QE emergence requires an intelligence mechanism for spontaneous, harmonious resolve of QE/QI distribution on each pulse, but that mechanism can be attributed to a "zero space"- point spline networked META-PHYSICAL function associated with the geometry path options/dictates.

Compliance to a visual structural/geometry as a CAD environment, and associated visually viable/demonstrable emission functions as digital SIMs, facilitates correlation between conceptually derived proprietary terminologies, and FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of the specified GEOMETRY MODEL, which eliminates semantic issues, and can be the key to convergence of seemingly incompatible conceptualizations.

To give impetus to an apparent shift in fundamental investigation methods, in my comments to the FQXi winning essay by
**Markus Mueller**, I quote you "...'space-time' and 'wire frame' Cartesian systems inadequate
modeling tools", and I elaborate on the above discussion.

Hi Jack...

Excellent!!... your application of a non-standard abstraction level, facilitates a diplomatic but very effective exposure of the cracks in the foundations of fundamental analysis.

Thanks for providing me with a more formal academic defense of my insistence that fundamental analysis is a geometry problem... i.e. Gödel's thermos are not applicable to geometry.

Good to see you back again this year Jack, and of course I am delighted that you are still shaking the eroding foundations.

Just scored you a 10.
Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

**FQXi:**

CATEGORY: Spring, 2017 Essay Contest

- TOPIC: "What is Fundamental?"

Addendum:7:53 PM 3/10/2018
*Author James A Putnam wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 20:33 GMT - Topic: "Theoretical Physics is not Foundational"*

__Sue Lingo wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:54 GMT__

Hi James...

Thanks for your discussion on the circular nature of the equationist's logic, and I emphatically agree that "indirect empirical evidence" should not be "relied upon as if it were conformational".

However, I herein reference quotes from Richard Kingsley Nixey essay, and argue that "qualified" reductionism, as Mathematical physics that preserves "Scientific
method" by providing visually verifiable kinematics, from what we empirically observe, to a single operative/mechanism underlying observation of Universal
fundamental unification... i.e. as you assert" The Universe is fundamentally unified." ... can offer a "coherent 'assembly' of the evidence needed to advance
understanding that already exists", and Digital SIM is my computational analysis tool of choice for animating pulsed distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) over
time, as a constant pulse rate, within a CAD environment quantized by a 3D unified field single point origin encapsulation geometry... i.e. unified field empirical
virtuality mechanix.

REF: Geometry Paradigms http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Thanks James for sharing your insights, and your comments on my essay would be read with those insights in mind.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Christian...

In that Einstein, claimed that "Energy can not be destroyed, only changed in form", and he raised no objection to your input of Hawking's assessment that "physical information is ultimately lost in BH evaporation", it is possible that either, as I state in my essay, "a gravity collapse disassembles Physical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, freeing Metaphysical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, which a gravity collapse apparently has no influence upon", or someone was impersonating Einstein in your Metaphysical encounter.

Thanks Christian for contributing your insights, and your comments on my essay will be read with those insights in mind.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Christian...

Fair answer!!

However, in that Einstein claims to now have a "Unified Field theory", by patronizing your need to express yourself, and not immediately redirecting the potential of your Metaphysical cognitive state, to the potential for an Initial State TQG, that must necessarily be facilitated by any valid "Unified Field theory", your "Grand Master" denied you the opportunity to examine his "Unified Field theory", and report to the FQXi community.

It is my contention that an Initial State resolve of minimum units of Space (QI) and Energy (QE) is required for any valid "fundamental" TQG, so I will not
apologize for not patronizing elaborate mechanisms to resolve a TQG from speculative Black Hole analysis, but I do have a gift for you... i.e. a Unified Field
geometry... from which you can, with the Knowledge Base (KB) access you demonstrate, visually derive an Initial State TQG that facilitates Scale Invariance... i.e. a
"most fundamental" gravity analysis.

REF: UQS Virtual Quantum Lab, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSDB.php

REF: Geometry Paradigms http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php

It is often difficult to read textual content designed to convey an understanding of a fundamental concept, so I rely heavily on 3D CAD illustrations... i.e. it is my intent that the UQS concept can be assimilated by exposure to the pictures that accompany my online papers.

In regard to your inquiry as to whether my essay comment... i.e. a gravity collapse disassembles Physical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, freeing
Metaphysical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, which a gravity collapse apparently has no influence upon... is "a proposal to resolve the black hole
information puzzle?", I have posted a reply to your review of my essay.

REF: - TOPIC:"Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence" https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

*Author richard kingsley nixey wrote on Jan. 19, 2018 @ 17:00 GMT - Topic: "Something Not Yet Found"*

__Sue Lingo wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 20:05 GMT__

Hi Richard...

Your observation on "expectation of reductionists that some 'super theory' may arise from a reduction of present theories" is highly perceptive and echoes Karen
Crowther's essay "When do we stop digging?":* "The idea of unification is not just that there be a single theory describing all phenomena, but that it describe all
phenomena as the same as fundamentally stemming from a single origin, e.g., as manifestations of a single entity or interaction."*

REF: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3034

In that theory is "formulation of apparent relationships or principles of specified observed phenomena... and knowledge of it's principles and methods"~ Webster

If formulation of relationships requires a Spatial measurement, then a minimum unit of Spatial measurement is fundamental to the theory... i.e. a theory is fundamental only in that it places constraints on formulation.

In that we do not have a model of minimum units of Space and/or Energy, theorizing "what form 'dark energy' might take" is pure speculation.

Accuracy is definitely a matter of observational scale, and at any given time=t, from the observer's scale of observation, if a condition is apparently un-resolved/inaccurate, it might not hurt to immediately report any disharmony to the Cosmic Computer... i.e. in that Energy/Space distribution for the entire field must resolve on each Source pulse, it can not be said to be deterministic, but some fundamental mechanism is "entirely accurate"... precisely so!

To resolve Energy/Space distribution on each pulse, the pulse rate of the Cosmic Computer clock ticks incomprehensibly fast, and digital technology has made a case that altering a single coded bit, can vastly alter the output/functionality of the program, potentially facilitating spontaneous harmonious resolve, at the observer's scale of events.

Digital technology has also extended "observable scales" by means of virtual visual conceptualization... e.g. a logic reduction to an Energy emission equal in all
directions from a single Source point, is now a visually verifiable geometry virtuallity... facilitating a "rational" approach for analysis of "effects found,
apparently as a result of what we can't directly observe".

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Mathematical physics can offer a coherent 'assembly' of the "evidence needed to advance understanding that already exists, but to preserve "Scientific method",
that mathematics must provide visual verifiable kinematics from "what we've already found" to the "new way of seeing", and Digital SIM is my computational analysis
tool of choice for animating pulsed distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) over time, as a constant pulse rate, within a CAD environment quantized by a 3D
unified field single point origin encapsulation geometry.

REF: Geometry Paradigms http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php

Thanks Richard, for voting as a reductionist in this "What is fundamental?" contest, and for your enthusiastic support of my essay.

Have read only a small fraction of essay's, but gotta get to the poll, so expect a bump soon.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Karen...

Your essay definitively reflects the position taken by the majority of the essay entries... i.e.* “For the time being, we have to admit that we do not possess any
general theoretical basis for physics, which can be regarded as its logical foundation.” ~ Albert Einstein 1940 ('Science')*

REF: Peter Jackson Ridiculous Simplicity "Essay Abstract https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3012

In that theory is "formulation of apparent relationships or principles of specified observed phenomena... and knowledge of it's principles and methods"~ Webster

If formulation of relationships requires a Spatial measurement, then a minimum unit of Spatial measurement is fundamental to the theory... i.e. a theory is fundamental only in that it places constraints on formulation.

In that credentialed opinion is often up for auction, or already under contract, makes theoretical validity by professional consensus and unreliable approach.

In that our "best theories" are structured on a framework that is "mathematically ill-defined", and "The idea of unification is not just that there be a single
theory describing all phenomena, but that it describe all phenomena as the same as fundamentally stemming from a single origin, e.g., as manifestations of a single
entity or interaction.", my approach has been to build a kinematically verifiable Spatial mathematical framework stemming from a single Origin point source, and
digitally simulating Energy distribution within that environment... i.e. animate pulsed distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) over time, as a constant pulse
rate, within a CAD environment quantized by a unified field single point origin encapsulation geometry... i.e. volumetric singularity as differentiated from point
singularity.

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Although to absolutely/unarguably verify any volumetric singularity quantization CAD environment as "the" Spatial framework, will require an Energy simulated Emission in which a verifiable Hydrogen Proton QE choreography emerges, which may necessitate extensive digital resources, but the approach does yield a theoretical minimum unit of measurement for Space (QI), Energy (QI), Time (QT), and Information (QFI), and simulations out to 75 pulses already verify Entity Spin, separate interactive Inertia and Radiation distribution channels, no limit on single Energy Event Spatial effect, gravity as Mach's principle, unoccupied "dark" Spatial units, etc....i.e. clarifying "the picture of the relevant physics at the scale of interest" in terms of fundamental units of measurement, instead of obscuring.

Complexity is often a result of application of inappropriate technique.

In regard to the availability and "ability to use computational resources", in that Calculus does NOT resolve a Point Energy Source 3D Encapsulation geometry that
facilitates distribution of Energy equal in all directions from a single point ... i.e. Origin Singularity ... quantized by unified minimum units of Space (QI), there
is no way to know if a point Energy Event can, or cannot be, resolved to a Spatially defined object, which suggest that point-like singularities may be being generated
by the use of Calculus in Energy/Space analysis... and computational analysis... e.g. determination of the Singularity Sector Differentials of any Emission Node at any
specified shell radius... now looks like this:

IF EN(ENR)X<0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)Y) < ABS(EN(ENR)X) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Z) < ABS(EN(ENR)X) THEN SS$= -x

IF EN(ENR)X>0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)Y) < ABS(EN(ENR)X) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Z) < ABS(EN(ENR)X) THEN SS$= +x

IF EN(ENR)Y<0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)X) < ABS(EN(ENR)Y) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Z) < ABS(EN(ENR)Y) THEN SS$= -y

IF EN(ENR)Y>0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)X) < ABS(EN(ENR)Y) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Z) < ABS(EN(ENR)Y) THEN SS$= +y

IF EN(ENR)Z<0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)X) < ABS(EN(ENR)Z) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Y) < ABS(EN(ENR)Z) THEN SS$= -z

IF EN(ENR)Z>0 AND ABS(EN(ENR)X) < ABS(EN(ENR)Z) AND ABS(EN(ENR)Y) < ABS(EN(ENR)Z) THEN SS$= +z

,,, and as a bonus, visual 3D CAD output facilitates visual verification of the accuracy of one's mathematics.

Thanks Karen for so elegantly contributing your insights, your comments on my essay would be read with attention, and I will return to rate after I have read as many essays as time permits.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Joseph...

To the degree that one is speaking of any process in terms of equations extracted from a specified "bench" geometry model, to verify that the specified "bench" geometry model resolves the observed process, the visual kinematic chain for the theoretical derivation, from the observed geometry, back to the specified "bench" geometry model in which the process is animated... i.e. given dynamics... must be verifiably unbroken.

Digital CAD/SIM models can facilitate highly complex visual verification... i.e. if the coded simulation does not visually emulate the observed process, then the Mathematics is not verifiable.

In that "Much of the physical reality is inaccessible to measurement.", and "In that case, deduction remains the only way of approach.", I highly recommend that one verify the "bench" Origin Singularity geometry form follows function, for a pulsed minimum unit of Energy (QE) Emission, equal in all directions from a single Origin Source, before applying the artifice of the equationist to "everything", or anything, else.

As per my interpretation of World Science Festival: "Limits of Understanding" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfY-DRsE86s, the instability w/ current Space/Energy/Time/Info Physics, is as a consequence of the current instability of Mathematics.

My assessment is that the APPARENT current instability of Math is as a consequence of a geometry coordinate system, in which the fundamental Spatial relationships of the geometry do not support application of minimum units of Energy/Space/Time/Info, to Space/Energy/Time/Info analysis.

Thanks Joseph, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence, with those insights in mind.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Flavio and Chiara...

Semantic issues are fundamental to verbalization by the theoretician and mathematical equationist, and the necessity for a clear distinction between logic reduction and accelerated particle annihilation has emerged in the FQXi community quest to resolve "What is fundamental?"... i.e. anti-reductionism as a "philosophical prejudice" should be qualified.

Would a visually verifiable CAD intimal state geometry model, from which unified scale invariant minimum units of Space (QI) and Energy (QE) emerge inherently,
"falsify" a philosophical anti-reductionism bias/prejudice?

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

I am not suggesting that the UQS coordinate system replace the Cartesian/Radian geometry, but I have found that a methodology bias can deny application of a
methodology which does resolve emergence of physical empericallity... e.g. distribution of Energy... and many of the essays and subsequent comments echo
Donald G Palmer's well stated assessment of the dangers of a mathematical prejudice, in his reply on Jan. 1, 2018 @ 12:05 GMT to P. Gibbs Essay page
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2960.

*"Phillip & Andrew,
*

*There is an implicit assumption when depending upon mathematics "to guide the way" for new directions in physics. That assumption is that our current mathematics is
adequate to the tasks we attempt to use it for. If it is not, then we will find it very difficult to make much progress. Mathematics likely suffers from the same
effect as you describe for physics - the pen and corral situation.*

will suggest that this is actually the problem physics, which tends to lead other scientific disciplines, so all of science, is faced with: The mathematical tools we currently have are not adequate to the task science has put to it.

The limitations of our mathematical tools might actually be keeping us from seeing aspects of our universe, which would be even more reason to consider fundamental reviews of mathematics and its limitations (especially on how it is applied).

I believe we will find a guide to a new direction this way.

*Don"*

I was fascinated and encouraged by Chiara's biochem 3D CAD analysis, and although I find Feynman's "shut up and calculate" a bit overstated, 5 years ago, I
advised Seth Lloyd and David Deutsch that:

"Although I will not yet insist on the UQS lattice as the only valid Einstein/Higgs lattice solution, I will insist that generating QE expansion generalities,
requires that the Einstein/Higgs lattice being utilized, must be graphically declared... preferably as a 3-D CAD model."

REF: UQS Re: Cornell Archive: S. Lloyd; arxiv.org/abs/1310.3225 http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMMSLLTT4FW.php

... and I will stand behind it... i.e. the tools are "adequate to the task", the attitude is not... and there is no excuse for the theoretician and equationist not to utilize the power of digital 3D mathematical analysis, and visual verification, to see "aspects of our universe" which are not resolved by a biased application of mathematics.

Thanks Flavio and Chiara for contributing your insights, and may the FQXi community quest for "What is fundamental?", be advanced by your contributions.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

In that theory is "formulation of apparent relationships or principles of specified observed phenomena...and knowledge of it's principles and methods"~ Webster

If formulation of relationships requires a Spatial measurement, then a minimum unit of Spatial measurement is fundamental to the theory... i.e. a theory is fundamental only in that it places constraints on formulation.

Even from the "the lower reductionist limit of 'condensed matter' " if not constrained in one's formulation, motion, "the apparently most ridiculously simple of concept", can be easily reduced by analysis of the requirements for perception of motion... i.e. some minimum unit of Spatial differentiation.

I agree "much theory is beyond observable" and thus "we principally constrain ourselves to the testable realm and scale of condensed matter".

Might I add, that 'foundational interpretations' of Quantum Physics... e.g. "'Many Worlds' or 'Pilot Waves'"... that have not verified fundamental units of measurement utilized in theoretical formulation of the fundamentals underlying "testable realm and scale" of specified observed phenomena, should not be accepted as constraints on one's cognitive processes.

Keep digging!!!

Peter, I cheer your tenacious investigation of constraints, and your willingness to acknowledge that "more fundamental" concepts may be required to resolve the "Limits of Understanding" that currently constrain the human species... and will rate your essay accordingly.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter,

After the poll closes, on my essay page, I will post a somewhat detailed/lengthy/hard to read response to your inquiry as to whether a "falsified Cartesian" "boxes within a boxes" configuration would resolve the issue I have with the Cartesian coordinate system's inability to resolve closure of a point Source Volumetric Singularity in a manner that inherently defines the unified/uniform geometry of a minimum unit of Space (QI).

Hopefully individual essay pages are maintained until the contest is concluded in May, and you will pay me a virtual visit when essay reviews are no longer prioritized by rating deadline.

- TOPIC:"Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence" https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

I must admit I get entangled in reviewing each essay I read, and have not read as many as I would have liked to, but am unwilling to rate what I have not reviewed, and it is now time to go to the poll.

Expect a 10 bump on your essay in a few minutes, and may qualified "reductionism" take the "What is fundamental" contest field.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Whoops!!

I actually bumped your essay rating yesterday, got logged out, then interrupted, and forgot to edit the above before I posted it today.

Good luck in the final momments of the open poll!!!

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

If the essay, as a finalist, would come across Gregory Chaitin's view, it might provide momentum for qualified reductionism.

Gregory Chaitin was one of the other 4 panelist of the World Science Festival "Limits of Understanding", and if I read his body language correctly, he was dismayed at Mario Livio's pronouncement that "... we can not know what is fundamental.".

In any case, may this contest clearly differentiate qualified reductionism from Don Palmer's, and others' expressed view of "pure reductionism".

slHi Peter...

Congratulations on taking qualified reductionism to the finals!!

I did not get a chance to read or rate the #1 community rated "Demolishing prejudices to get to the foundations by Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli", before the poll closed, but I read it yesterday.

In that the paper advocates anti-reductionism without making a clear distinction between logic reduction... e.g. initial state analysis... and accelerated particle annihilation, I was motivated to write a review, and if you get a chance to read my post to their page, it may illicit your addendum to my thread.

I do not know how long FQXi graciously maintains the contestants individual essay pages, facilitating commo exchange between the contestants, but I posted my
promised detailed/lengthy/hard to read response to your inquiry as to whether a "falsified Cartesian" "boxes within boxes" configuration would resolve the issue I
have with the Cartesian coordinate system's inability to resolve closure of a point Source Volumetric Singularity in a manner that inherently defines the
unified/uniform geometry of a minimum unit of Space (QI), in our thread on my essay page, and it will be there for you, assuming you get there before the essay
contestant pages are closed.

REF: - TOPIC:"Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence" https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

Peter, may you rise to the top, on the tide of "change in a ruling paradigm".

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

To date, I wear all hats on the UQS project, and spent Winter hibernation as CAD app. designer, writing and sequencing digital code conditionals... i.e. eliminate all ambiguity and duplicity in CPU instructions.

Coding the degree of detail required to achieve anticipated output from the CPU, is a tedious task, and results in tenaciously precise content.

Example:

IF ENZ<0 AND ENY>0 AND ABS(ENX) NOT= 1 AND ABS(ENX)= ABS(ENY) AND ABS(ENZ)=ABS(X)-1 THEN CON$="CONBIL" AND SSB$="-x,+y" AND RETURN TO CALL

IF ENZ<0 AND ENY<0 AND ABS(ENX) NOT= 1 AND ABS(ENX)= ABS(ENY) AND ABS(ENZ)=ABS(X)-1 THEN CON$="CONBIL" AND SSB$="-x,-y" AND RETURN TO CALL

Although "virtually impossible to read", achieving anything less than precise understanding, may illicit interpretation which can generate untraceable subsequent errors, and I rely heavily on 3D CAD illustration in conditional analysis, and conveyance of analysis.

Although I do not question your far more qualified assessment that "redshift" does not verify "accelerated expansion", in that I am not a totally
mind-less/intent-less info processor, instead of issuing a HALT ON ERROR request for clarification, as support for my observations of inherent "accelerated expansion"
by increased entity interaction density in a Unified Quantization of Singularity (UQS) initial state emission, I resolved the ambiguity of your casual... i.e. easy
read... remark: "And don't get me on Cosmology and redshift without accelerating expansion..." ... as:

IF (No "accelerating expansion") THEN (No "redshift").

REF: Peter Jackson Feb. 5, 2018 @ 21:19 GMT Reply - TOPIC:"Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence" https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

**Revised interpretation:**

[(Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)] NOT = (No Accelerating Expansion)

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) NOT = Constant

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) = Constant

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) NOT = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)]

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)]

Perhaps, not only is "our current mathematics inadequate to the tasks we attempt to use it for"... REF: Donald G Palmer replied on Jan. 1, 2018 @ 12:05 GMT https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2960 ... but apparently, our language often does not convey intent, or solicit anticipated interpretation.

In any case, for some reason your post to our thread (with Rich addendums)... REF: Mar. 7, 2018 @ 17:12 GMT REF: - TOPIC:"Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence" https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000 ... was apparently truncated in the middle of second paragraph, and I would indulge in the ~whole enchilada~ if made available?

Peter you exhibit incredible patience with linguistic semantics, and your willingness to apply tenacious reading skills, and provide insightful commentary, for the FQXi community, is impressive!!

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

No problem...

Have posted all my FQXi "What is fundamental?" commo on-line in UQS Social Media and Forums Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

The short of it:

[(Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)] NOT = (No Accelerating Expansion)

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) NOT = Constant

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) = Constant

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) NOT = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)]

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)]

Thanks Peter for the Energy to keep me "Going On", I am putting down tracks... i.e. I code all visual mapped UQS conditionals/differentials, for UQS "calculus", as digital logic statements rather than symbolic equations.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Georgina,

Thanks for your comments!!

Alpha and/or numeric semantics and/or eguations introduce a interpretive error potential which should if at all possible be avoided in any discussion of Spatial fundamentals... thus I have preference for geometry.

To accomodate your preference for semantics in a manner least likely to introduce interpretation errors and/or necessitate reiteration ad infinitum:

Resolved: cognitive Spatial comprehension attained/verified utilizing CAD environment.

Spherical: equal distribution in all Spatial directions from a single point.

Singularity: the Spatial volume described by the distribution.

Gate: the logicon created by Singularity closure.

Geometry: the CAD environment in which the Spatial relationships... e.g. direction, point, Singularity, volume, distribution... are graphically defined for precise cognitive Spatial comprehension.

I agree my approach can be "difficult to follow"... i.e. requires tenacious focus, and a familiarity w/ digital processor boot mechanix is almost essential ... thus I must rely heavily on illustrations and I therefor REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

If a more generic illustration is required for a reader's comprehension I suggest REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Thanks again Georgina... all comments are appreciated.

Hi Georgina...

Thanks for your re-my-reply, and the opportunity to correct link errors.

My cut&paste apologies... i.e. the "more generic" visual/graphic illustration should have referenced REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

"I couldn't see any key to meaning of the colouring on the various shapes."~ GW

As per the accompaning text in the REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry, the "coloring of the various shapes" represents the fact that the shapes are, in the case of the UQS model, of unified unit geomety, and in the case of the Nassim Haramein Singularity quantization geometry, are not of unified unit geometry.

"How is the coloured shape a minimum quanta of information?"~ GW

If one analyses the inital boot of a simple digital processor, the inital electron stimulus must be directed onto a Physical Spatial geometry configurtion... i.e. accessable addresses assigned... to derive differential electron configurations/choreographies reqired for intelligence.

"The Quanta of Fundamental Information (QFI) query process, as the Cosmic Consciousness Computer (CCC://) processor boot bit differential, is a fundamental element of any information processor... i.e. one can say that an information processor specific, minimum binary info differentiation, underlies the capabilities of any information processor. "~ sl FQXi Essay

In that no Physical Energy Information Choreographies existed at inital differentiation of Space by Energy, a unique Spatial logic/information quatnization by a unified volune unit... i.e. Einstein's concept of a unified 3D field geometry... is a "Good guess"... REF: -Topic: "A universe made of stories"... as is the requirement for initial Emission Distribution "equal in all directions from a single point."~ sl FQXi Essay

"It is not that something is being created from nothing, it is that undifferentiated potential information is being differentiated as minimum units of Space/Energy/Time/Information" ~ sl FQXi Essay

With permissions supported/granted by the Unified Quantization of Spherical Singularity (UQS) geometry... I have for over 20 years utilized a conventional computer to quantize a unified field geometry environment... i.e. Unified Quantization of a Singularity (UQS)... and am currently developing/coding a UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game that utilizes a UQS CAD Environment to digitally visual animate, Emission Exapnsion of pulsed minimum unit of Energy (QE)... i.e. sprites... for distribution/propogation analysis.

