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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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".

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".

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Quantum 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.

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!!

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.

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).

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 constrain 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.

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.

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).

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Virtual Quantum 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.

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!!!

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.