Friday, March 25, 2016

A Letter To Chancellor L Rafael Reif of MIT RE: "New Scientific Finding with High Scientifc Impact"



New Scientific Finding with high Scientific Impact


 
 
This morning I found a letter I had sent to the President of MIT in regards to a new theory I have developed (and talked about here), with high scientific impact. I had sent this letter to Chancellor L Rafael Reif, back in November 2015. I'm sure the Chancellor receives loads of emails, but nonetheless I had assumed that my research: a "new scientific finding" and "high...impact" might be of interest to MIT in some capacity. For whatever reason, I failed to get any response or even a forward to the "right department" from the Chancellor or staff. So I will post the letter again, here on my blog, Causal Distinctions. You can find my video/audio version of this letter on this blog as well.
 
I am rather excited to also be doing "QandA with Matt and Janice" a segment coming to this blog which will discuss the Crisis Equation, amongst others. We are hopefully going to open up dialogue on the ideas (as well as possible applications) of the Crisis Equation and Virtual Closed Systems.
 
 

Matthew Kenneth Kosak matthewkennethkosak@gmail.com

11/5/15
to president

 
Dear Chancellor L Rafael Reif,

My name is Matthew Kosak, I am an applied scientist, and I would like to introduce a new theory to you, which I believe has incredible potential to change scientific understanding in the world, specifically, the way science now views problems of "what is life?" and also free agency.

I begin with the problem of how we experimentally evaluate systems from the current molecular deterministic view, gaining momentum now with the gene causal models of behavior, and what amonyts to an extension of Schrodinger's "the laws of physics and chemistry are statistical throughout" (1944).

But how does statistics account for system vs individualistic/molecular behavior?
If we have a system of chemicals, it is impossible for us to detect a causal reference within that system, a point or region in the volume of chemicals, that is causing an effect on the other regions. We can run this experiment many times and obtain identical results. What is also interesting, is that our result is independent of the kinds of effects we may define as causal, which ultimately must exert a macro scale or nano-scale force against another region, i.e. a micro force exerted by the "micro volume" V1, upon another arbitrary volume "V2", proximal or distal from the first volume V1. What we find instead is that the forces of interaction are best accounted for on molecular scale, and further, they are randomly distributed in the mixture, when various species chemically combine.

The key findings are that we do not have a system effecting another system, i.e. a micro volume effecting or causing a change on another micro volume, nor do we have nano volumes. 

What we have is unimolecular combinations, our causality is not system like , but is individual species based, the smallest components possible, combining together, and interacting by various covalent, charge or other interactions. 

As I further assert in my paper, the key realization is that though it appears that a fraction of molecules all reacted as a group, we cannot claim group or system behavior, because any such 'nano-system' would be coincidental.

Again the resolution of the behavior is individual, molecular. It is irrelevant if the molecules begin as polymers or not. They react , polymer by polymer, and we can detect no 'systemic' behavior as defined by any micro volume region anywhere in the mixture, ie V1 imposing a force on Vn.

What is further realized, is that we expect this result no matter what types of chemicals or molecules are placed in the system at t=0.
The problem is that organisms, which if viewed as collections of molecules, should behave as systems of molecules, and yet, as I show in the paper, this molecular behavior, as individual molecules, would not behave as a system acting on another system.

Conclusions:

Thus, when we have the molecular vat above, and it contains an arrangement of molecules which contain life, we should expect the same result above, based on the axiom of "any set of chemicals will behave individually as molecules." My premise is that based on chemical behavior, we shoujd not expect that V1 can cause an effect on V2, but if life is present, this is precisely what is found. My premise further, is that this is not explainable based on known chemistry. In fact I assert further, that it is not chemical behavior, but demonstrates a new system behavior. The closest analogue we have are disequilibrium systems, yet these also fail, as none of these pass the test above in the V1 effects another arbitrary micro volume V2. I designate such volumes, since they are theoretical test regions we aim to measure forces between, VCS. We note that the far from equilibrium theory and statistical mechanical models are dependent upon the molecular distributions of energies, and do not predict a V1 to Vn interaction or force. They do not in any way, contrary to claims of researchers, predict force or useful work , detectable, of an arbitrary volume V interacting with another adjacent Volume Vn. This is supported by all experimental models, contrary to claims of researchers who infer that molecular systems are behaving to cause "one system vs another interactions, which are found in all experiments with animate or pre animate life.

Further, I have defined "choice" as a system effect, not particle based, and predict it should meet two experimental criteria. It acts as system, as in a volume (a collection of molecules not linked by chemical bonds or reaction) effects another, and it exerts a force, that is, it does useful work against the molecular system around it.
That is a summary of my paper.

In the crisis equation I'm discussing how molecular deterministic theory should predict outcomes of any system of molecules, and further should not delineate two systems. Current disequilibrium and thermodynamic theory asserts that no such dual system exists, which would require a new physical explanation. Current science is not aware of these fundamental problems, but in fact, is arguing against dual systems in its attempt to equate them as a single system, or volume. V1 =V2 under current physics and known chemical laws, there is no expected dual system. The consequence of this view, I show with the equation, fails to interpret experimental results of organisms behavior. I introduce a new theory, bases on initiation. And dual system with different causality.


I hope that I may have an opportunity to discuss this radical scientific paper with you and MIT further. Thank you.

Best Regards,

Matthew Kosak
PI/PD