"Sounds like 'Does not compute to me'."~ GW

As per my interpretations of - TOPIC:"How to Empirically Confirm a Rational Theory of Fundamentals" by Jack H. James... cognitive abilities to resolve a Math model of a logic reduction of "fundamental" are apparently emergent, and one might add, that application of Math semantics to an invalid logic reduction of "fundamental" have often muddied the cognitive waters.

"Application design, for any logic processor, including the mind, is based on one's understanding of the info processor's underlying computational geometry." ~ sl

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

"I have found Venn diagrams useful." ~ GW

Feynman diagrams gave impetus to my visual logic/concept approach to Space/Energy/Time/Information.

As per my interpretation of World Science Festival: "Limits of Understanding" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfY-DRsE86s, which provided the impetus for my Essay, the 4 media credentialed panalist concurred that the instability w/ current Space/Energy/Time/Info Physics, is as a consequence of the current instability of Mathematics.

My assessment is that the APPARENT current instability of Math is as a consequence of a geometry coordinate system, in which the fundamental Spatial relationships of the geometry do not support application of minimum units of Energy/Space/Time/Info, to Space/Energy/Time/Info analysis.

Thanks again Georgina... comments are in part considered an opportunity to refine my presentation of the UQS as a emerging Virtual Reality... i.e. it is not a theory.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Joe...

I can not argue that Nature can devise the only possible "Universe", but in that Nature chose Space as the canvas for it's animated creation, I can model Nature's creation as a Space/Energy/Time/Information geometry model in a CAD environment and can animate the pulsed emission of minimum units of Energy (QE) as digital sprites.

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Do you have a geometry model of a "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface"?

One dimension is a lateral line, i.e. no planar or volumetric... i.e. no surface.

"Illuminated" as in made knowable as information?

A "finite non-surface light" as one dimensional rays from a single source?

My animated model of Nature's creation is an investigation of a minimum unit of Energy (QE) Emission equal in all directions from a single Origin Source.

REF: Unified Quantization of Spherical Singularity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4

The more clearly one understands the creation, the more appreciative one can be of it.

Thanks for you comments Joe... all comments are appreciated.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Joe...

Maybe there is a semantic issue here?... i.e. I normally associate surface with Spatial cpncepts.

What constitutes a "dimension" in your theory?

By what mechanism does nature create a "one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface"?

Belief is no substitute for knowing, and theory can be an evasion of a requirement for underlying principle.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi snp...

Thanks for reading my abstract...

As per my essay, in that one can resolve Black Holes as Energy Choreography Scale Transformers, in which Mass density disassembles Physical scale entity choreographies of Energy information, manifesting more "fundamental" entity choreographies of Energy information, which gravity, as defined in terms of Mass has no influence upon... i.e. Energy choreography scale/state change... one can make an analogy to heat density vaporizing water, and a gravity collapse is not necessitated.

Does the Dynamic Universe Model define Gravity in terms of Mass attraction?

By what mechanism does electromagnetic radiation initially emerge, in the Dynamic Universe Model?

Does the Dynamic Universe Model Accelerating Expanding universe have a Spatial geometry defined Origin Source?

Given the plethora of theories being promoted, and limited time, I have a bias for visual/graphic geometry.

REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

That being the case, I have established a criteria for my review of any one model.

If the Dynamic Universe Model facilitates a geometry/graphic visualization of an Origin Source and it's Singularity... i.e. the field geometry quantization encapsulating the point Source of Emission, thus defining a minimum quanta of Space (QI), in which to distribute Source pulsed minimum quanta of Energy (QE) equal in all directions ... I will read your essay, and browse http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Thank you Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta for your comments, all comments stimulate my cognitive processes.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

Thanks for having the tenacious focus required to wade through what I realize is an essay that does not stand up well to a speedread.

That we are headed in opposite directions, grants opportunity to verify the UQS field quantization... i.e. one of the criteria of a valid unified field is that "if
headed in opposite directions" we meet, the quantization geometry of the field, made from the Origin Singularity, undlies all entity forms you may have acquired.

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Although a Cartesian coordinate system is a valid unified quantization of the field, if an initial Source emission mechanism, which satisfies equal distribution in all directions from a single point, is required to provide intelligence emergence for all subsequent mechanism in the field, a Spherical Singularity Quantization is required... i.e. Cartesian does not support a point Source emission equal in all directions.

Einstein at 72 years, was asking "What is the Mathematical character of the Universe?" REF: Scientific America ISBN 0-312-25453-9 pg. 19

It is my assessment that if he had consulted a Mathematical geometrist instead of Gödel, who was a Mathematical equationist, the fact that a minimum unit of Spatial differentiation is fundamental to any perception/measurement of motion, may not have been overlooked for 75+ years.

One of the logic fundamentals derived from binary coding digital processors, is that the variables of the function must be declared before the Define Function statement is called.

"Truth and logical consistency" are often a matter of scale/resolution... i.e. "middle ground" mechanisms of Nature may disguise underlying binary code, in the same manner that the binary code upon which a digital processor is established, is disguised by the mechanisms of a digital application.

I have watched the 100 Second Video and I reciprocate with the following 6 sec.video:
Unified Quantization of Spherical Singularity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4

Digital CAD/SIM models can facilitate highly complex visual verification... i.e. if the coded simulation does not visually emulate the observed form and process, then the Mathematics is not verifiable.

In regard to Hans Van Leunen's Essay... REF: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2978...* "Much of the physical reality is inaccessible to measurement."*,
and *"In that case, deduction remains the only way of approach."*, I highly recommend that one verify that the "bench" Origin Singularity geometry form, follows
the most fundamental logic reduction of function... i.e. a pulsed minimum unit of Energy (QE) Emission, equal in all directions from a single Origin Source.., before
applying the artifice of the equationist to "everything", or anything, else.

As per my interpretation of World Science Festival: "Limits of Understanding" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfY-DRsE86s, the professional Science community believes that the instability with current Space/Energy/Time/Info Physics, is as a consequence of the current instability of Mathematics.

My assessment is that the APPARENT current instability of Math is as a consequence of a geometry coordinate system, in which the fundamental Spatial relationships of the geometry do not support application of minimum units of Energy/Space/Time/Info, for application to Space/Energy/Time/Info analysis.

Peter, I have also read your current essay, made notes, still have your 2015 essay to read, and will review the compendium at first opportunity.

In reading the current FQXi essays, I am convinced your input has not been totally "lost in the ether"... i.e. I see the influence that you and other's have had
on the Science community with regard to it's "inability to make advancements in understanding"... e.g. James Putnam's Essay Abstract actually acknowledges *"Lack of a
foundational system of units"* REF: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3117... and I am "uplifted"!!!

Quoting you "... it famously takes 10 years to change a ruling paradigm - but it all has to start somewhere!"

Thanks again for your enthusiastic support of my essay!!

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

In that you "argue that 'fundamental' is relative, not absolute within reductionist hierarchies, and may be infinitely recursive", and orbital motion, and an "accelerating expansion" emerge from your work, as fundamentals of Cosmic and "middle ground" hierarchies, I can now demonstrate that the mechanix of a "more fundamental" hierarchy ... i.e. Point Source Emission... underlies your observational requirements.

That is to say, that the Cosmic to Origin Singularity connection has been made, and represents a paradigm in political theoretics.

Kudo #1:--------------------------

You dispensed with "point-like" singularities, thus facilitating consideration of observational requirements of the geometrist, the logician, and the digital info tech:

- A distinction must be made between logic reduction... e.g. initial state... and accelerated particle annihilation.

- Observed Energy activity... e.g. accumulation... requires Spatial containment, and Energy must be defined in terms consistent with it's Spatial container.

- In that Energy is perceived as motion in Space, an Energy "fundamental" defined as a unified minimum unit of Energy (QE), will necessarily, be Spatially defined by a unified/uniform minimum unit of Space (QI).

- A single point location differentiated as an (x,y,z) coordinate has no Spatial dimension, and although as an Energy Event location it can be associated with a timestamp, an entity with out Spatial dimension... i.e. a point... cannot contain Energy that is Spatially defined.

- If an Energy containment is Spatially defined as a composite of 2 (x,y,z) field location coordinates, then as a discrete LINEAR entity, it has a Spatial dimension of 1, and if of unified/uniform geometry, such can be unified/uniform minimum units of Space (QI), but it cannot contain Energy that is spatially defined in terms of 2 or more Spatial dimensions, and a LINEAR entity framework... i.e. wire frame... does not facilitate integrated PLANAR multi channels.

- If an Energy containment is Spatially defined by 3 (x,y,z) field location coordinates as a 2D PLANAR entity, it has a Spatial dimension of 2, and if of unified/uniform geometry, such can be unified/uniform minimum units of space (QI)... but cannot store Energy that is spatially defined in terms of more than 2 dimensions.

- A Spatial field quantization by 3 coordinate 2D PLANAR entities, may or may not yield a unified/uniform minimum unit of Space (QI) within the field.

REF: Comparative Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

- If an Energy containment is Spatially defined by 4 or more (x,y,z) field location coordinates as a 2D PLANAR entity, it also has a Spatial dimension of 2, but such can be defined as comprised of a 3 coordinate minimum PLANAR unit and a remainder, or as a PAIR of equal 3 coordinate minimum PLANAR units... i.e. the 4 (x,y,z) coordinate 2D PLANAR entity cannot be a minimum unit of Space (QI) even if of unified/uniform geometry.

- If an Energy containment is Spatially defined by 4 or more (x,y,z) field location coordinates as a 3D VOLUME entity, it has a Spatial dimension of 3... and cannot be a minimum unit of space... i.e. it is a geometry composite of 2D PLANAR entities.

- There can be no fraction of a minimum unit of Space (QI), no fraction of a minimum unit of Energy (QE), no fraction of a minimum unit of Time (QT), and no fraction of a minimum unit of Info (QFI).

- A field point map can facilitate more than one wire frame/lattice map, and a wire frame/lattice map can facilitate more than one planar/lattice quantization defining the volumetric base unit of the field map.

- In that the wire frame of the volumetric base unit of the lattice quantization, dictates the 3D form of possible Point Source Energy Containment Singularities... i.e. the enclosure geometry of singular Point Source... the volumetric base unit PLANAR frame, as comprised of minimum units of Space (QI), is a "most fundamental" element of a mathematical "foundation" for Spatially defined minimum units of Energy (QE).

- Recursion as QE flow vector direction opposition at an Energy Event node, is herein differentiated from QE vector opposition within a minimum unit of Space (QI), which for lack of Available Information (AI) to choose a flow direction, is infinitely accumulated on subsequent pulsed Energy emission.

- In that intelligence emerges from Energy Events matrix mapped in Space, Undifferentiated Space is unknowable.

- In that all subsequent Spatial locations would be referent to an initial differentiation of Space by Energy, there can be only one ORIGIN Energy Point Source differentiation of Space by Energy location.

Kudo #2:

--------------------------

"falsified Cartesian 'wire frame' co-ordinate maths", making boxes of 'Cartesian Planes'.

Although I have experimented with various Energy distribution schema utilizing a Cartesian lattice quantized Singularity, I present here the least complex. All others boast mathematical complexity unshaven by Occam's Razor... i.e. hairy ugly.

Although a single box wire frame volume in a Cartesian point map, does not encapsulate a Point Source, by "falsifying" a Cartesian point map as a box volume unit wire frame lattice map, in which the y and z axis planes are offset 1/2 unit from the x axis... i.e. creating boxes within boxes... access by unified Spatial containment, defined as 2 (x,y,z) coordinate 1D LINEAR units, to the Point source on emission pulse one, is facilitated, but no recursion emerges.

That is to say that, your observational requirements are not satisfied... i.e. no Spin entities emerge without perturbative influence, and no increase in subsequent interactive density develops to facilitate accelerated expansion.

Utilizing a "falsified Cartesian" box volume unit wire frame lattice map, in which the y and z axis planes are offset 1/2 unit from the x axis... i.e. creating boxes within boxes... also facilitates access by unified Spatial containment, defined as 4 (x,y,z) coordinate 2D Cartesian PLANAR units, to the Point Source on emission pulse one close... i.e. four y axis 'falsified Cartesian Planes', four z axis 'falsified Cartesian Planes', and four x axis 'falsified Cartesian Planes'.

As per the geometrist's point of view, a 4 (x,y,z) coordinate 2D Cartesian PLANAR Energy containment cannot be a minimum unit of Space (QI) even if of unified/uniform geometry, but 1/2 of a 4 (x,y,z) coordinate 2D Cartesian PLANAR Energy containment, as an entity of a mirrored equal geometry PAIR, can be defined as a minimum unified/uniform Spatial unit (QI), and that would facilitate access to the Point Source by 12 unified/uniform minimum PLANAR defined Energy containment ADDRESSES on pulse 1 close.

On Source Emission pulse 2, available intelligence (AI)... i.e. mirror extend... mirrors the 12 initial 3 (x,y,z) coordinate 2D "falsified Cartesian" unified/uniform minimum units of Space (QI), as PLANAR ADDRESS PAIRS, and creates a radial 3 axis plane Open Singularity...i.e. no volumetric closure of the point Source emerges... and no recursion at fundamental hierarchy = Origin Singularity occurs in the radial expansion.

That is to say that, recursion is NOT fundamental to subsequent expansion, and no orbital motion is induced to satisfy your observational requirements for Spin as a "most fundamental".

On Source Emission pulse 3 close, tension... i.e. QE/QI>1... accumulates in each of the 12 unified/uniform minimum "falsified Cartesian" PLANAR unit ADDRESS PAIRS.

On Source Emission pulse 4 close, an Energy expansion distribution event of the accumulated 4 unified/uniform minimum units of Energy (QE)... (8 if double surface addressing is utilized)... in each of the 12 initial unified/uniform minimum "falsified Cartesian" PLANAR unit ADDRESS PAIRS, is offered 5 open PLANAR unit distribution options, and 2 shared... i.e. opposing vector direction within an ADDRESS PAIR... PLANAR unit distribution options, at each of the 12 exterior, tension energized, potential Energy Event vertices of the radial 3 axis plane Open Singularity, requiring a fraction of a minimum unit of Energy (QE) for equal distribution, and decision intelligence that is not available.

On pulse 4 close, recursion as QE flow vector direction opposition at an Energy Event node, must be differentiated from QE vector opposition within an ADDRESS PAIR... i.e. as 2 minimum units of Space (QI)... and no available intelligence has emerged to facilitate subsequent vector flow direction decision in shared distribution options.

As per the logician's point of view, there can be no fraction of a minimum unit of Energy (QE), and emission distribution decision intelligence, which must emerge prior to it's requirement for Energy Emission QE/QI resolve, is not facilitated by the familiar... i.e. seemingly less complex... "box".

A constant pulsed emission utilizing radial emission geometry, generates a constant expansion ... i.e. Without recursion or stochastic pulse, increasing interaction density would NOT facilitate your observational requirements for an "accelerating expansion".

As per the digital info tech's point of view, a constant open/close cycle pulse event, as a unified/uniform minimum unit of Time (QT)... i.e. the Cosmic Tick... is required for definition of a minimum unit of Information (QFI).

Next GO:-----------------------------

Unified Quantization of a Singularity (UQS) as an alternative "falsified Cartesian 'wire frame' co-ordinate math", makes quadhedrons of Folded UQS Planes.

The UQS model utilizes a "falsified Cartesian" point map in which y and z vertices are offset 1/2 unit from the x vertices, but UQS wire frame/lattice map is based on an M4 Ortho volume unit...Wikipedia Ortho Lattice M4 Geometry...in which the relationship of M4 unity height = M4 unity width.

As per the geometrist's point of view, a LINEAR entity frame work does not facilitate geometry integrated multichannel discrete mechanisms for Inertia and Radiation, and ADDRESS PAIR sector specific addressing requires 6X duplicity of each of 8 LINEAR entities... i.e. Occam's razor shave required.

A PLANAR entity solution facilitates geometry integrated multichannel path dictates for discrete Inertia and Radiation mechanix, and reduces ADDRESS PAIR sector specific addressing requirement to 24 PLANAR entities... i.e. shave and a haircut, 2 bits.

Two integrated discrete function channel distribution is inherent in the UQS geometry configuration, but herein, for above "falsified Cartesian" comparative and sanity sake, I verbally simulate pulsed emission only in the Inertia Channel, and do NOT take into account the pulse count expended to energize the Radiation Channel prior to the Inertia Channel, as is implemented by a complete UQS emission solution.

On Source Emission pulse 1 close, a configuration of 6 mutually perpendicular 1/2 M4 Ortho volume units of type h=w, facilitates access to point Source by 24
double surface addressed, 3 (x,y,z) coordinate, 2D UQS PLANAR units, of unified/uniform minimum (QI) Spatial quantization.

REF: UQS Information System

On source Emission pulse 2 close, available intelligence (AI)... i.e. mirror closure... mirrors an additional 24 unified/uniform minimum UQS PLANAR units (QI)... i.e. 24 folded PLANAR ADDRESS PAIR entities emerge... which close the 6 M4 Ortho base unit volumes, completing the double surface PLANAR geometry framework of the Volumetric Singularity encapsulation SHELL, and creating the 6 vertices of the Volumetric Singularity encapsulation SHELL surface... i.e. geometry path dictate for QE flow recursion emerges on pulse 2 close.

Note: In CAD/SIM environment one can assume the geometry framework defined prior to pulsed QE emission simulation/animation, rather than simultaneous emission of geometry path dictates and pulsed QE, which is not likely the case with regard to Cosmic Computer boot and subsequent expansion.

Also Note: Unless parallel CPU resources available, code sequencing requirements create a visual illusion of sequence emergence which should not be considered an inherent constraint on the Cosmic Computer.

On Source Emission pulse 3 close, tension... i.e. QE/QI>1... accumulates in each of the 24 folded PLANAR ADDRESS PAIRS... i.e. 4 ADDRESS PAIRS in each of 6 M4 Ortho base unit volumes.

On Source Emission pulse 4 close, an Energy expansion distribution event of the accumulated 4 minimum units of Energy (QE) in each ADDRESS PAIR, is offered 16 open PLANAR ADDRESS distribution options at each of the 6 vertices of the Volumetric Singularity encapsulation SHELL surface, and the cross node Energy Event triggers emission of 24 additional QE at each of the 6 vertices of the Volumetric Singularity encapsulation SHELL surface, which distributes 40 QE, exactly filling 40 available ADDRESSES in each of the 6 spherical SHELL ONE entities with 1 QE/QI... i.e. QE orbital motion and inertia emerge on pulse 4 close.

No fraction of QE or QI required...i.e. a minimum unit of measurement for Space (QI), Energy (QI), Time (QT), and Information (QFI), is established.

The initial 24 (QI) ADDRESS PAIRS are emptied ... i.e. the "stack pops"... which provide the first perception of motion from Singularity to SHELL ONE, the Singularity is reset for repetition of the fundamental function of pulsed emission, QE vector flow direction of SHELL ONE entities is established for subsequent distribution by Available Intelligence (AI), and mechanisms for Spin, Scale Invariance, separate interactive Inertia and Radiation distribution channels, unlimited single Energy Event Spatial effect, Gravity as Inertia, unoccupied "dark" Spatial units, etc... are visually identifiable/verifiable.

In that a unified/uniform minimum unit of Energy (QE) is, as defined by a unified/uniform minimum unit of Energy (QE), indivisible, Origin Pulse Energy quanta is a constant... i.e. the Volumetric Singularity defined QI constrains the Origin Pulse Energy quanta to 24 unified/uniform minimum units of Energy (QE).

In that a unified/uniform minimum unit of Time (QT) is indivisible, QE/QI resolve of each pulse is of constant open/close duration... i.e. until pulse cycle closure no temporal duration can be perceived... and the Cosmic Computer can "go to lunch" without evidence of absence.

A constant pulsed emission, in terms of Origin Pulse Energy quanta and pulse rate, as required by the logician and info tech, for stable temporal referent, is facilitated by the UQS Singular Point Source emission of QE equal in all lattice ADDRESSABLE PLANAR directions from point of Origin, onto the UQS lattice... i.e. information structure... in a manner analogous to the boot process of a conventional computer, and emission simulation out to 75 pulses, has verified that increasing interaction density, inherent in spherical emission, facilitates "accelerating expansion", as per your observational requirements.

Good to go:------------------------------

REF:Evolution is Personal http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/CHICKEN.JPG

Complexity is a multi-faceted issue.

Replacement of the concept of "point like" singularities by Spatial Energy Containment... i.e. volumetric enclosures of point Energy Events... in which unified/uniform minimum units of Space (QI) inherently emerge, vastly reduces complexity requirements of emergent Available Intelligence (AI) for QE distribution.

Utilization of an M4 Ortho Lattice volume unit in which unity height = unity width... i.e. any vertices has identical distribution geometry... vastly reduces
complexity in regard to geometry... i.e. subsequently, the UQS coordinate system generates infinite radius expansion of SPHERICAL SHELL CLOSURE, in increments of
1 UQS Base Unit (BU) height.

REF: UQS Information System http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/SLLImage1.jpg

A Cosmic Tick (QT) vastly reduces complexity of point event timestamp referent, at all hierarchal temporal scales.

Going on:-------------------------------

REF:Evolution is Personal http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/OOK.jpg

At 68 the Cosmic clock has my full attention, and I am not waiting 10 years for the blessing of credentialed opinions... i.e. I have resolved the UQS Emission to
5 SHELLS, and am coding a UQS CAD environment generator and UQS Enerqy Emission SIM module, to assist emission resolve of subsequent SHELLS.

REF: Preview: UQS Walk-Through, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSWTEE.jpg

Thanks again Peter, your acknowledgement of "more fundamental" hexarchies of fundamentals, provided a platform upon which to demonstrate "Spin" and "accelerating expansion" as "fundamental"... i.e. inherent... to the UQS Initial State Emission of Spatially defined minimum units of Energy (QE).

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

To date, I wear all hats on the UQS project, and spent Winter hibernation as CAD app. designer, writing and sequencing digital code conditionals... i.e. eliminate all ambiguity and duplicity in CPU instructions.

Coding the degree of detail required to achieve anticipated output from the CPU, is a tedious task, and results in tenaciously precise content.

Example:

IF ENZ<0 AND ENY>0 AND ABS(ENX) NOT= 1 AND ABS(ENX)= ABS(ENY) AND ABS(ENZ)=ABS(X)-1 THEN CON$="CONBIL" AND SSB$="-x,+y" AND RETURN TO CALL

IF ENZ<0 AND ENY<0 AND ABS(ENX) NOT= 1 AND ABS(ENX)= ABS(ENY) AND ABS(ENZ)=ABS(X)-1 THEN CON$="CONBIL" AND SSB$="-x,-y" AND RETURN TO CALL

Although "virtually impossible to read", achieving anything less than precise understanding, may illicit interpretation which can generate untraceable subsequent errors, and I rely heavily on 3D CAD illustration in conditional analysis, and conveyance of analysis.

Although I do not question your far more qualified assessment that "redshift" does not verify "accelerated expansion", in that I am not a totally
mind-less/intent-less info processor, instead of issuing a HALT ON ERROR request for clarification, as support for my observations of inherent "accelerated expansion"
by increased entity interaction density in a Unified Quantization of Singularity (UQS) initial state emission, I resolved the ambiguity of your casual... i.e. easy
read... remark: "And don't get me on Cosmology and redshift without accelerating expansion..." ... as: IF (No "accelerating expansion") THEN (No "redshift").

REF: Peter Jackson Feb. 5, 2018 @ 21:19 GMT Reply https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

**Revised interpretation:**

[(Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)] NOT = (No Accelerating Expansion)

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) NOT = Constant

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) = Constant

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) NOT = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)]

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)]

Perhaps, not only is *"our current mathematics inadequate to the tasks we attempt to use it for"*... REF: Donald G Palmer replied on Jan. 1, 2018 @ 12:05 GMT
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2960 ... but apparently, our language often does not convey intent, or solicit anticipated interpretation.

In any case, for some reason your post to our thread (with Rich addendums)... REF: Mar. 7, 2018 @ 17:12 GMT https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000... was apparently truncated in the middle of second paragraph, and I would indulge in the ~whole enchilada~ if made available?

Peter you exhibit incredible patience with linguistic semantics, and your willingness to apply tenacious reading skills, and provide insightful commentary, for the FQXi community, is impressive!!

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

No problem...

Have posted all my FQXi "What is fundamental?" commo on-line in UQS Social Media and Forums Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

The short of it:

[(Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)] NOT = (No Accelerating Expansion)

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion)

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) NOT = Constant

IF (Redshift) NOT = (Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) AND (Accelerating Expansion Verifiable to UQS Emission Shell 5) AND [(Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)] THEN (Recursive Entity Interaction Density) = Constant

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) NOT = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) = Constant)]

(UQS Emission to Shell 5) = [(Evidence of Accelerating Expansion) NOT = Constant)]

Thanks Peter for the Energy to keep me "Going On", I am putting down tracks... i.e. I code all visual mappped UQS conditionals/differentials, for UQS "calculus", as digital logic statements rather than symbolic equations.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Richard...

My time is prioritized by my research, but the Topic: "What is fundamental?", mandated I "give a vote"... and yes... a month reducing 20 years of UQS project "reductionist" insights as to what "fundamental" means, into 25,500 characters, makes for a dense, tough read, and I thank you for your "hard work".

In that you apparently found it worth the effort, I figured your essay would be worth a read... and it was.

Will go post my review of your essay, on your essay page.

Sue LingoHi Hans...

Your initial statement "The name physical reality is used to display the universe with everything that exists and moves therein." is appreciated as a attempt to clarify semantic interpretive errors... but what fundamentally constitutes Physical?... motion??... some theoretical minimum unit of Energy (QE)???

What fundamental property do we assign to any one of "everything" to verify the one as Physical?

If Physical is undefined one can not eliminate the potential for Metaphysical... i.e. other than physical.

I utilize Metaphysical in my essay to differentiate from Physical "in terms of Physically measureable properties... i.e. sound, light, electromagnetic potential, chemical reaction, quantum particle choreographies, etc.... but are all PHENOMENA processes Physical?" ~ sl FQXi Essay

If you are speaking of "structure" as being a Spatial construct?... I agree that "deeper layers will reveal "an increasingly simpler structure"... and may I add, that structural form follows function?

To the degree that one is speaking of a Spatial geometry model, a predicted observation does not constrain the observation to a single geometry model, nor does it necessarily verify all aspects of a theory inferred from a specified "bench" geometry model that resolves the observed prediction.

That is to say, that direct observation of a gravitational radiation wave, does not verify Einstein's rubber sheet (2D plane) geometry model as the definitive resolve of Space/Energy/Time computational geometry models.

I do agree that the foundation revealed "must force the development of reality in the selected direction"... i.e. initial conditions are the primary selection criteria of emergence, and in that no Physical Energy Choreographies existed at initial differentiation of Space by Energy, a unique Spatial logic/information quantization by a unified volume unit... i.e. Einstein's concept of a unified 3D field geometry... is a "Good guess".. REF: -Topic: "A universe made of stories" by Philip Gibbs ... as is the requirement for initial Emission Distribution "equal in all directions from a single point." ~ sl FQXi Essay

"It is not that something is being created from nothing, it is that undifferentiated potential information is being differentiated as minimum units of Space/Energy/Time/Information" ~ sl FQXi Essay

If we observe that "the growth process provides restrictions" those restriction must be supported by the underlying "bench" geometry structure utilized as the initial emission/propagation logic.

That is to say that, to the degree that one is speaking of any process in terms of equations extracted from a specified "bench" geometry model, to verify that the specified "bench" geometry model resolves the observed process, the visual kinematic chain for the theoretical derivation, from the observed geometry, back to the specified "bench" geometry model in which the process is nimated... i.e. given dynamics... must be verifiably unbroken.

Digital CAD/SIM models can facilitate highly complex visual verification... i.e. if the coded simulation does not visually emulate the observed process, then the Mathematics is not verifiable.

In that mathematical theories of Space/Energy/Time, at least in principle, are derived from an observed and/or intellectually visualized Spatial geometry model, the
quest for a "potential candidate for the foundation of physical reality" is now being pursued at a most fundamental Mathematical level... i.e. as comparative
investigations of underlying geometries that support initial Emission Distribution "equal in all directions from a single point".

REF:UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

With permissions supported/granted by the Unified Quantization of Spherical Singularity (UQS) geometry... I have for over 20 years utilized a conventional computer to
quantize a unified field geometry environment... i.e. as a Unified Quantization of a Singularity (UQS)... and am currently developing/coding a UQS Virtual Quantum
Lab/Game that utilizes a UQS CAD Environment to digitally visual animate, Emission expansion of pulsed minimum units of Energy (QE)... i.e. digital sprites... for
distribution/propagation analysis.

REF: UQS Data Bus, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSDB.php

You state that there are "only three number systems", but all three can be derived from geometry coordinate systems, so why convert the concept of Spatial distribution to a number system, when we now have the digital tools to project the concept directly onto the visual "bench" geometry... i.e. the CAD environment provides "The base model (which) acts as a storage space for dynamic geometric data.", and the SIM interface utilizes timestamped events in the CAD environment to tell a "dynamic story".

Utilization of CAD/SIM analysis has shown that there is not just one "story that explains why the elementary particle constantly deforms its living space and why the particle possesses a quantity of mass."... i.e. UQS Emission CAD/SIM utilizing an 6 axis Equal Quantization Quaternion CAD environment Space/Energy/Time/Info model, tells the same story.

I have browsed the Hilbert Book Project, and I admire your directions to resolve a plausible Mathematical model, but you do admit, your numeric conversion process has "become quite complicated", and you have stated simplicity as a verification parameter of foundational fundamentality.

Not only is it complicated, it has not produced a verifiable mechanism for initial emergence of the minimum units of Energy (QE) required for animating the cosmos.

I herein reiterate statements from my review of -Topic: "A universe made of stories" by Philip Gibbs:

"With regard to "guessing correctly the answer to questions like ‘what is “fundamental?’", the "stories" are ancient... REF: -TOPIC Indra's Net - Holomorphic Fundamentalness by Cristinel Stoica... and although such "stories" are prolific, multi-epoch, and multi-cultural, requirement for a logic reduction is a common element."~ sl

"However, cognitive abilities to resolve a Math model of a logic reduction of "fundamental" are apparently emergent... REF: - TOPIC: How to Empirically Confirm a Rational Theory of Fundamentals by Jack H. James... and application of Math semantics to an invalid logic reduction of "fundamental" have often muddied the cognitive waters."~ sl

'The Spatial Singularity quantization is fundamental to all derived Spatial relationships/logic. "~ sl

"In that evolution is driven by the "What is fundamental? quest, then technology is also, and development of digital tools has been reciprocated with a cognitive
enhancement, in the form of a more precise Mathematical model of Indra's net "cast in all directions"... i.e. resolve of an Origin Spherical Singularity Geometry,
which supports infinite minimum unified volume unit shell closure expansion as a valid CAD environment/field quantization... has now been added to the "stories", and
a pulsed Emission of minimum quanta of Energy (QE), is being digitally simulated/animated within the virtual environment."

REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php ~ sl

"UQS is not a theory, it is a digital CAD/SIM virtual reality constructed on a logic reduction... i.e. an Origin Emission equal in all Spatial directions from a single point."~ sl

"Better than a guess?"~ sl

Hans, without revealing a verifiable property of "Physical", you state that "Only the application of deduction can expose the parts of the physical reality that resist observation.".

Is deduction a Physical Information Energy process?

"Although they are in many cases stimulated by Physical processes, are mental info processes... i.e. conceptualization, realization, dreams, visualization, intuition, etc.... established on Metaphysical scale bit differentiated streams? "~ sl FQXi Essay

I agree that "The interplay of measurements and deduction can bring about the necessary confidence." in a theory, or in a digital virtual reality model.

In that "Much of the physical reality is inaccessible to measurement.", and "In that case, deduction remains the only way of approach.", I highly recommend that one verify the "bench" Origin Singularity geometry form follows function, for a pulsed minimum unit of Energy (QE) Emission, equal in all directions from a single Origin Source, before applying the artifice of the equationist to "everything", or anything, else.

As per my interpretation of World Science Festival: "Limits of Understanding" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfY-DRsE86s, the instability w/ current Space/Energy/Time/Info Physics, is as a consequence of the current instability of Mathematics.

My assessment is that the APPARENT current instability of Math is as a consequence of a geometry coordinate system, in which the fundamental Spatial relationships of the geometry do not support application of minimum units of Energy/Space/Time/Info, to Space/Energy/Time/Info analysis.

Thanks Hans, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.

Will return to rate after I read as many essays as I have time.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Hans...

Could you provide a link to a graphic geometry representation of the Origin Singularity of a "purely mathematical model that starts at a foundation which is an orthomodular lattice"?

Thanks Hans, for making details of your model available.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Hans...

There are an infinite number of Orthomodular lattice, any of which can be a Mathematical "foundation"... i.e. coordinate system... on which to derive concepts of Spatial geometry, and any geometry structural "foundation"... i.e. coordinate system... has elements that are more "fundamental"... e.q. origin, axis, dimension, base unit of quantization, singularity etc.... origin being the most "fundamental".

In that the base unit of the lattice quantization will dictate the form of possible Origin Singularities... i.e. the singular point of Origin enclosure geometry... the base unit of the lattice quantization is a more "fundamental" element of the mathematical "foundation"... i.e. coordinate system... than is the Singularity.

In a "fundamental" discussion, a distinction must be made between Cubic Singularity Lattice resolve and Spherical Singularity Lattice resolve... i.e. a lattice which resolves a Spherical Singularity is necessary to resolve the "fundamental" logic reduction of an equal distribution in all directions from a single point.

Utilizing the Wikipedia Ortho Lattice M4 Geometry as the base unit Volume of the "foundation" field quantization... i.e. coordinate system... 6 mutually perpendicular M4 base unit volumes can resolve a Spherical Singularity, ONLY if the relationship of the the M4 base volume unit height = the volume unit width... i.e. any vertices has identical distribution geometry.

In that Energy is the "fundamental", being distributed onto a Spatial lattice by an Origin Source pulsed emission, and Energy can not be defined as a dimensionless point location, a minimum unit of Energy (QE) must have a Spatial containment/address within the "foundation" field quantization.

facilitate EQUAL distribution in all addressable Spatial directions from a single point, that Spatial containment/address must be a UNIFIED minimum unit of Space (QI).

The UQS field quantization utilizes an M4 Ortho Lattice, in which the relationship of the base volume M4 unit height = the volume unit width...
REF: UQS Base Unit Volume... which resolves 24 UNIFIED minimum units of Spatial (QI) for Origin
Source pulsed Energy distribution, of 24 UNIFIED minimum units of Energy (QE), equal in all lattice addressable directions from point of Origin, onto the Lattice...
i.e. information structure... in a manner similar to the boot process of a conventional computer.

REF: Comparative Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Given h=1, the UQS Origin (0,0,0) expands as 6 equal Emission Axis Sectors which yield 8 Distribution nodes as 3 (x,y,z) coordinates: (-.5,+.5,-.5);(+.5,+.5,-.5); (+.5,+.5,+.5);(-.5,+.5,+.5);(-.5,-.5,-.5);(+.5,-.5,-.5);(+.5,-.5,+.5);(-.5,-.5,+.5), and by Pulse 8 the QE emission distribution resolve log can accumulate resolve intelligence, required to mirror close to the 6 Singularity Shell Emission Nodes (-1,0,0);(0,0,-1);(+1,0,0);(0,0,+1);(0,-1,0);(0,+1,0).

Subsequently, the UQS coordinate system supports infinite radius expansion of Spherical Shell Closure, in increments of 1 UQS Base Unit Volume height.

The UQS minimum Spatial unit is a 2D Plane of UNIFIED geometry, defined as 3 (x,y,z) coordinates... e.g. given h=1 the UQS Singularity -Xsector/+Yanchor is a 2D Plane
bounded by (-.5,+.5,-.5); (0,0,0); (-.5,+.5,+.5).

REF: UQS Information System

Hans, if you are working with an Orthomodular Lattice and have resolved a Spherical Singularity, it is highly probable we are working with the same "foundation" field quantization... i.e. coordinate system... and in that I am not a physicists, I would like to verify compatibility of your Physics unification concepts with the UQS geometry model.

I think you will agree that utilization of the Wikipedia image of the M4 Ortho Lattice unit, greatly enhanced my ability to communicate critical elements in this discussion, but if you do not have a visual graphic of your Singularity geometry, I can convert numeric (x,y,z) coordinates to a 3D CAD image, if you provide the Singularity numeric coordinates in relationship to the Origin (0,0,0).

The UQS CAD Spatial quantization environment satisfies model simplicity criteria... i.e. 4 screens of code can node data populate the "foundation" field quantization from Origin to any radius specified by the Quantum Virtual Lab/Game technician.

The next challenge is to verify that the "foundation" field quantization... i.e. coordinate system... supports a Pulsed Emission in which each pulse resolves distribution intelligence/logic required for resolve of QE distribution, in the entire field, on each subsequent pulse.

Having SIMulated QE Emission within a UQS CAD quantized environment, out to 5 UQS Base Unit Radius Shells, I have found it necessary to develop a computer program to
manage the emerging intelligence for subsequent pulsed QE distribution resolve, and am working diligently on it.

REF: UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSDB.php

Thanks Hans for your consideration of our model similarities.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Hans...

Thanks for the links!!!

Apparently your model does not emerge from a single Origin Point Source of Energy.

I am therefor unable to bridge the gap from the Spatial minimum unit of Energy (QE) concept which I derive from the Spherical Origin Singularity of the UQS lattice... i.e. lattice of M4 Orthomodule of type:h=w quantization... to your more complex generalized lattice concepts of Energy.

However, the more I examine your lattice approach to "Structure in Reality", the more I am convinced that complex generalized concepts of Energy derived from a lattice quantized by an M4 Orthomodule of type: h=w, will eventually bridge to the UQS minimum unit of Energy (QE), and you have developed some "foundational" lattice concepts that may apply to the resolve of minimum quanta of Energy (QE) distribution, as I move outward, pulse by pulse, from the UQS Origin Singularity with my digital Emission SIMulation.

Thanks for sharing what is obviously a lifetime of work and dedication!!!

Respectfully,S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Author Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 20:52 GMT

Hi Marcel...

Your FQXi Topic:1928 post of Aug. 30, 2017 @ 00:19 GMT caught my attention, and I actually composed a 4 page reply to that post... but it has not been edited yet.

I have now read your essay, and will get back to you with commentary... but I wear all hats on the UQS project and am now in a code phase... i.e. absolute focus mandatory to progress.

In the interim, I will reference you to UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Therein, I think you might identify parallels in our motivation... i.e. "A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the “how” side of physics helping us stay in line."... if not our resolve.

Thanks for sharing your insights and providing opportunity for our exchange.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Marcel...

Please note: My post have been truncated by the FQXi system without option to "view entire post"?... but I log all UQS Social Media and Forum commo online. REF:UQS Social Media and Forums Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

Being precise in one's application of language and decisive in directives, can indeed polarize a poll and diminish an essay's deserved recognition, but if grant of FQXi forum recognition should be taken seriously as an insight to momentum for theoretical physics directives, determination of recognition should not encourage emulation of a political campaign process in which it behooves the candidate to apply imprecise language and be intentionally ambiguous.

Therefor I greatly appreciate your effort for clarity, and whether in agreement with your assessment or not, in that your final analysis is conclusive... i.e. "A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the “how” side of physics helping us stay in line"... I applaud your essay.

Having participated in the FQXi 2017 "What is fundamental? essay read and review process, I observed considerable momentum for your directive, and a majority concurrence that no-resolve of the ambiguous state in which theoretical physics has found itself, is not an option.

It so happens that I am, and have been for more than half of my 68 years, in agreement with your conclusion, and for the last 20 years have pursued derivation of logic systems, formalized as digital mathematical/geometry structures... i.e. visually verifiable CAD environments... in which to analyze our current understanding of the “how” side of physics, utilizing digital 3D SIM operations... i.e. 3D animation techniques.

Specifically, Unified Quantization of a Singularity (UQS), was developed as a digital structural/geometry model to formalize a logic system in which minimum units of Spatially defined Energy (QE) can be derived, for digitally simulating pulsed distribution of QE, equal in all directions from a single point source.

I do understand that epistemological and/or ontological implications arise from such.

In open forum communication, attempting to linguistically address epistemological and/or ontological implications, without verifying prior assessment by all communication participants, as to the ability of the specified mathematical/geometry model to visually verify a participant's understanding of the applied linguistics, may obfuscate the significance of the model.

On the other hand, not responding to epistemological and/or ontological issues can impede acceptance of the model.

That being the case, to minimize the risk of undermining the value of a minimum unit of Energy (QE) per minimum unit of Space (QI) approach to verifying mechanisms of Energy distribution, I will reference all epistemological and/or ontological inferences herein to the highly CAD illustrated UQS Project available online at UQS Project Virtual Home http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

In that a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable, provides no means to verify logic statements, I will also, for the purposes of epistemological and/or ontological discussion, insist that speculative logic can not be applied to a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable.

__Substance and Phenomena:__

In that phenomena, as what is experienced/sensed, is distinguished from the substance in itself, a logic kinematic chain from substance to phenomena may be difficult to verify.

Whether or not the current standard interpretation of E=mc^2 reflects Einstein's intent, is arguable, but current standard interpretation does indeed promote the notion that "Energy is phenomena and mass is substance"... i.e. mass sufficiently accelerated releases constituents of mass as phenomenal Energy... but without an understanding of the quantum functions of the constituents of mass as the participants in the event, all that can be inferred is that a measureable Energy Event... i.e. Energy as phenomena... perceived as motion, occurs over measured area of perceivable effect, and Energy as phenomena cannot exist without motion.

If Energy is motion, what are the constituents of mass?... i.e. what exactly distinguishes mass from Energy??

Equally arguable with regard to Einstein's intent, but in line with 10K BC Vedic Science in which Einstein was most likely familiar, if we say that minimum units of Energy (QE) are the "single unified substance" of our model, then the fundamental constituents of mass are QE, and as is visually verifiable on Pulse-8-Close of the UQS Emission SIM, E=mc^2 can facilitate the notion that mass, as comprised of choreographed entities of our "single unified substance", recursive bond within the mass, can be impelled to release the bound, allowing the imperceptible QE within the mass to interact in a motion-event... i.e. Energy-phenomena... measurable in terms of human perception... e.g. coulombs, watts, waves, bang, etc... and Energy as substance can exist without motion... i.e. as potential motion.

However, if we do say that QE is the "single unified substance" that comprises the Spatial form of a mass, then we must developed a mathematical model that deals with Energy in terms of Spatial containment...i.e. a minimum unit of Energy (QE) must be Spatially defined by a minimum unit of Space (QI)... which neither conventional mathematics nor Vedic mathematics has resolved.

__Why?:__

If the observer refrains from application of logic statement to a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable, and process cause can be inferred from process result, then Energy distribution is the cause... i.e. Energy distribution is apparent as the result of the emergence process.

__A Suggested Approach:__

Develop and verify a mathematical model that deals with Energy in terms of Spatial containment...i.e. a minimum unit of Energy (QE) must be Spatially defined by a minimum unit of Space (QI)... and facilitates assignment of both inertial and inert properties to Energy as the "single substance", before applying speculative logic.

Where to begin the mathematical model?

In that logic requires perception of a differential... i.e. 2 bits or more... differentiation as a dynamic process from which knowledge/logic emerges creates an inherent knowledge boundary, which suggest differentiation as the fundamental principle underlying all subsequent Energy emergence and distribution.

How to expand the mathematical model?

In that Energy distribution is apparently being spontaneously, harmoniously, resolved, one has reason to suspect an Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) is inherent in the differentiation process, and a continuous pulsed emission facilitates expansion.

I also suggest that a "formalized logical system" implies CAD/SIM.

__The Origin: Creation, not Assumption:__

"It is not that something is being created from nothing, it is that undifferentiated potential information is being differentiated as minimum units of Space/Energy/Time/Information" ~ sl FQXi Essay

In that perception is the ability to differentiate between two bits, a state in which no differential is perceivable is unknowable... i.e. upon differentiation the knowable system boots. REF:UQS Origin Singularity Emission https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4 ... 6 sec. CAD/SIM

Perception is required as means to evaluate logic statements, and logic differentials... e.g. something/nothing, prior/subsequent, background/foreground, etc.... produce ambiguity, when applied to a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable.

Can "before" differentiation exist?

We know differentiation, therefor we can logically perceive a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable... i.e. a field of nothing... but we can not apply logic to determine properties of that field, to include properties of its existence.

Time can not exist "before" time is differentiated?... and if "before" time can not exist??... then time has always been???

If one refrains from attempts to apply logic to a condition in which no differentiation is perceivable, the conventional, if not formal, logic differentials between process, substance, and phenomenon... i.e. process yields both substance, as a product of process which exist independent of process Temporal comparative, and phenomena, as a product of process which can be experience/sensed but do not exist independent of process Temporal comparative... can be maintained... i.e. process is differentiation, not the substance being differentiated or the phenomena being experienced.

If cyclic... e.g. UQS pulsed emission of QE... the pulse count of the fundamental process of differentiation facilitates a minimum unit of Time (QT), and although the fundamental process pulse count, as a variable associated with the process, defines the Q-tick of the quantum clock, pulse count does not exist independent of experience of process... i.e. Time as the pulse count of the fundamental process as differentiation is a phenomenon, not substance.

Interval time associated with any subsequent cyclic event... e.g. atomic phenomena, heartbeat, etc.... is an event logicon associated with phenomena.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field the entities that emerge as a consequence of the differentiation process, and exist independent of process Temporal comparative, are the "single substance", and are of uniform geometry.

That is to say that if the fundamental process as differentiation quantizes Space by Energy, then Spatially defined Energy is the "single substance".

__Example of a Logical Operation:__

Logical operations are performed on an entity... e.g. a process entity, a substance entity, a phenomenon entity... and precise definition/terminology of the logic intent and minimum unit properties of the entity which the operation is to be preformed upon, are required, if one expects to verify intent of operation successful.

That is to say that, a logical operation can be not be preformed on a given entity if minimum units of entity properties do not correlate to terms of the logic operation.

To verify terms of the operation are applicable to minimum unit properties of the entity being operated on, an emergence analysis... i.e. subsequent to "boot" of knowable system... is required, and I herein attempt a formatted linguistic presentation of such an analysis utilizing the UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field and emergence model, but I highly recommend, for a more definitive analysis. one reference the CAD visually illustrated version... i.e. UQS Emergence Analysis http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php .

Pulse-1-Open:1st. logical operation=differentiation of Space by Energy which yields>>>

- Substance... i.e. the thing itself as:

Spatial form= quantization geometry of Space by Energy which yields>>>

- substance logicons= unified unit of geometry, coordinate location, vector direction, and count

... to define Spatial Energy form with which Origin pulse Energy quantizes Space and becomes substance

... to provide Spatial components for subsequent Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) logic operations... e.g. push

Note: Substance as minimum units of Spatially defined Energy (QE), is intrinsically inert in any one frame of an ICS resolved field state...i.e. QE occupies fixed QI

Note: Substance as QE can be operated on by the fundamental process only during the ICS Open/Close cycle... i.e. substance move operation an option on each Q-Tick

Note: Substance as QE exist as Spatial entities w/o dependency on Temporal comparative... i.e. are not phenomena

Phenomena... i.e. experience of process as:

Event= Temporal dependent product of Energy quantized by Space which yields>>>

- Event logicons= differential comparatives between 2 field frame configurations

... to define Time as process sequence count... i.e. minimum unit of Time (QT)= Pulse-1-Open Pulse-1-Close

... to provide Temporal component for subsequent Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) logic operations... e.g. next

Note: no Spatial logic component associated w/ QT... i.e. Q-clock Time is the same anywhere in the field on any given pulse count

Note: in that a minimum unit of Time (QT) is indivisible, no determination of Pulse Open/Close interval can be made and must be assumed constant

Available Intelligence... i.e. process mechanism emergence as:

Information= process expansion options by logic inference which yields>>>

- Information logicons= CAD environment elements, default logic operations, and subsequent inferred logic operations

... provides CAD environment default logic component for subsequent ICS logic operations

... defines and constrains mechanix options available for Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) resolve of QE/QI... e.g. recursive repeat

Note: repetition yields Energy distribution, by Fundamental Process as differentiation of Space by Energy

Note: Spatial and/or Temporal logic components may be required for any given logic operation on information... i.e. minimum units of entity properties must be
compatible with terms of logic operation.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field, the fundamental differentiation process, as the quantization of Space by Energy, yields Information in terms of Space as minimum units of Spatial field quantization (QI), minimum units of Energy (QE) as defined by minimum Spatial unit (QI), and minimum units of Time (QT) as pulse count of fundamental process.

Therefor logic operations... e.g. repeat... can be preformed on process, utilizing visually verifiable units of QI, QE, and QT, which greatly reduces the potential for illusion.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field, substance as the Spatial form of Energy, occupies Space and can exist independent of process Temporal comparative, and all conventional logic operations... e.g. accumulate... in UQS spatial coordinate terms, can be preformed on substance.

Minimum Spatial units (QI) can accumulate QE as event potential, and subsequent to quantization by Energy QI can exist without any QE occupancy, but any requirement by a logic operation for a Temporal component... e.g. accumulate over time... must be derived from specified event logicons.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field, event logicons... e.g. rate, relative position, etc... are properties we associate w/ an experience of the fundamental process... i.e. their existence is comparative dependent and thus do not exist independent of Time... and logic operations performed on events must have a Temporal component. A spatial component may also be required dependent on logic operation to be preformed.

In a UQS Space/Energy/Time/Information field, knowledge as the QE/QI state of the field which is required by the Intermittent Calculation State (ICS), is derived from environment analysis, but is Temporal dependent... i.e. is not substance... but logic operations performed on QE/QI field state may have both Spatial and Temporal component requirements.

__Logical Substitution: An example__

If no valid mathematical framework can visually verify a logic kinematic chain for the substitution, substitution of a variable specified in interval Temporal units... e.g. associated with rate of change... by a substance entity of unresolved minimum units... e.g. mass... is subject to illusion.

Conventional logic operations may utilize Temporal and Spatial components... i.e. rate of evolution... and assuming your linguistic application of "place" is referent to location on a rate graph, rather than a Spatial coordinate location, the perception that "time flows from place to place" could be valid, but With reference to the above UQS emergence analysis, logic substitution of Q-clock time, by an interval time referenced to evolution of a substance or event, or vice versa, is invalid unless an unbroken Temporal logic kinematic chain from Origin to event can be verified.

QT process pulse count has no Spatial logic operation component, has increasing magnitude, but no Spatial direction, and is a constant throughout the field on any pulse count.

If the process generates Time independent Spatial substance ... e.g. minimum units of Spatially defined Energy (QE) which have both inertial and inert properties... logic substitution from "place to place", in which "place" is linguistically applicable to the Spatial domain, will require a Spatial coordinate component... i.e. assuming "form" is Spatial, it requires geometry to substantiate your statement: "If a form exists in one place within the logical system, then, that place is taken by logical substitution".

That is to say that, in the UQS model an initial evasion of the Spatial component... i.e. geometry... introduces a broken logic kinematic chain if geometry is subsequently required to substantiate Time "flowing unequally from place to place" in the Spatial domain.

May the above linguistic convolution demonstrate the necessity for a visually verifiable mathematical model, to precisely verify linguistic application.

__The Cause:__

"The life and form of effect is the activity of cause." ~ B.T. Spalding

From the essay content I can not clearly distinguish "cause" from "why", but in any case, one can infer either from result, or one can conclude result not intent of "cause"/"why".

__Discussion:__

As eluded to in the above intro, UQS does not invalidate E=mc^2, but it does alter the current conventional interpretation of E=mc^2, and many of the postulates in your "Discussion" can be addressed in the same manner.

However, until agreed designation of a mathematical/geometry model that can visually verify our common understanding of the applied linguistics, I do not think it would be an efficient expenditure of our time, for me to do so.

In regard to your expressed requirement for "A formalized logical system will have to be developed, with mathematics, logic, and the “how” side of physics helping us stay in line.", I herein submit the UQS CAD Environment and Emission SIM for your evaluation. REF:UQS Project Virtual Home http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

I am currently in the design/code phase of an app. to test validity of the UQS CAD unified field geometry, by Energy Emission SIM.

Having coded the differentials, conditionals, and sequencing for the UQS 3D CAD Environment, facilitates Cartesian codec output to any generic Cartesian CAD/SIM Engine, for manipulation by the Cartesian Engine's 3D spatial object operations.... e.g. the UQS QLab/Game environment module can name, spatially define, and output any UQS Spatial element as Cartesian coordinates required for any generic Cartesian CAD/SIM Engine object detection operation, from Origin to specified emergence.

Hope this year to get a window for continued development of the SIM interface, ICS mechanix module, and AI module, as per CAD illustrated UQS Quantum Lab/Game Design Format http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSDB.phpGiven the language confounds as discussed by Paul Butler in his essay - Topic: "The Fundament of the Fundamentality of What is Fundamental", in all fairness to Sir James Jeans, Mario Livio, and others, who claim that what is "fundamental" is unknowable, it should be noted that without designation of a mathematical/geometry model that can visually verify a resolved singularity that inherently provides a logic boundary for support of any "fundamental" quest... i.e. "fundamental" is a differentiation from "not fundamental"... application of the term "fundamental" is easily obfuscated.

Utilizing a model which resolves differentiation as the boundary condition, we can know that a system with no perceivable differentiation has no "fundamental"...i.e. the condition can NOT logically exist prior to emergence of a 2 bit differential... and we can "stop digging" at the Space/Energy/Time/Knowledge Origin Singularity.

Although there can be NO logic support for "fundamental" before a differential emerges, given a valid structural model of the Origin Singularity and subsequent emission mechanisms, we can derive all knowledge subsequent to differentiation.

To know/evaluate what is fundamental requires an information system, and in the UQS system, all knowledge lies within the framework of Space/Energy/Time... i.e. the quest for knowledge is bounded by Space differentiated by Energy over Time... and fundamental minimum units of the "single substance" QE, as a consequence of a "single fundamental process", are indeed knowable... i.e. emerge as knowledge from the fundamental process of differentiation.

Although the UQS geometry environment is a valid resolve of a unified field Space/Energy/Time/Knowledge origin singularity, the successful correlation of the mechanix derived from QE emission w/in the UQS environment, to observation, is required to validate it as the mathematical model you, and others, have expressed a requirement for.

__Conclusions:__

"The conclusions at which man arrives in his calculations depend upon the foundation or principle from which he moves." ~ B.T. Spalding

Although I will stand and cheer the FQXi forum team for developing and maintaing a highly effective virtual "think tank", the FQXi administration's top choice in the 2017 "What is fundamental? essay contest, is indicative of the current ambiguous state of theoretical physics, as addressed by many of the essays submitted... i.e. the winning essay, >- Topic:"Fundamentl?" ,is in its final analysis, inconclusive.

In line with current academic media spin, the winning essay author, a recent PhD recipient in quantum information and foundations from the University of Cambridge, promotes "objective chance"... i.e. phenomena of undefined participants?... as justification to undermine any requirement for "fundamental" pursuits... e.g. reductionism, initial state analysis.

Then just short of declaring "fundamental" meaningless/non-essential, the author capitulates over the "fundamental" significance of the atom, thus diluting prior exhibited confidence in the "objective chance" directive with which the author had negated the wisdom of the long established and often verified precept that whether one acts from a true or false knowledge of principle effects the success of the application of the knowledge.

If it is "the existence of the regularity and not the specific form that we particularly needed to explain", then fundamental may "not matter", but if one hopes to have results forthcoming that are consistent with one's fundamental nature, knowledge of fundamental principle is essential, and it is my conclusive expedience, that one who acknowledges self as comprised of a "single substance" which is spontaneously, harmoniously, resolved by the Cosmic Computer's Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) on each Q-Tick, is far more likely to self- heal than one reacting to the phenomena of one's "chance" condition... i.e. "I am that" is essential to the "Zen" of quantum mechanix.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Marcel...

In that I consider "fundamental" a structural concept, your thoughts on my paper focused my attention on a requirement for the geometrist to graphically illustrate a logic mechanism to resolve the "something from nothing" discussion necessitated by a philosophical analysis of "what is Fundamental?"

By differentiating Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy from Space-Time Energy, I was able to resolve a valid geometry sequence that transforms Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy, into Space-Time Reality Energy facilitated within the UQS CAD environment.

This gave structural foundation for single point pulsed emission of Energy as substance in Space-Time Reality.

I utilized the illustrated sequence in my 2019/11/15 paper: Space-Time Energy As Substance Underlies All Space-Time Phenomena http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php, which is a discussion on the necessity to revise the Knowledge Base (KB) directory to facilitate a clear distinction between Energy as spatially defined substance and Energy as measured properties of physical phenomena, and I have therein acknowledged your contribution to the discussion.

Thanks again for your thoughtful commentary, and may one's patience in discovery be justified.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Marcel...

Delighted to hear from you, and do please provide links to any on-line commentary in which you continue to focus on develping "a formalized logical system of the ?how? side of physics".

Also want to pass kudos to FQXi for maintaining a communication channel to facilitate continuity to this discussion.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Cristinel...

I am a tenacious advocate of a minimum unified unit of fundamentality... i.e. unity "germ"... and I find your insightful exposure of scientific dogma, cognitively refreshing.

Fundamental logic of the geomtry "bench model" can be obscured by the alpha and/or numeric artifice of the semantist and/or equationist, but an operative CAD/SIM supports no illusion... i.e. it is a virtual reality not a theory.

That is to say that, it makes no difference which "geometric algebra" is applied, if the graphical spatial coordinate geometry upon which the mathematical constructs are derived, does not resolve a unified minimum unit of Spatial quantization (QI), no spatial unity "germ" can be verified.

To digitally simulate/animate the concept of Indra's net "cast in all directions"... i.e. an origin emission equal in all Spatial directions from a single point... requires resolve of an Origin Spherical Singularity Geometry, which supports infinite minimum unified volume unit shell closure expansion, as a valid CAD environment/field quantization.

REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

UQS as a an Equal Qauntization Quarternion CAD environment... i.e. 6 axis... Space/Energy/Time/Info model addresses deterministic concerns by the fact that all subsequent distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) must be resolved for the entire field in a manner consistent with emerging system intelligence (AI), on each pulse of the emission, and a minimum unit of Time (QT) is inherent in a continuously pulsed emission.

Thanks Cristinel, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.

Will return to rate after I read as many essays as I have time.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Scott...

Mathematical physics that preserves "Scientific method" by providing visually verifiable kinematics, from what we empirically observe, to a single
operative/mechanism underlying observation of Universal fundamental unification,* "can offer a coherent 'assembly' of the evidence needed to advance understanding that
already exists",* REF: Richard Kingsley Nixey essay https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3042, but it is doubtful that mathematics as semantics, which have been
diluted to the exclusion of logic inference, are up to the task.

In that perception of motion requires Space, how can a point Spin without defining direction... i.e. direction is a Spatial property?

What differentiates "all the spinning point entities" from any one spinning point entity... i.e. location is a Spatial property?

How can mathematical relationships of spatially undefined entities... i.e. a point, spinning or otherwise... establish a mechanism/operative for Energy creation... i.e. can Energy emerge without a Spatial definition?

If Energy requires a Spatial definition, what mechanism provides impetus such that Space emerges from a conglomerate of spatially undefined differentiateable entities... i.e. density is a Spatial property?

What intelligence emerges such that "spinning point entities reorganized into a cubic lattice"... i.e. a lattice is an information framework.

A Digital SIM, animating pulsed distribution of unified minimum units of Energy (QE), within a CAD environment quantized by a 3D unified field single point Source encapsulation geometry... i.e. unified field empirical virtuality mechanix... is my computational analysis tool of choice for emergence and distribution/propagation analysis.

I have been unable to derive a "mathematical representation for the base energy state that is associated with spacetime ", but I have mathematically, specifically CAD/SIM visual geometry, derived a model that demonstrates "a base state"... i.e. Energy distribution equal in all directions from a single point... and visually verifies definition of unified/uniform minimum units of Space (QT) and unified/uniform minimum units of Energy (QE)... i.e. unified/uniform minimum unit implies scale invariance and no subsequent fraction of... associated with a Space/Energy model in which unified/uniform minimum units of Time and unified/uniform minimum units of Information are inherent.

The Unifed Quantization of a Singularity (UQS) coordinate math supports, by digital codec, derivation of Cartesian coordinate math, but it does not conversely insure "our current knowledge of physics" can be derived from Cartesian coordinate maths.

REF: Geometry Paradigms http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php

REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

Thanks Scott for sharing your insights, and your comments on my essay would be read with those insights in mind.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Philip...

With regard to "guessing correctly the answer to questions like ‘what is “fundamental?’", the "stories" are ancient... REF: -TOPIC Indra's Net - Holomorphic Fundamentalness by Cristinel Stoica... and although such "stories" are prolific, multi-epoch, and multi-cultural, requirement for a logic reduction is a common element.

However, cognitive abilities to resolve a math model of a logic reduction of "fundamental" are apparently emergent... REF: - TOPIC: How to Empirically Confirm a Rational Theory of Fundamentals by Jack H. James... and application of Math semantics to an invalid logic reduction of "fundamental" have often muddied the cognitive waters.

The Spatial quantization is fundamental to all derived Spatial relationships/logic.

In that evolution is driven by the "What is fundamental? quest, then technology is also, and development of digital tools has been reciprocated with a cognitive enhancement, in the form of a more precise Mathematical model of Indra's net "cast in all directions"... i.e. resolve of an Origin Spherical Singularity Geometry, which supports infinite minimum unified volume unit shell closure expansion as a valid CAD environment/field quantization... has now been added to the "stories", and a pulsed Emission of minimum quanta of Energy (QE), is being digitally simulated/animated within the virtual environment.

REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

It is not a theory, it is a digital CAD/SIM virtual reality constructed on a logic reduction... i.e. an Origin Emission equal in all Spatial directions from a single point.

Better than a guess?

Thanks Philip, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.

Will return to rate after I read as many essays as I have time.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Sergio...

Your Mathematical presentation rates a 4E... i.e. Explanation Elegantly Explicit to Equation.

Although I am not qualified to verify all your premises, or check your Math, the Spatial/geometry relationship expressions utilized ... e.g. the distance between 2 points... are apparently derived from the combined Cartesian/Radian coordinate system, and yes, with the equation craft mastery you demonstrate, one should be able to configure those relationships in a plethora of theories that verify C and G... i.e. C and G were derived utilizing a combined Cartesian/Radian coordinate system.

Transformations to any geometry "bench model" are essentially infinite, but inferences derived from transformations do not necessarily retain the constraints of the Spatial relationships of the "bench" geometry, and in a "fundamental" discussion, a distinction must be made between theoretical minimum units, and geometry "bench model" verifiable minimum units.

Although the Radian coordinate system facilitates point ray analysis, it eliminates the elegance of a unified Spatial volume unit CAD environment/quantization.

REF: Graphic Illustration of Radian/Cartesian/UQS Geometry Comparative http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

The Cartesian coordinate system supports unified Spatial volume unit quantization... i.e. Cartesian Spatial quantization is infinitely divisible by scaled Cubic units as the Base Volume units of the Cartesian geometry quantization, but not all logic derived Spatial points can be projected onto a 3 axis-dimensional Cartesian coordinate grid.

A Cube unit has no centroid to facilitate an Origin Singularity... i.e. Energy point source that expands in all directions equally... and therefor a Cartesian CAD environment/quantization cannot support Spatially defined unified minimum units of Space (QI) and Energy (QE) required for analysis of Origin QE/QI Emission and subsequent Distribution.

Although the Radian coordinate system facilitates point ray analysis, it eliminates the elegance of a unified Spatial volume unit CAD environment/quantization.

REF: Graphic Illustration of Radian/Cartesian/UQS Geometry Comparative http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Also it should be noted that not all Spatial volume unit quantization's that have a centroid to facilitate an Origin Singularity, support unified minimum units of Space (QI), required for Emission Distribution equal in all directions from a single point.

REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Why would particles not be comprised of the same fundamental unit of Space as are the Avatars?

If info requires a Spatial definition, there can be no point particles, only interaction Event Points (IEP) on a Node Network (NN) channel... i.e. points/nodes/vertices have location but no spatial definition in which to contain Energy Information choreographies.

To fundamentally relate distance and time as speed, the geo-coordinate system underlying the Space/Time relationships must have a geometry coordinate verifiable minimum unit of Space and Time... i.e. a minimum unit of Space (QE) and minimum unit of Time (QT) must be supported by the "bench" geo-coordinate system used in the analysis.

If event Spatial effect is a factor of accumulated QE/QI Information Energy choreographies contributing, at Point Interaction Event, at specified QT, there can be no limit to speed w/o verifying a limitation of QE/QI.

As per my interpretation of World Science Festival: "Limits of Understanding" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfY-DRsE86s, the instability w/ current Space/Energy/Time/Info Physics, is as a consequence of the current instability of Mathematics.

Thanks Sergio, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.

Will return to rate after I read as many essays as I have time.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Paul...

Please note: My post have been truncated by the FQXi system without option to "view entire post"?... but I log all UQS Social Media and Forum commo online.

REF:UQS Social Media and Forum Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

The inherent conundrums of any language, to include mathematics, do indeed impose constraints/limits on conceptual analysis, and I am impressed that in < 25K characters you convey enough perceptive detail that I can, within the confines of the language conundrums as discussed in your essay, structurally conceptualize the fundamentals you utilize to construct your reality model.

Although you acknowledge the heroically constrained bottom line of your analysis of 'fundamental', as "sub-energy particles"...i.e. above ground, as in measurable?... but you "extrapolate" "a tree with hidden roots", you leave the mind door open for an Initial State analysis which confirms that the seed of the tree "... produces the most basic structures from which all other structures are constructed.".

However, CAD clarification of "sub-energy particle" geometry, is essential to facilitate CAD/SIM Initial State point source emission model verification of an unbroken kinematic chain from point source to bottom line of your analysis.

I admit an architectural bias for "form follows function", but an Initial State point source emission 'function', must be name differentiated from 'mechanism' which requires an interaction of 2 or more forms, which at Initial State, have not yet emerged.

To derive the Initial State function from which the 'most basic forms' emerge, one can logic reduce subsequent emergence to date, as successful resolve of minimum units of Energy (QE) occupancy within minimum units of Space (QI), on each emission pulse... i.e. pulsed Energy distribution in Space.

If accurately conceptualized, the Initial State function, as pulsed spontaneous, harmonious resolve of QE/QI, will be apparent at emergence of the first structural forms... i.e. Space and Energy emerge simultaneously as Spatial dimensioned structural entities... from which the first Available Intelligence (AI) as Information logicons... i.e. event timestamp, event location, and event flow direction... also inherently emerge.

Note the use of logicon to eliminate the multi-meaning language conundrum of "dimension".

Given unified/uniform Spatially minimum units of Energy (QE) defined by unified/uniform minimum units of Space (QI), only 3 Spatial dimensions are necessary, and the 4th. and 5th. "dimensions" are logicons... i.e. keyboard key shifts... rather than Spatial dimensions.

Also note that although one may utilize point (x,y,z) field coordinate information elements to specify an Energy event location, a point location has no Spatial dimensions by which to define Energy as a Spatial Entity... i.e. a point has no Spatial Energy occupancy capacity, and can not facilitate Spatial displacement mechanisms.

I do agree that Space, as one of the two initial Spatial dimensioned structural entities, "provides structure for motion", but what is Spatially displaced to yield perception of motion?

One event node configuration state to another?... but by what fundamental mechanism??

A charge differential?... but by what mechanism??

Spatial form can not manifest intelligence without pulsed Energy flowing through it.

The Initial State function, as Energy distribution, implies a mechanism derived from Available Intelligence (AI)... i.e. Energy be quantized as Spatial dimensioned structural entities that can exist independent of motion... i.e. have inert Spatial properties.

I agree that a fundamental can be a principle/function, or an object/entity, or mechanism, but a clear distinction must be given Initial State definition, and semantically maintained within the hierarchal development, or unresolvable complexities are embedded in the model formulization which will break the kinematic chain from/to the Initial State.

Motion is neither a function, nor a Spatial dimensioned structural entity, nor a logicon.

Motion is the perception of a mechanism ... i.e. Spatial displacement... associated with 2 or more Spatial dimensioned structural entities, and their corresponding logicons, and any theorized minimum spatial displacement of 2 perceived events, requires a theoretical minimum Spatial entity, and a mechanism that operates on the occupant of the minimum Spatial entity.

Perception of a mechanism can facilitate subsequent expansion of logicons... e.g. speed... as derived from the Initial State logicons... i.e. event time, event location, and event flow direction... associated with the mechanism.

Emergence of composite initial Spatial dimensioned structural entities... i.e. composites of minimum unified/uniform units of Space (QE) and minimum unfired/uniform units of Energy (QE).. is facilitated by perceptual application of emergent Available intelligence (AI) to an expansion of initial distribution mechanisms... e.g. mirror repeat yields recursion... but the Initial State components are "... essential to allow the structure to be built."... and the Initial State Spatial dimensioned structural entities maintain their identity within the composite.

As a logician I require all perception must be kinematically resolvable to Initial State, and conceptual limitations, as a consequence of 90 deg. mutually
perpendicular axis 3D field coordinate analysis... i.e. Cartesian field quantization... do not facilitate this requirement.

REF:FQXi Mar. 7, 2018 @ 01:27 GMT Discussion with Peter Jackson http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

Digital simulation/animation of Initial State distribution entities and mechanism, within a CAD environment quantized by valid unified/uniform geometry, reveals breaks in the kinematic chain, which can be, and are being, ignored, as a consequence of theoretical license with sematic conundrums.

On Source Emission Pulse-1-Close... i.e. first inert state... the UQS point Source Emission CAD/SIM, resolves emergence of minimum unified/uniform units of Spatial dimensioned Energy (QE)... and their associated path derived directional potential/momentum logicons... which occupy 2D unified/uniform minimum spatially differentiatable/defined units (QI)... which have corresponding addressable current position logicons... and the amplitude logicon as a function of QE/QI accumulation, = 1QE/1QI... i.e. the purpose of the spatial structure is to provide unified/uniform quantization occupancy for minimum units of Energy (QE) when not in motion, and to facilitate minimum unit of Energy (QE) displacement by distribution mechanisms.

Motion, as perception of the UQS point source pulse Spatial displacement mechanism, is initially detected as a QE cross node transport from Point Source to the 24 initial planar QI that converge to the Origin Point Source.

For a linguistic pulse-by- pulse Emission log, one can REF:FQXi Mar. 7, 2018 @ 01:27 GMT Discussion with Peter Jackson http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php , which can be visually supplemented by the highly illustrated UQS on-line papers indexed at UQS Virtual Lab's Home http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Herein it will suffice to say that on subsequent Source Emission Pulses, the initial 24 (QI) recursive ADDRESS PAIRS are emptied ... i.e. the "stack pops"... providing a perception of motion from Singularity to SHELL ONE, Available Intelligence (AI) emergence is logged, the Singularity is reset for repetition of the fundamental function of pulsed differentiation of Space by Energy, QE vector flow direction of SHELL ONE entities is established for subsequent distribution by Available Intelligence (AI), and mechanisms for Spin, Scale Invariance, separate interactive Inertia and Radiation distribution channels, unlimited single Energy Event Spatial effect, Gravity as Inertia, unoccupied "dark" Spatial units, etc... are visually identifiable/verifiable.

With regard to your "extrapolations" of "... hidden roots that supply and support the above ground parts of the tree.", long established acceptance of credentialed license with language conundrums... e.g. Vedic Science asserts that "Man is the image of God" rather than "Man is created in the image of God". ~ B.T Spalding... obfuscate "below ground" analysis.

However, the UQS Initial State CAD/SIM Emission analysis... currently out to 5 shell encapsulation of the Point Source Origin Singularity... and logged
emergent Available Intelligence (AI)... i.e. nothing "artificial" about it... verifies that the above ground hierarchal process you describe, to support mechanism
from which your perceptions of roots are logically derived, is also apparent below ground .. i.e.:

- Pre-Differentiation of Space by Energy Available Intelligence (AI) = I AM differentiation of Space by Energy

Note: No Pre-differentiation Intelligence Available (AI) for stop differentiation, or subsequent differentiation

- Upon Differentiation of Space by Energy Available Intelligence (AI) = I AM pulsed, harmonious, spontaneous, resolve of QE/QI

Thank you Paul for contributing your insights, and for your review of my essay, which I have responded to on my essay page.

- TOPIC:"Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence"

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

*Paul N Butler wrote on Mar. 21, 2018 @ 17:45 GMT*

__Sue Lingo replied on Mar. 29, 2018 @ 03:19 GMT __

Hi Paul...

Thanks for your thoughtful review of my essay.

Please note: My post have been truncated by the FQXi system without option to "view entire post"?... but I log all UQS Social Media and Forum commo online.
UQS Social Media and Forums Log http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

It is my contention that CAD/SIM analysis, perhaps even the Unified Quantization of a Singularity (UQS) geometry, finds itself on University theoretical Physics mandatory curriculums in the very near future, and I was encouraged that you found my CAD/SIM analysis "approach can be useful".

Perhaps indicative of my architectural academic studies, I have a concept visualization bias which gave impetus to my CAD/SIM approach to structural resolve of an Initial State and subsequent emergence.

One can draw anything one can see, and one can draw what cannot be seen... i.e. can only be conceptualized... but if one cannot draw what one can not see, one should not draw conclusions as to the validity of the concept.

A CAD environment SIM analysis, forces derivation of minimum units of Space (QI) and Time (QT), which allows one to forego a dependency on measurable particle constraints in one's conceptualizations of Energy, and I found your comment on my essay that a "3D CAD/CAM method could potentially be used to simulate these things with adequate resolution to allow man to visualize such things. When this is done a whole new level of structural understanding will be opened unto man in this world and much current quantum gibberish can then be discarded, while at the same time the reasons to keep the parts that are kept will be understood.", highly perceptive.

I have now read your essay, and found many aspect of your analysis, definitive.

As a logician, not a physicist, as the UQS Point Source Emission expands, kinematically searching out your hieratically constrained bottom-line "sub-energy particles", I will need to dig deeper into your FQXi post for "the basic concepts from which more detailed structural information can be derived."

Thanks again Paul for your review, and for your conviction that a deeper understanding of what underlies what man can measure, will resolve quantum conundrums.

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

*Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 14, 2018 @ 17:14 GMT*

__Author Sue Lingo replied on Apr. 19, 2018 @ 02:16 GMT__

Hi Paul...

Appreciate your thoughtful response, and will at first opportunity reciprocate in kind.

However, if FQXi does not graciously maintain contestant essay pages after May 1st., I will need an e-contact.

In the interim, if one keeps in mind that UQS is not a belief/theory... i.e. UQS is a math model that resolves a visual geometry solution, and associated digital code, for pulsed distribution of minimum units of Energy (QE) equal in all directions from a single point source... one can find answers n the UQS Project on-line archived papers, to many of the question you pose.

For example: "23. Why only 24 points around the initial point? Are these 24 QI positions spread only in a two dimensional plane around the initial point or are these 24 points spread over three dimensions?"... is contextually addressed and 3D CAD illustrated at: Comprative Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Thanks again Paul, for sharing your insights and providing opportunity for exchange.

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

*Author Paul N Butler replied on May. 4, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT*

**Update: 19/11/15**

__Sue Lingo wrote on Nov. 18, 2019 @ 04:17 GMT __

Hi Paul...

In that I consider "fundamental" a structural concept, your thoughts on my paper focused my attention on a requirement for the geometrist to graphically illustrate a logic mechanism to resolve the "something from nothing" discussion necessitated by a philosophical analysis of "what is Fundamental?"

By differentiating Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy from Space-Time Energy, I was able to resolve a valid geometry sequence that transforms Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy, into Space-Time Reality Energy facilitated within the UQS CAD environment.

This gave structural foundation for single point pulsed emission of Energy as substance in Space-Time Reality.

I utilized the illustrated sequence in my 2019/11/15 paper: [link:uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php]Space-Time Energy As Substance Underlies All Space-Time Phenomena[/link] http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php, which is a discussion on the necessity to revise the Knowledge Base (KB) directory to facilitate a clear distinction between Energy as spatially defined substance and Energy as measured properties of physical phenomena, and I have therein acknowledged your contribution to the discussion.

Thanks again for your thoughtful commentary, and may one's patience in discovery be justified.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Jack Hamilton James wrote on Dec. 20, 2017 @ 21:39 GMT - TOPIC:"How to Empirically Confirm a Rational Theory of Fundamentals"

Hi Jack...

I am unable to concisely differentiate what may be critical sematic distinctions within the essay... e.g. rational/cognitive/consciousness... but I applaud your symbolic compression format, and if I have correctly interpreted the content, we seem to be meandering toward the same conclusions... i.e. there is requirement of, and potential for, evolved individual rational/cognitive/consciousness.

I agree that cognitive abilities are emergent, but I also have observed cognitive emergence can be individualized rather than speciel.

That is to say that utilization of Pi*R sq. is not indicitive of the cognitive ability to derive Pi*R sq., nor is deriving Pi*R sq. indicitive of the cognitive ability to discern the inital requirement for Pi*R sq.

Hmmm??... is it possible that ET's could be Metaphysical Energy enhanced humans... i.e. humans that have achieved a structural change in consciousness, and utilizing empiricism of an "evolved cognition", have installed the Star Trek Replicator app on their mental desktop?

If one acknowledges other than Physical Energy phenomena/processes, ENERGY PROCESSES become hieratically fundamental to PHYSICAL and METAPHYSICAL in the Knowledge Base (KB) directory tree... i.e. Energy mechanix are no longer constrained to a PHYSICAL/ENERGY Knowledge Base (KB) directory configuration.

Physical limits on empirical analysis of Energy have and will continue to necessitate reliance on rational/cognitive abilities in order to develop a priori to revised KB codec/translator... i.e. a Physically unverifiable minimum unit of Energy (QE) must be conceptually/mathematically defined in terms of a Physically unverifiable minimum unit of Space (QI).

That is to say that a solution to a Unified Unit Quantization of a Spherical Singularity geometry must be resolved.

Utilizing rational/cognitive clues... i.e. the codec/translator geometry solution must support mathematics for a continuous pulsed Emission and Distribution of minimum quanta of Energy (QE) equal in all Spatial directions from a single point source... a Unified Unit Quantization of a Spherical Singularity geometry has been resolved, and it yields minimum units of Space/Energy/Time as CAD/SIM Information.

REF: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

Utilizing resolved Singularity geometry to quantize a CAD/SIM environment, as a codec/translator, virtual empirical analysis is now being conducted on Metaphysical Energy choreography mechanix.

Utilization of virtual empirical analysis, in which minimum units of Space (QI) and minimum units of Time (QT) reveal Energy choreography Information... i.e. a Space/Energy/Time/Information digital model... has verified a fundamental Energy principle underlying both Physical and Metaphysical phenomena, facilitating Energy process application upgrades to both empirical and rational/cognitive analysis.

Thanks Jack, for sharing your insights and thus making an opportunity for comment... I would read with attention your comments on my essay entry Title: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence.

Will be back to rate when I get a chance to read as many as I can before deadline.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality

- TOPIC 1928: Alternative Models of Reality; ADMIN: Zeeya Merali, Aug. 30, 2013

Updated: 9:23 PM 3/18/2018

Hi Georgina...

"All true reason works out from principle to it's manifestation, and not from the manifestation back to principle" ~ B.T. Spalding 1923

Yes!!... in that "primordial" Energy has no information content until it is distributed, by a pulsed 2 bit differential, onto an information matrices, a limit of knowledge is imposed... and the pulse rate (frequency) at which Minimum Quanta of Energy (QE) are pulsed onto the Minimum Quanta Spatial (QI) addresses of the information matrices, is the Minimum Quanta of Time (QT), which is the temporal constant of the information system.

Now available on demand, Jonathan Khanlian's 2015 film "Digital Physics", at http://www.digitalphysicsmovie.com/ ... documents the 1980's re-emergence of Epistemology (theory of System Origin) out of investigations of Fundamental Physics, (theory of System Energy Distribution) ... i.e. Epistemology as a pre-requisite, and subsequent Quantum Mechanix, are inherently entangled.

I applaud Jonathan Khanlian's audacity to be profound with regard to such an impressive assortment of academic disciplines... i.e. Film Making, Societal Ethics, Epistemology, Historical Environment, etc.... and with regard to subsequent developments in Quantum Physics, I will vouch for the significance of Khanlian's Time Displaced Analysis (TDA).

Khanlian's status as an independent film maker, yields authenticity to the film's exploration of the personal risk associated with audacity, and although the Societal Ethics portrayed by the film's principle character, Khatchig, illustrate a clear distinction between obsession and passion, whether obsession, and consequently Khatchig's fade into obscurity, should be necessitated to repeal Epistemological "standard models" that do not support an unbroken kinematic chain of Energy from Source to observed phenomena, is left to the viewer's discretion.

Although still being debated, the interim 35 year quest to resolve the last scene of this Historic-FAQ-SIM film, warrants a sequel, and upon verifiable resolve of the debate, "Digital Physics" will become a film classic.

Georgina, your observations of the inherent weakness in Space-Time models that do not acknowledge a minimum temporal interval as a system constant, are very critical to the outcome of this debate.

Your passionate audacity is greatly appreciated!!!

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Georgina...

"All true reason works out from principle to it's manifestation, and not from the manifestation back to principle" ~ B.T. Spalding 1923

In that "primordial" Energy has no information content until it is distributed, by a pulsed 2 bit differential, onto an information matrices, a limit of knowledge is imposed... and the pulse rate (frequency) at which Minimum Quanta of Energy (QE) are pulsed onto the Minimum Quanta Spatial (QI) addresses of the information matrices, is the Minimum Quanta of Time (QT), which is the temporal constant of the information system.

Jonathan Khanlian's 2015 film "Digital Physics", at http://www.digitalphysicsmovie.com/ ... documents the early 1980's re-emergence of Epistemology (theory of System Origin) out of investigations of Fundamental Physics, (theory of System Energy Distribution)... i.e. Epistemology as a pre-requisite, and subsequent Quantum Mechanix, are inherently entangled.

I applaud Jonathan Khanlian's ability to be profound with regard to such an impressive assortment of academic disciplines... i.e. Film Making, Societal Ethics, Epistemology, Historical Environment, etc.... and with regard to subsequent developments in Quantum Physics, I will vouch for the significance of Khanlian's Time Displaced Analysis (TDA).

Khanlian's status as an independent film maker, yields authenticity to the film's exploration of the personal risk associated with conveyance of one's insight, and although the Societal Ethics portrayed by the film's principle character, Khatchig, illustrate a clear distinction between obsession and passion, whether obsession, and consequently Khatchig's fade into obscurity, should be necessitated to repeal Epistemological "standard models" that do not support an unbroken kinematic chain of Energy from Source to observed phenomena, is left to the viewer's discretion.

Georgina, your observations of the inherent weakness in Space-Time models which do not acknowledge a minimum temporal interval as a system constant, are very critical to the outcome of the still debated resolve of the last scene of Khanlian's Historic-FAQ-SIM film, and your energy in this discussion is greatly appreciated!!!

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Georgina...

I have never met NY independent film maker, Jonathan Khanlian, in person, but my "physic's ideas" are deeply rooted in his 2015 retro 1980 perspective film, "Digital Physics", at http://www.digitalphysicsmovie.com/, and my discussion of the film, was to stage the critical nature I assigned to your observations which I consider the "inherent weakness in Space-Time models that do not "verify" a minimum temporal interval as a system constant"... i.e. observations highly critical to the outcome of the unresolved final scene of Khanlian's film.

In regard to your previous post usage of "primordial", I definitely was, and am, utilizing FQXi 'Alternative Models of Reality' to present/discuss"... i.e. promote... my "physic's ideas" ... i.e. "In that "primordial" Energy has no information content until it is distributed, by a pulsed 2 bit differential, onto an information matrices, a limit of knowledge is imposed, and the pulse rate (frequency) at which Minimum Quanta of Energy (QE) are pulsed onto the Minimum Quanta Spatial (QI) addresses of the information matrices, is the Minimum Quanta of Time (QT), which is the temporal constant of the information system".

If the conversation is not relevant to you, my address of it, to you, was an error in judgment, but not necessarily "inappropriate" for FQXi community.

As for an advertisement?... as a consequence of digital media, a human tendency to become blatant propagandist for our own work, and for the work of other's, which for one reason or another, we think deserves societal exposure, has become blatantly apparent.

If you do make it to the "Digital Physics", at http://www.digitalphysicsmovie.com/ movie website, at
http://www.digitalphysicsmovie.com/... and click on Science Corner... you will find Khanlian promoting links to credentialed propagandist, to include Edward Fredkin,
Seth Lloyd, Stephen Wolfram, Nick Bostrum, George Chaitin, James Gates, etc:

2015 Science Festival: "Rebooting the Cosmos"

Science Festival: "Limits of Knowledge"

Science Festival: "Are We Living In a Simulation"

2000 Carnegie Mellon Lecture: George Chaitin IBM

2009 TVO Lecture: "Does Reality have a Generic Basis"

Stephen Wolfram: "A New Kind of Science"

A "was there, done that" association with the events documented by this Historical-FAQ-SIM film may indeed bias review, but bias balance is being addressed by recent (last week) Digital Physic's Tweets (as logged on the website), inviteing social media credentialed academic review... i.e. "Waiting for brave celebrity-scientist to review "Digital Physics"" @FQXi @sfiscience @neiltyson @stephen_wolfram @tegmark @bgreene #please

In order to clarify usage of a multi-faceted word... i.e. "reason"... I referenced Spalding's usage for you, because in referenced "context", it is specific to "knowledge by direct understanding of first principles", rather than "by argument".

To further clarify by "context", the B.T. Spalding quote is from "Life and Teachings of Master's of the Far East" Vol. 4, Chapt. 13 "The Quantum Theory", in which "true reason" is applicable to a demonstration of an unbroken kinematic chain of verifiable Information Events from Source to Phenomena = True or False.

Judgment made solely on a verifiable true or false condition, is dependent only on the word "verifiable", and one can make no argument "against mental exploration of possibilities", if acknowledgement of verifiable is a prerequisite of funded exploration.

In reference to Spalding's "The Quantum Theory", an unbroken kinematic chain of verifiable Information Events, to Source, can not be achieved from manifestation without resolving Information Events at the Singularity of the Source... which, as you have mentioned, is a bit intimidating even for Stephen Hawking... but a UQS Resolved Singularity Geometry, which currently satisfys Emission Mechanix out to 75 pulses, does exist.

With regard to "reason" as you use it in the sense of "logic statements", the "principle" is not adequately resolved, if no differentiation between true and false can be measured... i.e. equivalent is not necessarily equal to comparable... which makes logic a valid test circuit for resolved "principle", and as such might assist judgment in the current FQXi essay contest...i.e. "What is "Fundamental"?".

In that your usage of the multi-faceted word "religion"... Ecclesiastical and/or Scientific... implies doctrine based protocol for believes and/or measurement procedures, the advertising of such beliefs and/or measurements as "mental exploration of possibilities" could, if doctrine does not acknowledge verifiable as a parameter of valid content, be problematic to "reason" in any guise, and it could be argued that such content should be constrained by deletion.

However, commo threads broken by moderation can mislead subsequent perception of the communication in the same manner that broken kinematic chains of Energy distribution can distort observed phenomena... i.e.Information Events... and I find constraint by responsible social media categorization preferable.

Inappropriate?... Appropriate??... I tend to agree with you that, in finality, how judged, "... depends upon whether it is judged using the prevailing doctrine or principles preceding it", and a case can be made for using principles subsequent to, but not yet, prevailing.

In that social media "moderation" has demonstrated the power of edit by delete, in finality, the validity of one's un-moderated commo record, lies with the individual, and I maintain a link from my website home to a Log of All My Social Media and Forum Commo Post http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSSMF.php

In any case... thank you Georgina, for your thoughtful reply, and for the opportunity to "sandwich" a reiteration of my physic's ideas" into the apparently necessary, Societal Media "Moderation" Ethics diversion herein.

As a means to re-focus the discussion, I am looking forward to following the threads of mental exploration made possible by your Observations of "time" as a differential interval... i.e. pulse count... and "time dimension" as a differential of Object Reality pulse counts... i.e. variable.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Georgina...

Perhaps I should have used double quote notation?... but my quote notation is in reference to the statement I made in my 10/23/2017 post which you deleted... i.e. "your observations of the inherent weakness in Space-Time models that do not acknowledge a minimum temporal interval as a system constant, are very critical to the outcome of this debate.", and I do consider your observation that the referenced "... singular viewpoint imposed by the dimensional structure might not be ideal." ~ Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 28, 2017 @ 23:21 GMT~, underlies what I consider to be a "weakness in Space-Time models that do not acknowledge a minimum temporal interval as a system constant".

I also consider your Observation that "... it might be thought of as their regularly 'measuring out' duration of an aspect of their own condition not an external time. All of the different things can be doing that in their own way, and non is the universal time keeper. All remain existent in the same one and only -now configuration of all that is existent." ~ Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 28, 2017 @ 23:21 GMT~, provides a much needed distiction between ""time" as a differential interval... i.e. pulse count... and "time dimension" as a differential of Object Reality pulse counts... i.e. relationship variable".

Finding common ground can sometimes be achieved by projecting a logical conclusion to a statement that may not yet be fully developed.

My rephrasing of what you said "... Steven Hawking likes this because it overcomes singularity issues..." ~ Georgina Woodward wrote on Oct. 25, 2017 @ 19:51 GMT~, is not "equivalent" to what you said, but if a complete commo record is maintained, interpretation is left to the individual reader's discretion, and some readers might find my rephrase... i.e. "... intimidating even for Stephen Hawking", "comparable" to your initial statement.

If measure-inability distinguishes "imaginary", is "mental exploration of possibilities" differentiated from "imaginary" by imposing "measure-ability" criteria on "mental exploration of possibilities"?

I think you will agree... uh?... maybe not??... that our commo has demonstrated that necessity for precise language , is time consuming, and perhaps impossible, which I consider justification for modeling my "physic's ideas" as geometry in CAD SIM format.

Which reminds me, I still owe the FQXi community a Walk-Thru of the UQS Emission SIM out to 35 pulses, and on Nov. 1st., my annual Winter hibernation begins .. i.e. 6 month focus on UQS Project Development... so I will have to catch up on addendums to our threads next Spring.

May you stay warm Georgina...

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Updated: 11:45 AM 2/4/2017

Hello...

Always good to see the community is still actively pursueing Alternative Realities!!!

Although I regularly browse the Fqxi Topic#:1928 forum post, I have not posted for sometime.

In my last post on 03/15/2016, I promised the Fqxi Topic#:1928 community a UQS Frame by Frame Illustrated Walk-Through.

Time constraints have necessitated multi-tasking the promised Walk-Through as a User's Guide for UQS Virtual Quantum Lab Game Code Development, but as evidence of
progress I submitt Preview: UQS Walk-Through, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSWTEE.jpg... and in the interim,
those following the UQS thread may want to read the 2/1/2017 UQS response to the Jose P. Koshy Jan. 8, 2017 @ 10:41 GMT post above, and/or the 2/1/2017 UQS response
to the Hans van Leunen Jan. 12, 2017 @ 11:26 GMT post above... in which I reference the following UQS 2016 e-publications:

UQS Analysis: Black-Whole, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

UQS Re: Tommaso Bolognesi, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php

Given the chaos/ambiguity of our current Physical Reality Model, any "Alternative" is worth pursueing...

Thanks to all for keeping the Fqxi Topic#:1928 forum community alive!!

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Hans...

Thank you for your characteristically concise statement of the requirement for a valid spatial geometry model upon which to base one's conjectures of unseen mechanix.

Your Jan. 12, 2017 @ 11:26 GMT post provided a point of reference for my response to the Jose P. Koshy post on Jan. 8, 2017 @ 10:41 GMT above.

*"If you can not define the OBJECTS and pull them out of the morass of details to deal with separately, you must deal with all the complexities at the same time."~ S.R. Davis... Begining C++ Programing*

In that mathematical equations of Space/Energy/Time... at least in principle... are derived from an observed and/or intellectually visualized spatial geometry model, within the taxominy of Fundamental Physical Reality, Space/Energy/Time Equations can be abstractions from observeable Geometry Objects intellectually visualized and constructed as CAD virtual models.

*"After successfully coded and tested the OBJECTS I need, I can proceed to the next level of abstrction." ~ S.R. Davis... Begining C++ Programing*

"The thing is not the word" ... nor is the equation the object... and any level of abstraction is suseptible to media spin which induces semantic chatter that dilutes the value of seeking peeer review.

What can help is a CAD Object oriented approach to mathematics, which hides the myradid levels of abstraction until the proceedural mechanix can be identified.

Hans, I have and will continue to browse the Hilbert Book Project... REF: https://doc.co/WmxXCB... and your conclusions, if not the equations upon which they are based, evidence thinking at a level of abstraction I find useful in confirming the UQS CAD structural analysis.

I particularly appreciate your presentation of the distinction between Aether and Field... REF: https://docs.com/hans-van-leunen/6473/field-versus-aether ... and the FQXi Topic: 1928 community will benefit from reading it.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello Jose...

At fundamental resolution, spheres have Q-jaggies... but yes Jose, "spherical-packing" is implicit in an Emission of minimum units of Energy in all directions from a single point source.

There currently are several models of spherical equilibrium singularities, and considerable interest in resolve of a mathematical model that verifies an unbroken kinematic geometry/logic chain from a Source Singularity, to a verifiable Energy choreography of the Hydrogen proton/neutron... i.e. Mass.

I will reiterate from Hans van Leunen post of Jan. 12, 2017 @ 11:26 GMT:

"What can help is a purely mathematical model that starts with a founding structure, which is the same as the structure of the foundation of physical reality."

Verifying the structure of the foundation of physical reality... i.e. Which model?... is a hot topic, and digital visual media presentations are now being created to document the mathematics and physics as visual geometry for the general public. REF: ]Nassim Haramein Black Whole Part 1 and 2

A distinction must be made between criteria required for resolving a solid geometry in equilibrium and criteria required for resolving a Single Point Energy Source Encapsulation Quantization for an Emission SIM...i.e. the model must not only provide geometric equilibrium it must also define a unique minimum unit of Space (QI) which resolves deterministic dictates for Energy Emission of a unique minimum Quanta of Energy (QE) as animated 2D Sprites within the fixed 3D coordinate structure. REF: UQS Analysis: Black-Whole, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

If you visit the work of Hans van Leunen's... REF: https://docs.com/hans-van-leunen... you will find that he qualifies the complexity in achieving such a model:

"... it is a complicated task because extending this foundation must automatically lead to a higher level of the structure of physical reality that shows more features that can be recognized as features of physical reality. In addition, the lower levels of the structure of physical reality must leave some indications that are visible in many facets of the universe". V

The magic word in that statement is "automatically"... i.e. the initial "boot" of QE onto the system logic must provide enough information to sustain self-modifying code growth as intelligence. REF: UQS Re: Tommaso Bolognesi, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php

I quote from Hans van Leunen's 'Hilbert Book Project'... REF: https://doc.co/WmxXCB

"... this foundation must be relatively simple. This means that this foundation can easily be comprehended by skilled scientists. The question now is how exactly this foundation is structured."

I agree with Hans that the system will be simple such that it "can easily be comprehended by skilled scientists"... and upon verification of the Origin Singularity building blocks, children Cartesian building blocks should be upgraded with scaled minimum unit of Space (QI) geometry blocks...i.e. so simple that anyone will find it intuitive.

What can help is a purely visual representation... i.e. a CAD Simulation... of the expansion of the mathematically defined geometry entities that constitute the Origin Singularity.

A Virtual Quantum Lab Game (VQLG) in which to test/verify Emission SIMS within proposed CAD geometry candidates, is currently being developed.

REF: UQS Data Bus, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSDB.php

Given a valid "Unified Field Model" as it's CAD base, the Virtual Quantum Lab Game (VQLG) could be utilized by a physicist to digitally structure a proton and animate it's Energy chorography, by an eye surgeon to digitally structure and animate an eyeball, by a neuron surgeon to digitally structure and animate a synapse, by a genetic engineer to digitally structure and animate a gene, by children to digitally visualize and animate their imaginations, and all could be scaled, timed, and integrated within an intelligent information network. REF: UQS Consciousness Investigation, at http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Steve Dufourny...

Verifying observable entities as QE choreographies within the Unified Quantization of a Spherical Singularity (UQS) geometry is still a major challenge REF: your FQXi Topic 1928 Mar. 7, 2016 @ 08:18 GMT post thread s. lingo Mar. 26, 2016 reply to Don Limuti ... and although I do not have an immediate need to utilize your series encoding proficiency... encouragement of the UQS project is inferred in your offering... and is greatly appreciated.

s. lingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatricmechanix.com

Don Limuti...

Thanks for providing feedback that verifies UQS presentations/illustrations do convey what I intend.

Although your idea of the "graviton" is not recognizable to you as a geometric form, at UQS 1st. Shell QE Entity Choreographies... and a "Trace On" from Origin Singularity can not recognize an undefined entity geometry... this does not preclude further investigation and discussion.

I browsed your presentation of the "graviton" at http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/19_Dark_Energy_and_Dark_Matter.html ... and as illustrated, your 2D geometry vision can be given 3D UQS form... in the same sense that UQS can be shown to underlie Andrei Linde's Self Replicating Inflationary Universe model. REF: Andrei Linde SRIU

However... in either case, the analysis and equations from which the visual concept is derived... are not supported by UQS functions.

"Planck's scale sets a point beyond which "new physics" should happen..." REF: ~ Arash 5/22/12 Physics.Stackexchange... and an "Alternative Reality" may require "new Physics".

By utilizing a Unified Quantization of a Spherical Singularity (UQS) as a valid geometry model that theorizes a crack in the barrier imposed by Planck Physics... if we work back and forth... from observed to theorized/theorized to Observed... it is possible that functions derived from a valid non-perturbative Origin Singularity (OS) Emission will force the crack open, and we can get "new physics" across Planck's reef.

Plank Time: The time it would take light moving at speed = c, to cross a distance equal to the Planck Length, assumes "... the Universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10 to the -43rd. sec. and was at Planck Density." REF: John Gribben 'Q is for Quantum' pg. 287

Plank Physics has not resolved a quantization of an Origin Singularity.

That is to say NO minimum quanta of Energy (QE) and/or minimum quanta of Space (QI) is resolved by Planck Length or Density... and although seemingly arbitraily used as both a spatial and a quantitative variable... Planck Energy (E)... should be assumed to be quantitative rather than spatial.

QUESTION: Don... can you formulate a means to relate Planck's constant to E in quantitative terms by utilizing "Unity" mathematics... i.e. minimum quanta of Energy (QE) and minimum quanta of Space (QI)?

?CLUE?: Since any/all QI is/are addressable within the UQS geometry... QE vector summation can be queried on each pulse... and Emission of QE, dictated by the UQS geometry, resolves Gravity as a total system QE/QI choreography on a per/pulse basis... i.e. Mach's Gravity Principle.

Discussions of Planck's Spatial Geometry model tend toward the vague side of explicit... i.e. "It's important to mention that we're talking about the internal architecture of particles and objects. Many other quantities that have units of length may be much shorter than the Planck length. For example, the photon's wavelength may obviously be arbitrarily short: any photon may always be boosted, as special relativity guarantees, so that its wavelength gets even shorter." REF: ~ Lubos Motl 5/21/12 Physics.Stackexchange ... and clarity of Spatial Geometry model is essential in this discussion.

Planck's Length: "is obtained by dimensional analysis. Up to a constant dimensionless factor, the given expression is the only one of dimension length that one can make of the fundamental constants lambda, c, and G." REF: ~ Arnold Neumaier 5/21/12 Physics.Stackexchange

UQS Origin Singularity functions verify Gravity as a consequence of QE Emission choreographies on the UQS Inertia Emission Channel... but in the most successful UQS CAD/SIM Emission runs... the UQS Radiation Channel has no Inertia entities and any correlation to radiation wavelength entities discernible in the immediate vicinity (75 pulses) of the Origin Singularity... is as pulse based ray geometry... not shell closure geometry.

Of even greater significance... the extent of spatial QE expansion of any single pulsed event...i.e. 1 minimum quanta of Time (QT)... is determined by the channel type, QE/QI choreography of Environment Entities, QE/QI choreography of Event Entities, and the quantitative accumulation of QE in the Pop and Trigger Entities... on a per pulse basis.

That is to say that a single Radiation Channel Base Unit (RADBU) in an open environment... with an accumulated E= 800QE... if Triggered... may in one OS Emission pulse... Pop... and spatially expand 100 times or more as far as an equivalent RADBU that had only E=8QE when Triggered... i.e. there is NO upper limit of distance/time on a per/pulse basis.

To attempt to relate Planck's Constant to E... without lambda and c... may at first seem inane/absurd... but if one can verify that Origin Singularity (OS) Emission functions support Gravity, but do not support a limiting d/t concept of speed... then one might suspect that application of Planck Physics to Gravity may not reflect Origin Singularity functions... and be motivated in one's investigation beyond assumed limits.

There is much to investigate... and statistical analysis is not the final work... i.e. consider the saturation in spectrum lines..." we can describe overall behavior without being able to predict a single one of the individual events that comprise it". REF: Gary Zukav 'Dancing Wu Li Masters' pg.62

The requirement for Planck Physics to constrain d/t to c... may have been and still be... a result of the clock speed limitations of the monitoring/observational mechanics available to Planck... i.e. analogous to any digital data bus, the clock speed limits how many pulses can be differentiated.

Advances in monitoring/observational mechanics may support "theoretical observations"... but support of "theoretical observation", by advances in monitoring/observational mechanics does not necessarily verify the analysis of the theoretician in making the "theoretical observation".

That the human eye only resolves light within a specified wavelength range... suggest that the clock speed of certain physical functions in an Origin Emission derived environment may evolve specific to some fraction of the unlimited range of a single Origin Emission pulse resolve.

That is to say that the relationship of Gravity to the speed of light may be an illusion resulting from observations made from inside Planck's reef... either in the logical sense or the physical sense... or both.

That is NOT to say that NO human data process is capable of utilizing perhaps the entire range of unlimited event/pulse OS functions.

For instance... human dream data processing functions can process seemingly unlimited events in a few REM.

Admittedly it has been a challenge for several generations of physicist, but human thought processes have now computed through the Black Hole at the heart of Planck Physics... and investigation of "aspects of quantum physics (that can) be expressed in terms of a quantum theory of complex networks"... REF: fqxi Carinne Piekema Article: 'Six Degrees to the Emergence of Reality'... suggest potential for development of digital peripherals that can extend/escalate various clock speed range dependent human functions... in the same manner that the telescope can process beyond the range of the human eye.

However... analogous to the development of the telescope... motivation for development of quantum computing peripherals must overcome limitations induced by inappropriate application of "old physics".

The potential for expanding human functionality by application of the implications of a valid quantum geometry, motivates my investigation beyond conventional limits... and it is encouraging to see Theoretical Physicist and Mathematicians gathering at the Origin Singularity to discuss "new physics".

Thanks Don... for presenting your analysis in a manner facilitating a clear conceptual conveyance that encourages subsequent discussion... and for your willingness to solicit and address questions regarding the analysis... that is after all the "scientific method".

s. lingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Steve Dufourny...

Can you identify the Energy Choreography of a "spheron" in terms of Origin Singularity 1st. shell Energy Emission geometry? REF: UQS 1st. Shell QE Entity Choreographies

Can you identify the Energy Choreography of a "BH" in terms of Origin Singularity 1st. shell Energy Emission geometry?

We need precise concept conveyance. REF: FQXi Topic 1928 3/20/2016 S.Lingo above posted reply to Don Limuti

s. lingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Don Limuti...

Can you identify the Energy Choreography of a "graviton" in terms of Origin Singularity 1st. shell Energy Emission geometry? REF: UQS 1st. Shell QE Entity Choreographies

What is the Energy Choreography of a wavelength in terms of Origin Singularity 1st. shell Energy Emission geometry?

Don... your "geometry problem" has been on the humanity "to do" list for a long time... i.e. REF: ~ 450 BC Chinese philosopher Hui Shih... who sought an indivisible volume... i.e. defined only in terms of self... i.e. a "Unity" volume.

Mach's principle... which Einstein supported but could not incorporate in general relativity... suggest that gravity is inherent in the Choreography of Energy as minimum quanta of Energy (QE) within minimum quanta of Space (QI)... but QE and QI are not theoretically verifiable with out a valid non-pertubative Energy Emission within an addressable navigation geometry... i.e. "Unified Field" geometry. REF: FQXi Topic 1928 03/15/2016 s.lingo post.

That is to say that conceptual quantum semantics... to include equations... must have a verifiable kinematic geometry chain... to Origin Singularity.

To verify quantum mechanical geometry of a theorized entity or mechanism... one needs to:... identify the Coordinate System(s) from which supportive equations are extracted

... unify any multiplicity of Coordinate Systems as a single Coordinate System

... verify that the singular Coordinate System supports an Origin Singularity (OS) quantization that yields QE/QI

... verify the OS quantization supports a subsequent valid Energy Emission Process of QE within QI expansion

... verify that theorized supportive mechanisms... i.e. lambda hopping etc.... have QE path dictates within the specified navigational structure's QI... that a "Trace On" can resolve

The process is essentially the animation of QE "sprites"... through a fixed 3D virtual structure... and although development of digital 3D Kinematic Visual Analysis (KVA) apps. have until recently been the domain of Media Animation... KVA's will become standard quantum theory lab tools.

Energy and Space is all there is... and if a theoretical minimum quanta of Energy (QE) and a minimum quanta of Space (QI)... can be resolved/addressed... geometries of the Choreography of QE within QI... can be identified and correlated to observed phenomena... i.e. quantum Energy functions can be treated as data processes.

However, a digital "Trace On" from an entity of undefined geometry... theorized by the Observer... back to Origin Singularity... is impossible... even if the Origin Singularity quantization and subsequent Emission Process is verified.

A "Trace On" by means of a verified Energy Emission Process... from a defined Origin Singularity... to an observed entity geometry... is the anticipated potential of the UQS Virtual Lab... Utilizing the UQS Energy Emission CAD/SIM "Trace On". REF: UQS CAD/SIM Environment

Currently... Energy choreographies created in the first 5 shells of the UQS non-perturbative Origin Singularity Emission Process... verify choreography entity Inertia as Gravity... and extrapolation from the interactions of the UQS proto-Mass QE choreographed entities may provide insight to gravity geometries verifiable by the observer, in the same manner that observation of scatter screen data from accelerated particle collisions has facilitated A. Barzydlo's Corpuscular String Theory geometry model of the Hydrogen Proton. REF: CST Hydrogen Proton

Although the Barzydlo string geometry models are unscaled... i.e. not dimensioned... and therefor the scale resolution of the QQS quantization cannot be meaningful ... it can be verified that UQS Singularity quantization can quantize observed Boson geometry...REF: UQS Q-Jaggies

All above is to say there is much work to be done... and resolve of a valid minimum unit of Energy (QE) and a minimum unit of Space (QI) underlies validity of any quantum theory... i.e. Hui Shih was on the right track.

s. lingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Panagiotis Stefanides...

Dialog can benefit greatly from illustrations and models that facilitate clarity of concept... and I greatly appreciated the well illustrated (to include You-Tube CAD Vid links) presentation of your "Geometry Structurings"

Very perceptive of you to recognize geometric volume packing as the heart of the mathematics underlying this discussion... i.e. non-perturbative Energy Emission requires a "Unified Field" quantization.

A volumetric "Unified Field" Coordinate System is quantized by a singularly unique volume unit... i.e. the Base Unit Volume defining the Coordinate System in which process navigation is structured within a "Unified Field", is throughout the field uniform in algorithm... and the Base Unit Volume can be quantized by scaled units of self without creating internal spatial units inconsistent with the specified Base Unit Volume.

Although there is a family of Polyhedra that pack as a Base Unit Volume and create no internal spatial units inconsistent with the specified Polyhedra Base Unit Volume... the only Poyhedra I have found that can also be quantized by scaled units of self, and not create internal spatial units inconsistent with the specified Polyhedra Base Unit Volume... is the UQS Quadhedron. REF: UQS Base Unit Volume

Do you know of any others?

Thanks for the input!!... it provided the focus I needed for my reply post to the Steve Dufourny Mar. 7, 2016 @ 08:18 GMT thread below.

I will continue to browse http://www.stefanides.gr/pdf/DIALOGO_2014_PANAGIOTIS_STEFANIDES.pdf

s. lingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Steve Dufourny...

Dialog can benefit greatly from illustrations and models that facilitate clarity of concept... and to facilitate a more precise conceptual conveyance... I am currently illustrating a Visual Pulse-by-Pulse Walk-Thru of the UQS Singularity quantization... and will correlate the associated QE/QI Computational Algebra log derived from the process... to the illustrations. Upon completion I will post a link herein.

In the interim it is hoped that the following discussion will get us all on the same page regarding the "invention of Algebras".

Computational Algebras can be derived from data process operations... but the process should be well defined and the Computational Algebra derived from the process may be specific to that process.

Reduction of a process to equations... utilizing any of the various Algebras... before the process geometry is accurately modeled... may require revision of the equations... but will not necessarily invalidate the concepts from which the equations were extracted.

As a logic reduction... I have modeled a non-perturbative Energy Emission Process within an addressable data structure... i.e. a navigable (CAD/SIM) space.

I utilized the most elementary concepts of geometry... and did not adhere to the notion that the process, or the data structure, should be dictated/constrained by existing algebraic abstractions that may or may not apply to the process being investigated... i.e. backward in time may be algebraically resolvable in an x,y,z Cartesian coordinate quantization of space, but the concept does not reflect the logic reduction of non-perturbative Energy Emission.

A "point" element in geometry has a definite location but no size, shape, or extension... i.e. no internal addressable mathematical entities, axis, or orientation can be associated with a "point".

Our only perception of Energy is as a differential... and relative or otherwise... perception of a differential event requires time... i.e. event, next event, next event, next... etc.

The "point" location can be framed in time... but without spatial dimension there can be no time functions within a "point".

A "line" as a sequence of "points" does not support a differential that conveys time within the "line" itself... and algebraic concepts of time derived from a sequence of "points", are derived from the process of connecting the "points"... i.e. distance in "points".

A 2D "plane" supports internal addressable mathematical entities... and therefor time can be framed within the dimensions of a "plane".

A 3D "volume" can have associated internal addressable mathematical entities... i.e. "points", "planes", internal/external surfaces, radii... axis, and orientations ... and dimensionality facilitates motion... i.e. a perception of time. REF: UQS Base Unit Volume

The 3D address quantization structure of any 3D navigable spatial field is a 3D Coordinate System.

Investigations of 3D spatial Singularities are specific to their quantization structure.

Energy requires Space... and investigation of any spatial expansion process from a "point" of Origin Emission requires a spatial Navigation Structure/Coordinate System consistent with the Origin Singularity quantization ... to register process decisions... i.e. databus navigation... and any Computational Algebra derived from the process... is Coordinate System specific.

As you have correctly perceived... this does not infer "ether"... but fortunately it does infer that data processing functions can be derived from the Energy Emission Process... to facilitate constructs of Computational Algebras.

A volumetric "Unified Field" Coordinate System is quantized by a singularly unique volume unit... i.e. the Base Unit Volume defining the Coordinate System in which process navigation is structured within a "Unified Field", is throughout the field uniform in algorithm... and the Base Unit Volume can be quantized by scaled units of self, without creating internal spatial units inconsistent with the specified Base Unit Volume.

That is to say that "Unified Field" Base Unit Volume packing, creates no internal spatial units inconsistent with the Base Unit Volume... and scalability of the Base Unit Volume must also satisfy "Unified Field" dictates.

The Cartesian Coordinate System is an example of a "Unified Field" Coordinate System... but it is not the only possible solution, and it does not support a minimal unit Singularity that facilitates the concept of an Origin Energy Emission process. REF: Coordinate Systems

In that Origin implies NO pertrubative influences... i.e. Energy Emission at "point" of Origin must be distributed equally in all directions... the packing of the Base Volume Unit chosen for the Coordinate System must facilitate a sector quantization of the Origin Singularity that resolves a common single mathematical "point" of Origin... and must also support a Computational Algebra that facilitates expansion of the Emission process equally in all directions from the Origin Singularity.

Preferably as closed shells of the Base Unit Volume Radii.... but not necessarily as classical spheres in which the integral of the chord is imperceptible... i.e. in a quantum navigational space "quantum jaggies" are acceptable.

Packing of classical spherical volumes creates asymptotic volumes... i.e. no unified volume quantization can be achieved with spherical units... and any sector quantization of a sphere does not produce a uniform volume unit that will facilitate unit radii shell expansion closure.

The dimensions of Space differentiated by an initial pulse of Energy is unknowable... i.e. is an indivisible "Unity"... ... and therefor a single event Energy Emission... as a spherical expansion from a "point" undefined by an intersection of sector quantization of the sphere as a Singularity... does not resolve a minimum quanta of Energy (QE), or a minimum quanta of Space (QE)... nor does it facilitate a minimum quanta of Time (QT)... i.e. a universal clock.

If Origin Energy distribution is to be facilitated by Origin Singularity quantization... and subsequent pulsed distribution of a constant Origin Energy Emission quanta is to be facilitated by a Navigation Structure/Coordinate System consistent with the Origin Singularity quantization... a Pulsed Emission Source at Origin must be assumed...i.e. network expansion requires a continuous streamed differential.

That is to say that a Navigation Structure/Coordinate System derived from Origin Singularity quantization, must facilitate addressable internal entities which give definition to an expanding QE/QI relationship... i.e. a minimum quanta of Energy (QE) and minimum quanta of Space (QI) are resolved by Origin Singularity quantization distribution geometry dictates on Pulse-One-Open/Close cycle... and Pulsed Emission Energy provides a minimum temporal Universal referent in which subsequent QE/QI events can be verified.

UQS is an acronym for Unified Quantization of a Spherical Singularity... and the UQS quantization is an x',y',z' Coordinate System that supports a successful non-perturbative Energy Emission Process... from which UQS Computational Algebraic constructs can be derived and applied to subsequent Quantum Energy Mechanix... within the UQS uniform field quantization... i.e. the UQS "Unified Field".

There is only one Origin Singularity within a non-pertubative Energy Emission system... but all UQS Coordinate System nodes emulate UQS Origin Singularity geometry ... and although not formal "Spheres", UQS Singularities expand as Base Unit Volume radii shells... equally in all directions... thus emulating spherical algebraic concepts/abstractions. REF: UQS Shell Expansion

The data processes of non-perturbative Energy expansion as a Network/Computational Geometry can only be facilitated by knowledge/data generated by successful resolve of previous QE pulsed distribution within available QI.

Example: QE as a minimum quanta of Energy, can not divide itself into 2 or more QE at a QI gate... i.e. algebraically an even number of QE is required to cross a 2 directional QI switch/intersection.

That is to say that no decision can be made by Energy without spatial dictate or previous decision log... and Computational Algebraic constructs are only generated as a result of successful resolve of QE distribution dictated by the Network/Computational Geometry... utilizing only previous solutions... i.e. analogous to booting a databus.

UQS resolves directional gate decisions utilizing internal and external sector plane surfaces... which adds complexity to the data processing structure... but the complexity provides a two channel Energy Emission which facilitates Inertial and Radiation Energy forms, and thereby eliminates subsequent "physical reality" observation conflicts .

The complexity of a conventional computer databus... which is essentially a layered 2D logic tree structure... often requires a "virtual" visual navigation tool/app. to resolve expansion of the databus... i.e. Computational Algebras are developed with the assistance of a network/databus process "Trace On".

Although a 3D logic structure which expands in all directions equally... vastly increases network/databus connectivity potential... it also vastly increases the variables that must be tracked on any given pulse resolve ... and to resolve Pulse-75-Open... it became necessary to develop a "virtual" visual databus navigation tool/app. to register process decisions... and log Computational Algebra constructs derived from the Emission Process.

That is to say that the Logic Reduction and Process discussed herein is currently being programed as a "virtual" Quantum Logic Computer Application (Lab/Game)... and it is anticipated that the resulting CAD/SIM environment will be open structured to facilitate Energy Emission Databus validity test on any "Unified Field" Coordinate System. REF: UQS CAD/SIM Environment

s. lingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

No Steve I do not think so...

A CAD/SIM is merely a devise to visualize application of logic operatives... if, then, and, or, copy, cut, paste, Boolean, etc.... to Spatial and causal parameters supported by a specified computational geometry (coordinate system)... i.e. a virtual quantum mechanix lab to investigate validity of model. REF: Emission 5 BU Radii Shell Illustration

There is no artificial intelligence... and "ether" is merely a computational geometry (coordinate system) derived from initial differentiation of Space by Energy as required to distribute Energy equally in all directions... i.e. no "artificial intelligence" was available to provide a bias for Origin Energy distribution in one or another direction, and all subsequent intelligence is natural.

However, an application coded to mimic Energy mechanix derived from the model... may provide the same functionally as the modeled entity.

Although the Base Unit (BU) of the Origin Singularity quantization is a unified unit throughout the field, any conceivable form of Energy... Photonic, Bosonic, Molecular, DNA, etc... can be coded as a choreography of minimum units of pulsed Energy (QE) within the underlying Spatial Base Unit (QI) structure of the unified field.

Gravitation?... see Mach's Principle... Einstein liked it...and UQS verifies/illustrates it.

Understanding a concept... whether in French, English, Chinese, Mathematics, Physics, etc... requires a common knowledge of labels, symbols, etc... or a visualization of the concept to be conveyed... i.e. go read the Illustrations!!!

Bosonic IllustrationCosmological Illustration

Photonic Illustration

Molecular Illustration

Humanoid Illustration

Conveyance of your theory of spherisation might benefit from a CAD/SIM implementation.

S.Lingowww.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Yes Steve...

Quantization of a spherical volume by a unified volume unit... i.e. "inserting a sphere" with a Base Unit (BU) volume ... one can achieve an origin, define a computational geometry (coordinate system) for the singularity, and define a minimum Spatial differentiation (QI).

A "Universal" computational geometry (coordinate system) dictates pulsed Energy distribution and thus encodes all forms of Energy. REF: 5 BU Radii Shell

In order for that computational geometry to expand in all directions from the Origin Singularity, as a unified field geometry... the Base Unit (BU) volume chosen must also support closure of shells of a radius expansion equal to the radius of one Base Unit (BU) volume. REF: Shell Radii Expansion

In more than 20 years of investigation I have reduced all candidates to one such Base Unit (BU)... i.e. the UQS Quadhedron.

All nodes are networked by the UQS computational geometry/coordinate system... any node supports a singularity, and all Singularities are scalable....i.e. to include but not constrained to the "CST" Hydrogen Proton model Bosonic Illustration ... and the Andrei Linde Self Reproducing Universal Inflation Cosmological model.

Understanding a concept... whether in French, English, Chinese, Mathematics, Physics, etc... requires a common knowledge of labels, symbols, etc... or a visualization of the concept to be conveyed... i.e. go read the illustrations!!!

s. lingowww.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Well Giulio... what I am doing is programing an Emission CAD/Sim... as a lab/game. REF: UQS CAD/Sim Lab Game

I am utilizing the Unified Quantization of a Spherical Singularity (UQS) as the computational geometry for the CAD... because it facilitates expansion of Energy... equally in all directions... from an initial differentiation of space by Energy... as shells of a unified unit volume radii... but the concept will facilitate any computational geometry that supports your observation of universal emission.

The paper is highly illustrated with game interface screen shots... i.e. you can skip the "yadayadyada"... none the less, I do utilize the actual code structure in my explanations... and it gets a bit deep... and I suggest you start with a more generic exposure of the theory at: UQS Consciousness Investigation ... which is also highly illustrated.

s. lingowww.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Thank you Georgina!!

I may not have been logged in... am herein testing that assumption... i.e. I did not log in to make this reply.

S.LingoHave not previously posted on a forum and I assumed my login would be tagged to the post... it was not... so the post is anonymous... i.e. Anonymous wrote on Jan. 24, 2016 @ 18:51 GMT

I did sign the bottom of the entry... but would like to know how to do it correctly.

Please advise?

s. lingoUQS Author/Logician

Sub:160123fqxiar

Hello Zeeya Merali...

I have been directed to the fqxi community by film maker Jonathan Khanlian... Ref: Digital Physics Movie http://www.DigitalPhysicsMovie.com

My browse of the site was rewarded by your open solicitation for "Alternative Reality Models"... and in that your Nature Mag article condenses a broad spectrum of attempts to resolve the kinematics of "the observer" to it's origin... the link to "The Origins of Space and Time" is greatly appreciated.

Ref: Origins of Space and Time

Although I found the various models creative and intriguing... inferring an initial geometry from a subsequent observed or intellectually contrived geometry... has apparently not resolved a computational geometry for an Origin Singularity that supports "Universal" unified unit quantization... and "getting rid of the singularity" as suggested by Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin... merely expands the universe inward.

Possibilities for the quantization geometry of an Origin Singularity may seem infinite... and to assume an Origin Singularity causal computational geometry and expect to resolve an observable verification of that assumption, does at first glance seem pure madness... but we have some clues.

If one assumes a requirement for a single volume unit that quantizes a sphere... which expands equally in all directions... from an initial differentiation of space by Energy... as shells of unit volume radii... one drastically reduces the possible options for a valid quantization volume unit ... all of which... in 20 years of analysis... I reduced to the UQS quadhedron.

UQS is an acronym for Unified Quantization of a Sphere... i.e. a spherical singularity.

The UQS quadhedron is the Base Unit (BU) of the UQS field matrix... Ref: UQS Origin Singularity Geometry

The UQS CAD environment supports a minimum Energy quanta per minimum Spatial quanta relationship... i.e. QE/QI... that expands as spherical shells of 3D unified base unit radii... within a valid unified field geometry... and resolves the consciousness investigation as the ability to process an Energy quanta (QE) differential in a minimum Spatial unit (QI)... i.e. a verifiable reality.

My 16/01/12 paper 'UQS Consciousness Investigation: the Crystallography of "Universal" Consciousness'... was written as a generic "observer" introduction... and is a good place to start: UQS Consciousness Investigation

My website UQSMatrixMechanix.com has a collection of papers and SIMs that provide in depth math and conceptual CAD illustrations.

Thanks to fqxi, Zeeya, and J. Khanlian for the opportunity to contribute to a community investigating the "Origin Myths of the Observer".

s. lingo

UQS Author/Logician

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

- TOPIC: Black Hole Technology; ADMIN: Stephen Wolfram, February 22, 2016

Ref: "SETI Computational Universe" discussion:

With regard to theoretical criteria for Stephen's vision of "the fundamental unity and interconnectedness of the universe"... there are two crucial Space-Energy geometry models that must have solutions.

1. A 3D Spatial network geometry model... quantized by a uniform volumetric unit, which is defined by the theoretical minimum Spatial uniform planar unit (QI)... that expands from a single origin point... equally in all directions as spherical shells of the unified unit volume radii... i.e. a 3D unified field geometry that resolves the Origin Singularity (OS)... and subsequently resolves any observed perturbative Spatial entity in terms of the uniform volume Base Unit (BU) of the network quantization... i.e. the "co-ordinate set" of a "fundamental underlying framework". (Ref: - TOPIC: What is Spacetime Really; December 2, 2015 comments G. Fournier May 31, 2016 at 9:46 am)

2. Verification of an Energy Emission/Distribution SIM that successfully distributes a theoretical minimum quanta of Energy (QE)... from a single origin point... equally in all directions as spherical shells of a unified unit volume radii... i.e. resolves Energy entity choreographies of a pulsed source... in a manner consistent with the observed Universe.

UQS Labs... www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com... is an independently funded virtual quantum lab, which has over the past 20 years addressed the requirement to resolve the Origin Singularity in terms of a theoretical minimum Spatial quantization (QI) CAD Computational Environment... i.e. "co-ordinate set"... in which to run theoretical minimum quanta of Energy (QE) Emission/Distribution SIM experiments.

In pursuit of resolution, UQS Labs developed a 2 component Virtual Quantum Lab/Game (VQL/G) as a digital application. (Ref: www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSDB.php)

The dual component design of the UQS VQL/G App. reflects the above Space-Energy network geometry criteria 1. and 2.

Although the UQS CAD Environment Generator module is currently specific to the UQS "co-coordinate set"... it has verified that the UQS Spatial virtual network model geometry resolves any geometric form... i.e. Spatial reality... to the UQS Origin Singularity quantization (Ref: www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php) ... and the UQS "co-coordinate set" is being utilized to develop a virtual Energy Emission/Distribution SIM Interface to the CAD computational environment... i.e. the UQS "co-ordinate set" is being tested as a valid candidate for "Universal Network" Energy emission/distribution verification.

"It is unlikely that there will be more than one such correct model." ~ E .Fredkin; 'Five Big Questions With Pretty Simple Answers'... IBM Journal Res. & Dev., Vol. 48, No. 1, Jan. 2004.

In order to verify E. Fredkin's assessment of a unique Universal "co-ordinate" set solution... in my above 2016/02/28 post, I attempt to entice Stephen to apply his expertise and insightful utilization of a network approach to physics... to a generic CAD Environment Generator... which would allow the player/lab tech to define the "co-ordinate set"... i.e. specify the uniform Base Unit (BU) volume that quantizes the Spatial computational relationships which dictate Energy Emission/Distribution SIM program path options.

The QE Emission/Distribution SIM Interface module of the UQS VQL/G App. allows the player/lab tech to define/adjust the Energy properties and to program Energy distribution axioms... e.g. pulse sequencing rules, node switch configuration outcome rules, QE accumulation rules, vector addition rules, etc.... and running a SIM program within the network configuration... i.e. "co-ordinate set" of the CAD computational environment... will dictate the program derived Energy entity choreographies that develop within the network... on a pulse by pulse... frame by frame... program instruction basis... over time... as per the player/lab tech SIM Interface input.

In that a reduction of the possible program/solution set is highly desirable... UQS Labs has e-published suggestions for physical Laser experiments designed to produce data critical to the reduction of Energy choreography solution set. (Ref: PHOTON PRESSURE); (Ref: UQS Wave Particle Duality)

In regard to empirical experiments to facilitate measurement of Black Hole Energy loss... the implication of a unified field in which the minimum quanta of Space (QI) and Energy (QE) can not be perceived by physical means... i.e. as Mass scale Energy interactions... suggest that it may be necessary to explore the psychic (Ref: Webster: PSYCHIC.. 2. beyond known physical processes) implications of such an environment... i.e. Energy as data/information processes... and it is likely that Black Hole Energy loss measurement experiments... which utilize only known physical processes... will need to be re-designed to incorporate a means of evaluating an underlying structure of sub-physical Energy choreography dictates... i.e. Energy mechanix at information scale/resolution.

"... a well defined model... should make it easier to devise crucial experiments." ~ Francis H. C. Crick; co-development of "Double Helix"

That is to say that future design of empirical experiments to facilitate measurement of Black Hole Energy loss... should benefit from verification of theoretical resolve of a valid unified field virtual Energy model, and from laser lab experiments designed to reduce the possible program/solution set for valid unified field CAD Computational Environment Energy Emission/Distribution SIM virtual lab experiments.

It should also be noted that Logic augmentation of physical mental processes can expand psychic perception of Energy mechanix... and downloading a verifiable vision of a "unity" network... in any form the individual's mental processor can successfully install and run... will facilitate evolution of the mental computational environment.

Stephen... I applaud your in "line of fire" ability to bring your presentation content into focus to justify opposition to presumed quantum decoherence/randomness... and I agree that "real-time philosophy"... often semantically analogous to live theoretics... "is difficult"... and if fumbled... either can muddy the waters.

Thanks for disseminating informative content by readily accessible and verifiable means.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.UQSMatrixMechanix.com

Nice work Stephen...

In that relative motion is our only perception of Energy, the development of tools for Kinematic Analysis is no surprise... and it is encouraging to see digital Kinematic Visual Analysis (KVA) tools being applied to the "Fundamental Physics" discussion.

Since 1980... driven by Media Animation... functionality (read functions/mechanix ) of Kinematic Visual Analysis (KVA) Apps. has been the domain of Martin Hash’s Animation Master, NYIT Alexander Schure, PIXAR Studio, George Lucas, etc....

Much more recently, Tommaso Bolognesi Ref: arxiv/papers/1004/1004.3128 , Alex Lamb Ref:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db0MMRXJgz8 , and others... have verified the awesome potential for KVA in the "Fundamental Physics" discussion... but Physics driven functionality of KVA Apps. tends to be isolated equation sequence investigations that lack consolidation of functionality, open distribution, and App-operator finesse.

The interim 40 years of App-operator (read animator) Interface development... i.e. Menu mapping of cross function capabilities, Screen View and Axis options, causal choreography options, playback options, etc.... should NOT be discarded in the development of a Wolfram Kinematic Visual Analysis (KVA) App.

In that Media Animation driven KVA Apps. are essentially mathematically constrained to a Cartesian/Radian quantization of the CAD Environment... the opportunity/challenge exist for a Wolfram language based KVA to vastly expand functionality with regard to "Fundamental Physics"... by providing the option for user defined volume Base Unit (BU) quantization of the CAD Environment.

That is to say that although the codec is available for UQS to Cartesian/Radian coordinate transformations, any necessity for codec slows the system Ref: UQS Data Bus

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

- TOPIC: What is Spacetime Really; ADMIN: Stephen Wolfram, December 2, 2015

Thank you Tommaso Bolognesi for your insightful and thought provoking post...

"Graph"?... or... "Coordinate-system"?

"Isomorphic"?... or... "Unity-Substance"?

"Oversimplification"?... or... "Full Abstraction"?

'Universe as Network"?... or... "Jeweled Net of Indra"?

A linguistic "re-phrase"... or... "transformation"... or... "nuance" (if it is Tuesday and this is Paris), does not constitute a logic "paradigm"... and may obfuscate the emergence of any "true" logic paradigm.

The notion of a "fundamental principle"... or... "program", underlying distribution of Energy is hardly a paradigm.

For over 12 thousand years, Vedic Science has maintained an Energy/Space Universality model as an intelligent network, and Science viewed as a continuum, can provide a logic reduction of "stochastic" factors, which may relieve the necessity for "brute-force ‘universe hunting".

In his 1948 book,1 B.T. Spalding defined "The Quantum Theory" as "a theory of distribution of Energy throughout Space", and he devotes a chapter to analysis of it's equivalence to Vedic Science as "a theory of distribution of Energy throughout Space".

*"True reasoning works out from principle to it's manifestation and not from the manifestation back to principle."~ B.T. Spalding*

Principles are hierarchal and categorical, and the most fundamental principle of Energy Emission and subsequently Energy Distribution, is certainly debatable.

As an artifact of Vedic Science, the tri-axis Dorje (Vajra) geometry form suggest an attempt at Origin Singularity (OS) geometry resolve — which to my knowledge did not develop more than one shell (one level of spatial node emergence) — but in general, Vedic Science infers "Unity-Substance" from perceived "intelligence in nature"... i.e. "faith" ("intuition"?)... and thus there is no requirement for geometric resolve of the Origin Singularity (OS).

The boot sequence of a simple digital processor suggest that intelligence requires a pulsed 2 bit Energy differential... i.e. booting a "cosmic consciousness" requires a pulsed source... and therefor a single Energy Emission Event... e.g. a Big Bang... is untenable in Vedic Science.

If a "computational universe"... then a Pulsed Source... and "learning" — defined as self-modifying intelligence — requires pulse by pulse system resolve of the chorography of all minimum quanta of Energy (QE) within addressable quanta of minimum Space (QI)... i.e. each open/close differentiatable pulse updates intelligence log with pulse Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) Solution Inferred Functions.

"Algorithmic spacetime explorers"... Ref: Stephen Wolfram TOPIC: What is Spacetime Really; T. Bolognesi July 21, 2016 Post ... attempting to resolve a "mathematical apparatus to express physical matter as a container of information"... Ref: FQXi TOPIC 1928: Alternative Models of Reality; Sergio Michelson Jul. 8, 2016 Post... have shown that an unresolved singularity geometry creates a discontinuous graph (coordinate-system) — within the singularity encapsulation of a point Energy Source — which prohibits establishment of a minimum unit of Energy (QE) per minimum unit of Space (QI) relationship.

"Lorentzenity" as observed manifestations... i.e. not fundamental principles of Energy Distribution... can not verify an unbroken kinematic chain of Energy distribution from source, in a field in which the Source Origin Singularity is not resolved.

Coordinate transform functions do not resolve in the vicinity of an unresolved Point Source Singularity... Ref: center of a Lie diagram... and even trivial adjustments for continuous to the discrete... i.e. based on "intuition" ("faith"?)... just begs the question of Origin Singularity (OS) geometry resolve.

If known link, please direct... but I have yet to see a 3D expanded Hesse graph (correlation-plot) that in my mind resolves the Origin Singularity (OS) as a single point root encapsulation geometry, which will facilitate pulsed minimum unit Energy (QE) Emission distribution, equally in all directions.

Any Q-theory as a "physical representation of information" requires an Energy Distribution model that establishes QE/QI relationships for occupation of Space by Energy, and resolves a minimum unit of Time (QT) as the distribution pulse... i.e. Quantum Clock.

Clocked time as a record of a pulsed differential, is contingent on clock differential mechanism, and any theoretical minimum unit of Time (QT) — in which one record of QE emission event differential equals one OPEN (read state), ICS (resolve), CLOSE (write event) sequence of events — infers a timeless (unknown-interval) Intermittent Calculation State (ICS) between any two sequential perceivable QE emission events.

Given minimum quanta of clockable time in QT units... i.e. no fraction of QT is knowable... an invariant (constant) interval between Q-clock event record (ticks) can be inferred... i.e. a time variant cannot be measured in unknowable intervals.

Observed manifestations of Time may be derived from a pulsed QE Emission, but such manifestations are not the fundamental principles of QE Distribution.

Algorithmic energy/space explorers attempting to perceive Quantum Energy Distribution, as a mathematical model of the "intelligent nature" network... i.e. continuous QE kinematics from Origin Source to Discrete Energy Choreographed Entity... will find it necessary to resolve a 3D "computational universe", in which a unit of pulsed minimum differential...i.e. Quantum Time (QT)... utilizes a resolved Origin Singularity (OS) geometry to Distribute Energy as minimum Units of Energy (QE) per minimum units of Space (QI).

A "total abstraction" of Energy Distribution, "with no preconceptions"... Ref: Stephen Wolfram TOPIC: What is Spacetime Really; T. Bolognesi July 21, 2016 Post... i.e." baggage-free"... Ref: T. Bolognesi FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2015... may or may not support Origin Energy Pulse (OEP) magnitude invariance as a fundamental principle of Energy Emission and subsequent Distribution, but a differential perceived as Origin (Source) pulsed open-close cycle... i..e. Quantum clock event record.. must be interval invariant due to QT resolved as an indivisible unit... i.e. minimum quanta of Time = 1QT..

I agree with Tommaso Bolognesi that a "full abstraction" for "exploration of a computational universe" will require support for Deterministic and Discriminatory functions, and the Virtual Quantum Lab Game (VQLGame) as discussed previously... Ref: Stephen Wolfram TOPIC: What is Spacetime Really; S. Lingo June 20, 2016 Post... is a re-thinking of CAD 3D graph (coordinate-system) generation as a "deterministic causet construction technique" suitable to re-write by Energy Distribution functions.

The QE Choreography of a Discrete Corpuscular String Theory (CST) Hydrogen Proton, was computationally reduced (inferred) on the basis that all UQS coordinate system nodes are volumetric shell singularity encapsulated, which ensures the center of inertia of any Energy entity choreography can be resolved in terms of the Origin Singularity (OS) spatial algorithm.

However, spatial "causal invariance" in a unified field quantization coordinate system, does not prohibit the emergence of diversity by discretionary Energy Distribution intelligence.

The proposed Virtual Quantum Lab Game (VQLGame)... addresses the requirement for a Deterministic Spatial CAD navigable quantization — which supports Discretionary Energy distribution — as a dual component design... i.e. a 3D CAD Coordinate Spatial dictate generator, and an Energy Emission SIM resolve interface.

... On Pulse-One-Open Intermittent Calculation State (P-1-ICS) there is no existing differential (intelligence) for decision other than spatial determinism

... Origin Energy Pulse (OEP) boots onto spatial Address Intelligence (Matrix) as minimum units of Energy (QE) occupancy of available minimum units of Space (QI)

CHOICE of Coordinate Quantization Geometry can facilitate:

* Origin Singularity (OS) resolved by minimum unit of Space (QI)

* 3D Spatial Graph (Coordinate-System) Universal Invariance (Unified Field)

* Tri-axis eliptical preference

* Infinite-degree spatial node emergence

* Isomorphic (Unity-Substance) of QI and subsequently of QE

* QE Planar Address perception vs. Point Location perception

A 3D Spatial model that intends to unify all perceivable spatial form must be derived from the most fundamental principle of geometry that underlies all perceivable spatial form... to include it's Origin Singularity (OS).

If "a spacetime event in a causal set is simply a node in a directed, acyclic graph (DAG)"... Ref: Wordpress: Event patterns: from process algebra to algorithmic causal sets; T. Bolognesi, April 13, 2016 ... the "event" has graph location but no spatial extension... i.e. has no occupation of space.

Spatial graph (coordinate-system) node transformations are only necessitated by perception of Energy as an event of unspecified magnitude — in terms of minimum quanta of Energy (QE) — and represented as a point on a vector line within and/or comprising the deterministic geometry.

If deterministic geometry is fixed, and all QE kinematics reflect Energy Emission principles... i.e. QE animated as 2D Sprites within a fixed 3D coordinate structure as the deterministic dictates... then no migrations of Spatial nodes required.

VQLGame navigation code and calculation is facilitated by minimum unit of Space (QI) 3D CAD Coordinate Addressing.

In that the UQS coordinate system satisfies above spatial coordinate quantization criteria of CHOICE, it was chosen as the deterministic CAD structure for VQLGame design and development. Ref: Initialize CAD Environment

... Lab Tech/Player input of Energy Source properties and initial boot-statement (fundamental-principle)

... Each pulse generates request for ICS resolve of total system QE/QI choreography as per prior pulse sequence Available Intelligence (AI) log

... QE Emission Distribution mechanix are expanded as a consequence of successful sequential ICS Resolve Inferred Function re-entry

.. Utilizes CAD Spatial Address base for computational determination of pulse solution inferred QE functions

... All QE kinematic chains are resolvable as QE Emission principles, and may or may not be spatial coordinate transform invariant

CHOICE of Coordinate Quantization Geometry and underlying Energy Emission Principle can facilitate:

* Resolve of minimum quanta of Energy (QE) and Time (QT)

* 2 channel discrete Emission Distribution

* Identification of a preferred reference frame (direction)

* Continuous emergence of Entities as discrete Energy Choreographies

* Number and spatial extent of QE events per QT can be variable

* Inertia equals Gravity

A 3D Energy/Space model that intends to unify all perceivable Energy choreographies (motion) — in terms of minimum quanta of Energy (QE) animated within minimum quanta of Space (QI) graph (coordinate-system) dictates — must be derived from an Energy Emission principle that underlies all perceivable Energy Entity forms... to include Source Origin Singularity (SOS).

The VQLGame:SIM-Component:QE Choreography Entity Emergence Logging Module, will need to be hierarchal by quantization geometry elements... i.e. Spatial Address Plane, Spatial Address Plane Pair, Base Unit Volume, Singularity Volume... which are modifiable by categorical geometry functions... i.e. channel, axis, direction vector summation, QE/QI accumulation (magnitude), composites, etc.... e.g. at OS P-2-C: Hiearchy: Base Unit QE Choreography Entity Type count = 1.

As illustrated by Emergence Sequence of Discrete (Identifiable) Radiation Channel QE Choreographed Entity... Ref: UQS EMISSION DISTRIBUTION:PULSE-4: OPEN-ICS-CLOSE SEQUENCE = 1 QT ... function call options facilitated by vector (spline) node confluence are expanded by planar geometry node confluence... and can be appropriately augmented by Energy Choreography if/then functions.

As illustrated, the first Radiation Channel QE Choreography Entity of Hierarchy: Base Unit, emerges on P-4-C.

Unique Choreography Entity Emergence opportunities are also augmented by multi-channel QE distribution... e.g. Pulse-8-Close Emergence of First Inertia Channel QE Choreography Entities of Hierarchy: Singularity = Shell One: Category: Sector = 5.

No new Inertia Channel Base Unit CHO. entities emerge on P-8-C thru P-36-C, but Singularity Entities are hierarchically differentiated in shell one, and Radiation channel develops radial distribution which propagates outward ahead of Inertia entangled entities.

The proposed VQLGame interface design allows the LabTech/Player to input variables related to discriminatory functions... i.e. "complexity slider".

VQLGame Time is SIM based playback controlled, as a frame per QT pulse specification.

Energy minimum unit (QE) accumulation and direction vector summation for pulse based ICS resolve is facilitated by String Named Addressing... e.g. Sector, Shell, anchor, p1 and p2.

To date UQS as CHOICE of Coordinate Quantization for VQLGame SIMs, has resolved Pulse-72-Close, but has not yet achieved the mathematically predictable configuration at which QE distribution within a UQS quantization of one "spherical chicken"... Ref: T. Bolognesi FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2015... will entangle first generation Inertia sub entities, possibly initializing a "Big Bang" of composites.

That is to say that the model is not "stuck", but resolve of Pulse-73-Close requires commitment to a digital language, that will provide digital resolve assistance to facilitate Virtual Quantum Lab Game (VQLGame) development progress.

With regard to any geometry or language of choice, simulation (SIM) verification of a Virtual Logic Quantum Computer prior to any Photonic IC casting of the geometry for implementation as a Quantum Phenomena Computer would be expedient.

The Logic Paradigm is in resolve of the Source Origin Singularity (SOS)... i.e. a purely information based model that excludes the very first principle of physics will probably be illusionary.

If a "true" Logic Paradigm has emerged, we all are amateurs.

Bibliography:

8. B. T. Spalding; 'Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East Vol. 4'... DeVoss & Co. Publishing; Copyright 1924/1964 USBN 0-87516-363-7... pg. 184

Date: 16/08/21

S. Lingo

UQS Logician/Author/Illustrator/Digital Code

uqslingo@hotmail.com

UQS Virtual Labs

UQS Web Home

Most Current

This Post Archived

©UQSMATRIXMECHANIX.COM

OK...

I checked the above (Ref: http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSPAEST.jpg) link to the UQS reduction of the Corpuscular String Theory model of the Hydrogen Proton.

Yes... the link breaks due to my spelling error... should be: http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSPAECST.jpg

Thanks for the heads-up... I do make errors.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

http://www.UQSMatrixMechanix.com

Energy path distribution options of a virtual network... i.e. a network within a CAD Generated Environment... are defined by the "co-ordinate set" framework of the CAD computational environment... i.e. a virtual Spatial environment mathematically quantized by a uniform volume Base Unit (BU).

A virtual "Universal Network" model/geometry... quantized by a uniform volumetric unit, which is defined by the theoretical minimum Spatial uniform planar unit (QI)... in which distribution of a pulsed minimum quanta of Energy (QE) can be facilitated in a manner that supports Stephen's assessment that "there is no way to do a separated physical experiment in the universe" because everything is "connected to everything else in the universe" (Ref: http://www.seti-inst.edu/weeky-lecture/seti-and-computational-universe... requires a 3D Spatial quantization that expands from a single origin point... equally in all directions as spherical shells of the unified unit volume radii... i.e. a 3D unified field geometry that resolves the Origin Singularity (OS)... and subsequently unifies any perturbative Energy entity observed within the "Universal Network".

That is to say that... if "space-time is a derived quantity coming from a more fundamental underlying framework and co-ordinate set" (Ref: - TOPIC: What is Spacetime Really ; G.Fournier; May 31, 2016 at 9:46 am Post )... in order to satisfy any vision "of the fundamental unity and interconnectedness of the universe" (Ref: - TOPIC: Black Hole Technology comments Andrew C; May 25, 2016 at 8:51 am Post)... the framework must resolve all subsequent perturbative QE/QI entities... i.e. isolated Energy entity choreographies at any scale... in terms of the uniform volume Base Unit (BU) of the network quantization... i.e. the "co-ordinate set" of the "fundamental underlying framework".

The Unified Quantization of a Spherical Singularity (UQS) yields a "co-ordinate set" that satisfies the above criteria for a theoretical minimum Spatial quantization (QI) CAD Environment... i.e. a virtual "Universal Network"... in which to run theoretical minimum quanta of Energy (QE) Emission/Distribution SIM experiments. (Ref: UQS)

*"It is unlikely that there will be more than one such correct model." ~ E. Fredkin; 'Five Big Questions With Pretty Simple Answers'... IBM Journal Res. & Dev., Vol. 48, No. 1, Jan. 2004.*

To verify that a specified CAD "co-ordinate set" computational environment resolves continuous pulsed QE distribution... an associated Energy Emission/Distribution SIM Interface module is required to facilitate input of pulsed Energy Emission/Distribution instructions (program)... in a manner similar to that in which a digital electronic pulsed source is distributed in a hardwired node network... i.e. the "co-ordinate set" of the CAD computational environment dictates the program derived Energy entity choreographies that develop within the virtual network... on a pulse by pulse... frame by frame... program instruction basis... over time... as per the lab tech's SIM Interface input.

Although the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game (VQL/G) CAD Environment Generator module is currently specific to the UQS "co-ordinate set"... it has verified that the UQS Spatial virtual network model geometry resolves any geometric form... i.e. Spatial reality... to the UQS Origin Singularity quantization (Ref: UQS Consciousness Investigation) ... and the UQS "co-ordinate set" is being utilized in development of a virtual Energy Emission/Distribution SIM Interface to the UQS CAD Environment... to facilitate input required to specify Energy properties and to program Energy distribution axioms ... e.g. pulse sequencing rules, node switch configuration outcome rules, QE accumulation rules, vector addition rules, etc.

Development of a generic CAD Environment Generator... which would allow the player/lab tech to define the "co-ordinate set"... i.e. specify the uniform Base Unit (BU) volume that quantizes the Spatial computational relationships which dictate Energy Emission/Distribution SIM program path options... would facilitate alternative virtual computational environments in which to run SIM Energy Emission/Distribution instructions (program).

Winter 2014-2015... I designed a generic Energy Emission SIM Interface and formatted it's development in Martin Hash's 'Animation Master'... (Ref: UQS Data Bus). Implementation of the design as a digital application, has stalled due to my lack of commitment to C++ as the appropriate code language to implement a generic dual module CAD Environment Generator and Energy Emission/Distribution SIM Interface.

I am encouraged in my work by G. Fournier's (Ref: What is Spacetime Really; May 31, 2016 at 9:46 am Post)... that an alternative "co-ordinate set" network environment approach offers potential to resolve a "current deep problematic"... and I submit the UQs geometry structure... as a "co-ordinate set" candidate for "Universal Network" Energy entity choreography... e.g. the Hydrogen proton (Ref: UQSCST Hydrogen Proton)... verification.

UQS is a fundamental reduction of Roger Penrose's (1995) utilization of the C080 Bucky Ball structure in Twister computations... and I repeat: "UQS resolves any geometric form... i.e. Spatial reality... to the Origin Singularity quantization".(Ref: UQS Consciousness Investigation)

The "irreducible computational" nature of Energy as sub-mass information... even within a virtual unified field model of a "Universal Network"... presents a worthy challenge... and I concur (Ref: Black Hole Technology S. Lingo comment post 2016/02/28 ) with G. Fournier that Stephen's expertise and insight in a network approach to quantum Energy choreographies is highly applicable to development of virtual quantum lab tools that are mandated by the task.

When resources for virtual quantum lab tools become available, it is my intent to team Stephen and 'Animation Master', Martin Hash... to implement a generic CAD Environment Generator and it's associated Energy Emission/Distribution SIM Interface... as a generic Virtual Quantum Lab/Game (VQL/G).

The University of Rochester laser lab team (Ref: Vamivakas/Neukirch Laser Exp.)... are also on the Team: VQL/G wish list.

In the interim... the UQS frame by frame Walk-through visual illustrations... which in my 3/15/2016 post, I promised the Fqxi Topic#:1928 community... is still on the "to do" list, and progressing... albeit slowly... i.e. I have yet quit my seasonal $job$ for a full time UQS logician's hat.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

In that mathematical theories of Space/Energy/Time...at least in principle... are derived from an observed and/or intellectually visualized Spatial geometry model.

To the degree that one is speaking of the Spatial geometry model... a predicted observation does not constrain the observation to a single geometry model... nor does it necessarily verify all aspects of a theory inferred from a specified geometry model that resolves the observed prediction.

That is to say, that direct observation of a gravitational radiation wave... does not verify Einstein’s rubber sheet (2D plane) geometry model as the definitive resolve of Space/Energy/Time computational geometry models.

To the degree that one is speaking of equations extracted from a specified geometry model... to verify that the specified geometry model resolves the observation... the visual kinematic chain for the theoretical derivation...from the observation geometry... back to the specified geometry model... must be unbroken.

Does UQS incorporate Einstein’s Relativity Theories?

To replace Einstein’s geometry model... with a 3D spherical lattice which expands from a pulsed source... equally in all directions... as spherical shells of unified unit volume radii... is a major deviation from the "Relativity" geometry model. Ref: UQS Analysis: Wave-Particle Duality

However... the to date verified predictions of "Relativity" can be resolved in the UQS computational geometry... and laser technology capable of resolving experimental observations to verify that a predicted computational geometry resolves Fundamental Universal Quantum Quantization... is in reach. Ref: Vamivakas/Neukirch Laser Exp.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

"So, OK, if I mounted a project to try to find the fundamental theory of physics, what would I actually do?

Well what I did...

LOGIC REDUCTION:1.) If one assumes no directional distribution bias (non-pertrubative) upon differentiation... then Energy must expand as a sphere.

By successful quantization of a spherical Origin Emission Singularity with a unified volume unit (automata)... one can achieve an initial point of differentiation of Space by Energy, define a computational geometry (coordinate system) for the singularity, and define a minimum Spatial differentiation (QI)... 3 sec. Ref: You Tube:UQS OS Emission

2.) If one assumes the Origin Emission Singularity computational geometry expands equally in all directions from the Origin Singularity, as a unified field geometry... i.e. a single Base Unit (BU) volume (automata) with no Boolean spaces... the Base Unit (BU) volume (automata) chosen must also support spherical closure of shells of a radius expansion equal to the radius of one Base Unit (BU) volume (automata)... Ref: 5 BU Radii Shell Illustration

A requirement for a single volume unit (automata) that quantizes a sphere... which expands equally in all directions... from an initial differentiation of space by Energy... as spherical shells of unit volume radii... drastically reduces the possible options for a valid quantization volume unit (automata)... all of which... in 20 years of documented analysis... I reduced to the UQS quadhedron.

UQS is an acronym for Unified Quantization of a Sphere... i.e. a quantized spherical singularity.

What I am doing...

"COMPUTATIONAL IRREDUCIBILITY":1.) If causal Energy Distribution is to be facilitated by the computational geometry... one must also assume a Pulsed Energy Source...i.e. network expansion requires more than 2-bits.

2.)A Pulsed Energy Source... as opposed to a Single Energy Distribution Event... provides a minimum temporal component, and a minimum Energy unit (QE) which gives definition to QE/QI.

I have developed a CAD based on the UQS Base Unit (BU) volume (automata) and am programing an Emission CAD/SIM... as a Lab/Game...
Ref: UQS Data Bus

This paper is highly illustrated with game interface screen shots... i.e. you can skip the "yadayadyada"... none the less, I do utilize the actual code structure in
illustration explanations... and it gets a bit deep.

I suggest you start with a more generic exposure of the theory at UQS Consciousness Investigation, which illustrates the scalability... i.e. Human, Molecular, Boson, and Cosmological scales... of Energy choreographies... i.e. "Kelvin Knots"... within the UQS background computational geometry.

My website at www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com has a collection of papers and SIMs that provide in depth math and conceptual
CAD illustrations.

I have also recently posted on at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1928 ... that is where I
connected with this link to your blog.

UQS Author/Logician

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

- UQS YouTube Comment and Reply Log

VIDEO:

- Lex Fridman w/ Eric Weinstein | AI Podcast Clips |

The Guage Theory and Dirac's equation are not "Source Code".

In a manner similar to religious dogma, they are speculative mechanisms to derive fundamental principles from purturbative analysis.

A kin to priest, credentialed physicists' and mathematicians' have a bad habit of throwing dogma at fundamental uncertainty, which made it impossible for Lex to focus Eric's spiel on "What is the fundamental unit of matter?... Spinners??"

Man's lack of understanding of "What is fundamental?" generates fear, and the social-political consequences of our fears... e.g. fiat debt slavery ... mandate parasitic speciel behavior patterns that are stressing the host.

We do not need to "escape" the Earth Ship, but it is possible that the planet may find it necessary to cast us off.

We need to solve the root architecture/geometry on which the "Source Code" is established... i.e. derive all fundamental principles from a single point source emission geometry that facilitates spontaneous harmonious resolve of 3D directionally unbiased distribution of minimum/indivisible units of spatially defined Energy (QE), on each minimum/indivisible Q-Tick.

Subsequent to fundamental enlightenment, a structural change in human consciousness inherently facilitates attainment of one's inner most idea of self mastery... i.e. spontaneous harmonious resolve... and is not a power by which to enslave others.

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

VIDEO:

- Dr. Don Lincoln | Fermi Lab |

Thank you!!!..."One can not discover what one is unwilling to admit, that one does not know." ~ CC

A "wave function that describes a real wave of some stuff", inherently solicits investigation into what exactly is waving? REF: - What is Aether? Jeff Yee

As demonstrated in Yee's elegant digital SIM of the Michelson/Morley Experiment, and also in PBS Space Time Digital Studio's equally elegant SIM of the Double Slit Experiment... REF: - "Pilot Wave Theory and Quantum Realism" it becomes apparent that one's prior bias of the Q-environment and of Q-particle mechanix dictates any hypothesis derived from one's observation of an Energy Phenomena... i.e. one may SIM the observations that seemingly validate a hypothesis... e.g. Relativity... without validating, and perhaps even invalidating, a prior hypothesis.

Although the Quantum Pilet Wave Interpretation has an academia credentialed theoretical thread from Ernst Mach, through Louis De Broglie, to David Bohm, and in the 1980's was re-structured as the Interactional Interpretation by John Crammer at the University of Washington, it has been largely ignored until recently.

In that the Interactional Interpretation utilizes the dynamics/interactions of Energy Quanta (QE) to facilitate the observed/measurable
Energy PHhenomena (PHE) wave, a Source pulsed transformation of Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy into spatially defined minimum
units/quanta of Space-Time Energy (QE)... i.e. Energy as substance... is a plausable extension to the theory... and a logic/geometry
reduction to a single point unified unit spatial field quantization of Space, expanding outward over Time, as the spatially mapped
intelligence required for spontaneous harmonious distribution of pulsed sourced QE, as observed, is a required component.

REF: - Space-Time Energy (QE) Emission http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelML.jpg

This nascent, spatially stationary template, as Causal intelligence embedded in Space, would dictate the valid distribution dynamics/mechanix of all QE choreographies of Causal form, on each source pulsed Q-Tick, for the entire/GLOBAL Space-Time-Energy field. .. i.e. the QE mechanix which we observe as measurable Energy PHenomena (PHE).

Although a templated intelligence implies a deterministic distribution, in that harmonious distribution of the entire field must be SOLVED on each source pulse, network intelligence would evolve QE choreography monitoring circuits... e.g. humans... to monitor, evaluate, and report localized "harmony", in a manner simulated by our current digital network.

Without resolve of a point source charge geometry.... i.e. an unbroken kinematic spatial logic/geometry chain to the source... any wave function local analysis is inherently perturbative, and will inherently have hidden variables, regardless of one's Q-interpretation.

A Time-Space-Energy singularity geometry, that facilitates an unbiased distribution of QE, equal in all directions from a single point
pulsed source, is the decipher key required to solve the root network architecture underlying any observed wave guide intelligence.

REF: - "UQS Singularity (9sec)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4

REF: - "UQS Expanded Singularity (3sec)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf7QqIcnCbA

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

VIDEO:

- Space Time | PBS Digital Studios |

Thank you!!!... a "wave function that describes a real wave of some stuff", inherently solicits investigation into what exactly is waving?

REF: - What is Aether? Jeff Yee

As demonstrated in your very elegant digital SIM of the Double Slit Experiment, one's prior assumptions of Q-environment and particle mechanix dictate one's hypothesis derived from one's observation of an Energy Phenomena... i.e. one may SIM the observations that seemingly validate a hypothesis... e.g. Relativity... without validating, and perhaps even invalidating, the hypothesis.

If one assumes that the pulsed dynamics/interactions of Energy Quanta (QE) create the observed/measurable Energy PHhenomena wave...
REF: Interactional Interpretation John Cramer, Univ. WA Seattle 1980's... then one can reasonably postulate emergence of an expanding unified
unit spatial field quantization, of Space over Time, as the spatially mapped intelligence required for spontaneous harmonious distribution of
a pulsed sourced emission, which transforms Spaceless-Timeless Cause Energy into spatially defined ... i.e. substance... minimum units/quanta
of Space-Time Energy

- Space-Time Energy (QE) Emission http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelML.jpg

This deterministic, nascent, spatially stationary template, as Causal intelligence embedded in space, would dictate the valid distribution dynamics/mechanix of all QE choreographies of Causal form, on each source pulsed Q-Tick, for the entire/GLOBAL Space-Time-Energy field... i.e. the QE mechanix which we observe as measurable Energy PHenomena.

Without resolve of a pulse source charge geometry.... i.e. an unbroken kinematic spatial geometry logic chain to the source... any wave function local analysis is inherently perturbative, and will inherently have hidden variables, regardless of one's Q interpretation.

A Time-Space-Energy singularity geometry, that facilitates an unbiased distribution of QE, equal in all directions from a single point
pulsed source, is required to solve the enigma of an underlying wave guide intelligence.

REF: - "UQS Singularity (9sec)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4

REF: - "UQS Expanded Singularity (3sec)" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf7QqIcnCbA

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

VIDEO:

- Theoria Apophasis

"Ether perturbation modalities" necessitates Ether as a spatial medium quntized by an addressable spatial occupancy geometry.

In that Cartesian quantizations do not facilitate point sorce emission, I agree "Ether has no Cartesian reality"... but what is the quantization
geometry of Ether as a spatial medium?

REF: - "UQS Quantization" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSReTB.php

S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

*Theoria Apophasis replied *

__qslingo replied on 12:01 PM 12/10/2019 __

Given a spatial containment of single point sourced minimum units of spatially defined Energy (QE), a phenomenon, as a spatial
displacement, observed within that containment, necessitates spatial quantization of the containment... i.e. addressable occupancy
intelligence.

REF: - Space-Time Energy (QE) Emission http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelML.jpg

Ether is the logic structure/geometry... i.e. the point source pulsed QE emission distribution intelligence... embeded in Space, to
manifest QE choreographies as physical substance, in Space, over Time.

REF: - "UQS Emergence Analysis" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

VIDEO:

- Theoria Apophasis

"Ether perturbation modalities" necessitates Ether as a spatial medium quntized by an addressable spatial occupancy geometry.

REF: - "UQS Aether" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

VIDEO:

- Theoria Apophasis

Field (n.): a configuration of addressable spatial occupancy REF: - Space-Time Energy As Substance Underlies All Space-Time Energy Phenomena http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php S. Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

A field, as opposed to a coordinate system, which is a configuration of addressable spatial locations... i.e. a point does not have spatial occapancy. My graduate studies were in architecture, so yes, I have a bias for structural analysis.

VIDEO:

- Adam Apollo | Resonances Academy |

A "Geometry in Equilibrium" does not necessarily resolve a geometry of Space quantized by a unified minimum Quanta of Space (QI), as required to define the root architecture of a cosmic networked intelligence. that emerges as a consequence of pulsed emission and subsequent distribution of spatially defined Quanta of Energy (QE) as substance, equal in all directions from a single point ... i.e. even if recursive, it does not necessarily resolve a point source QE emission geometry.

If known link, please direct me?... but to my knowledge Nassim Haramein has not yet demonstrated a QE emission and subsequent distribution SIM within the Tetrahedron CAD environment... i.e. facilitated an animated emission of QE sprites, pulsed, over time, from a single point, into the deterministic CAD Spatial environment.

Historically, inferences ascribed to an aether, without resolve of a point source QE emission singularity, give rise to religious dogma, subsequently generating the necessity for science, which has now been dogmatized for the lack of a point source QE emission singularity.

May humankind resolve the root architecture of a cosmic intelligence, and transcend recursive dogma. REF: - "UQS Emergence Analysis" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

VIDEOS:

Note: As comment to all below VIDEOS, qslingo posted preface to - Space-Time Energy As Substance Underlies All Space-Time Energy Phenomena http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php

Is Zero Point Energy (ZPE) a reference to "Energy" as phenomena or "Energy" as a substance?

In that the "Next Generation" is here now, and the Physics and Metaphysics communities are currently entangled in the chaos of a terminology duplicity dysfunction that is prohibiting the perceptual unification required to tap the potential of Quantum Energy Mechanix... e.g. the long promised Star Trek Replicator, Self Healing, and Social Stabilty,... inherent within the field we are immersed, is it possible that proponents of each mindset implement a common catagorical subdivision of the Directory Root: ENERGY... e.g. ENERGY/PHENOMENA and ENERGY/SUBSTANCE.

For a more explicit justification of requested terminology revision, and methodology to achieve perceptual unification, see -"Space-Time Energy As Substance Underlies All Space-Time Energy Phenomena" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php

S. LingoUQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hello pyropulse...

A definition of any term ascribed to a PHEnomena which is attributable to a fundamental Potential for Motion... e.g. ENERGY, MASS, CHARGE... is constrained by one's choice of a Space-Time GEOMETRY and Energy EMISSION model.

REF:

ENERGY defined, within the constraints of a Space-Time GEOMETRY model in which neither Space nor Time is discrete, as observable physical property measurements of the spatial effect of a timed accelerated MASS PHEnomena/Event, can NOT be a substance... i.e. PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) is "just" a numerical representation of qualitative observations... e.g. heat. Is SPACE continuous or discrete?

REF: Stephen Wolfram A purturbative analysis of the spatial effect of a timed accelerated MASS PHEnomena/Event, made from within a GEOMETRY model in which SPACE is continuous... e.g. Albert Einstein's rubber sheet model... is not conducive to a Space-Time model that facilitates EMISSION of theoretical minimum/indivisible quanta of spatially defined Energy (QE). Fundamental analysis of pulsed Single Point sourced, GAD GEOMETRY mapped EMISSION SIMs, that resolve a directionally unbiased, spontaneous, harmonious distribution, of Potential for Motion as substance, is facilitated in models in which SPACE is discrete... i.e. is quantized by a specified GEOMETRY environment. Prior to the 21st. century, an infinitely expanding Point Source EMISSION GEOMETRY that facilitates a directionally unbiased, spontaneous, harmonious distribution, of spatially defined quanta. was un-resolved, but historically, advocates of discrete SPACE, have assigned various names to spatially defined unified minimum/indivisible units of fundamental substance... e.g. spirit, prana, rigpa, christ, etc... in motion within a variety of purturbatively defined spatial field containments. All such fundamental substance name assignments translate, in the visual language of current discrete Energy EMISSION simulations (SIMs) within a discrete Space-Time CAD GEOMETRY environment, as minimum/indivisible unified quanta of Energy (QE)... i.e. units of substance as spatially addressable Potential for Motion. As inferred by E=mc^2, the term ENERGY translates as a quantifier of an accelerated MASS event... i.e. in an ENERGY quantum model, PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) must be differentiated from spatially discrete Energy (QE). PHEnomenal Energy (PHE) as an accelerated Mass observation quantifier, is NOT a fundamental GEOMETRY or EMISSION element in a CAD SIM model... i.e. what is MASS? In that MASS occupies physical SPACE, can MASS have discrete spatial properties in SPACE modeled as continuous ... i.e. a continuum? If MASS is spatially defined within the spatial geometries of Planck's constants, can a photon have MASS? If a Photon, as a massless entity experiences motion, a theoretical minimum/indivisible unit of MASS can NOT be the fundamental minimum/indivisible unit of Potential for Motion. CHARGE, as a quantitative analysis, facilitates a magnitude comparative of the Potential for Motion that participates in any PHE event, but CHARGE as a dimensionless point measurement, cannot be equivalent to discrete spatially defined units of Potential for Motion. A pulsed EMISSION, of discrete units of Single Point Sourced Potential for Motion, can facilitate periods of accelerated universal expansion, as observed in 2011

REF: - "ESOCast 40: Accelerating Universe Discovery Wins 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQqogFszC5o

... and as currently being investigated...

REF: - "The International Hunt for Dark Energy" https://www.youtuve.com/watch?v=s0P9hj1R_Zw A constant QE EMISSION pulse duration... i.e. minimum/indivisible temporal unit/quantum (QT)... as Q-Ticks, facilitates discrete sequential Time... i.e. next, next, next... in which the spontaneous, harmonious distribution of discrete units of Energy (QE), within discrete units of Space(QI), is resolved. If utilizing a Space-Time-Energy model in which SPACE is discrete as minimum/indivisible units of spatial occupancy (QI), and Single Point Pulse Sourced EMISSION of Potential for Motion, as initial state substance, is spatially quantized by an EMISSION GEOMETY that resolves a directionally unbiased distribution of spatially discrete ENRGY, as minimum/indivisible quanta of Energy (QE)... i.e. choreographied by emerging distribution resolve intelligence, Energy quanta (QE) accumulate in, and pop out of, addressable QI, as per fundamental emission mechanix... then given a computable field frame anywhere in the entire expanding unified spatial field quantization... i.e. a purturbative analysis... the QE/QI occupancy is theoretically "knowable", on any Q-Tick. SPACE, ENERGY, and TIME are NOT verifiably continuous, and they are potentially discrete. Why does any of this matter? Spontaneous, harmonious functionality in Space-Time, is dependent on the validity of one's Space-Time model. S. Lingo

UQSMatrixMechanix.com

Thanks SarthorS, for the opportunity to establish my credibility as a "scientist"

Let's assume a "real scientist" does SCIENCE. As per Webster's English New World Dictionary 2cond. college edition, SCIENCE is defined as the "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and/or experimentation carried out in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied". In that most mathematicians, physicist, and philosophers, are some combination of two or more of these scientific disciplines, they frequently dabble in cross discipline inferences, and contextual clarification is a critical element in conveying cross discipline validity of what one is "talking about". I make no claim to being either a credentialed mathematician, physicist, or philosopher, but as a "real" logician, my UQS Space-Time Energy (QE) emission and subsequent distribution "jargon" is "squeezed" from a CAD UQS unified filed geometry environment that defines a logic framework in which UQS geometry model derived "technical language" can be given verifiable visual context within the UQS CAD/SIM environment. To facilitate cross discipline contextual clarification within the UQS CAD/SIM digital environment, I reduce the open format queries of the mathematician, physicist, and/or the philosopher,... e.g. "What is the density of a gravity collapse?"; "What is matter?": "What is consciousness?"... to sequences of binary queries... e.g. "Is gravity an inherent property of a pulsed single source Energy emission geometry model?"; Can accumulations of discrete minimum/indivisible units of Energy (QE) occupy discrete minimum/indivisible spatial units (QI)?"; Can QE/QI occupancy choreographies emerge as an intelligent network?". If one is UQS Unified Field Geometry clueless, I can understand one's reluctance to assume that I know what I am "talking about", and in my open source on-line commentary I rely heavily on illustrations... i.e. mitigate verbalization. Clues: - "UQS Consciousness Investigation" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSConInv.php

More clues: - "Directionally Unbiased Point Source QE Emission" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php

In a Quantum-shell: UQS Differentiation (9sec.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4UQS S. Lingo

UQs Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

- UQS Youtube Channel: qslingo

UQS Point Source Singularity Geometry (9sec) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4

UQS Singularity as 24 Planar Addresses (3sec) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RibTnFuKpRU

UQS 1st. Shell Expansion (2sec) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf7QqIcnCbA

UQS 1st. Shell Half Slice Rotate (3sec.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=424Q0_0GVi4

____________________________________________________________________________________

Update: 2020/10/05

S. Lingo

UQS Logician/Author/Illustrator/Digital Code

uqslingo@hotmail.com

UQS Virtual Labs

UQS Web Home

Most Current

This Post Archived

©UQSMATRIXMECHANIX.COM