The Perfect First Question. by T H Ray

Tom

Why is "this going nowhere" and what I write "strong opinions"?

Having properly ignored all metaphysical possibilities, there is something which is physically existent, it re-occurs. It is a sequence. That's it.

Sensory systems have evolved to take advantage of certain components of this something, which enables the identification of difference with the comparison of occurrences, and the order of occurrences. By definition, theses sensory systems are independent of physical existence, they just enable the possessor thereof to have a representational awareness of it.

I fail to understand where the "opinion" or the "naive realism" is in this, as a generic statement about what is, and how it is not foundational to physics, since that is supposed to be objective knowledge about what is. Starting on any other basis is doomed to failure, because that is how physical reality occurs (in simple language).

"what kind of sequence?" A sequence of physical existence, which is what I said, and you quoted, before then asserting it was a "nonsensical statement", and then asking this question. A sequence is an order, that is the definition of it. Obviously it is not "duration", that is a feature of the sequence as such, ie the rate at which difference occurs irrespective of the characteristic of the change. As I said, by definition, because it is all sequence, its "members" can be anything you wish to define ("A sequence could be anything, the entirety of reality, you, the moon, St Paul's cathedral, an elementary particle").

"what is the origin and how does one know?"

By definition, we cannot know. As I said above "having properly ignored all metaphysical possibilities". We can only scientifically investigate physical reality as manifest to us (much of which is not directly manifest because of practical problems in the sensory detection process, not metaphysical concerns), not what it might be on the basis of some belief.

Paul

Tom,

Was re-reading your essay. A thought occurred to me. What is one example of what you might have included if the page limit was sufficiently larger?

James

FQXi you merit better. Mr Tegmark, take your responsabilities and forget the false friends !!! It does not exist an universal faith for people loving the opulences and the lies !

Wake up Mr Tegmark !!!I know that you you are not a pseudo ! make a sorting in your team please, don't be troubled by their strategies and their plays.They are not real universalists!

Regards

I have people who checks my pc , I am totally parano Tom. I don't know who it is.I am parano against a lot of people, I beleive even that you, Lawrence,Georgina,Joy Christian , and friends are in this team, I become crazy me you know. I am sorry if I hazve touched people, it is due to this parano and this checking of my pc.They check even the platforms like facebook and linkedin and xing, you imagine ???? wHO are these persons ????

They even checked my platform of chess. I played and I was not bad even like a beginier, I played parties of 1 minute against people very good at this play.It was always the same player with different names. I am parano me now with all this story.They even said me that it was the sri cia??? Tom, I need help me, It is bizare all that.

It is logic my comportments. Tom , are you from sri cia also or what ? I need advices you know.

Sincerely

ignore them, it is easy to say. I am conscient of my discovery Tom like all rationalists having a little of determinism.

The potential at short, middle and long term is so important that my words are logic.

Try to enjoy life , it is easy to say also. You have not had my difficult life,and you have not been always too nice like me. The human nature is bizare and full of vanity. It is a sad reality. I know that my theory is revolutionary and I know that it exists bizare systems without faith and laws. I know that it exists stealers and bad people.I know that the human nature is sad. Perhaps it is not from FQXi , but in all case , it is like that since that I speak about my theory 7 or 8 years ago on the net. I can understand that my theory is revolutionary and that it is the real toe, but frankly it is sad all this story.

Tom , why they make that.Why ? just for this vanity and this monney ??? Why ?

The sciences are not a simple play.The physics merit more than this simple meaning. The theory of game perhaps can imply several catalyzations but frankly it is bizare.

Thanks, James. Honestly, though, it is only in the last couple of years that these disjointed elements of knowledge acquired over many years have come together in a meaningful way. I think it shows the power of one great idea to make sense of a thousand little ones -- I hadn't imagined, and I know of no one else who had imagined, that topology -- through application of continuous global properties and patterns of a compact space, could describe discrete local measurement results without a probabilistic structure.

With the greatest demonstration of intellectual courage, Joy has blazed a trail for us through this thick wilderness where no one else dared to go. Long after the controversy is forgotten and buried, this idea will still be affecting fields of science from cosmology on one extreme, to brain mechanics and consciousness on the other.

Tom

Good work Tom!

I've been a fan of your work for way too many years & this does not disappoint - both content & style. Very impressive. I'm hungry or more!

-C

Hello Thomas glad you participated again in this year's contest.

And I am very glad you are Alive - as you have proven mathematically beyond any reasonable doubt !! If you follow my argument in Q6 of my present FQXI paper, based on older arguments in my papers referred to therin, you will see that I believe that quantum probability is a mathematical interpretation of a very unprobabilistic local, causal world of wave-like diffusion in a universal lattice In other words in EPR and Bell the photons have identical phase from start to finish, but it is the random state of the detectors that create the illusion of probability.

For this reason although I could see how deeply and learnedly you have gone into these questions, I do not want to take that route myself. I would like to learn about Poincare's circle, though - I have renewed respect for his ideas - and will google accordingly. Thanks and good luck.

Vladimir

Dear Thomas

Yes I know the Escher circle you mean - he is great. Thanks for the link to the Poincare geometry - I do not know if this is significant in any way but in Fig. 9.2 all the construction circles on the tangent are bow waves see my Bow Wave paper here - these waves are the same shape as far-field dipole wavefronts as described in my United Dipole Field paper linked from the same page. I have argued for having the electric field in these waves as the source of quantum probability - in other words quantum effects are due to the spread of real dipole bow waves in the ether. Easy to say and looks good in a diagram (attached diagram from my Beautiful Universe paper), but of course to prove it convincingly (or disprove it?) is not that easy!

I will have to study Joy's work. I am not saying a probabilistic interpretation does not work as a mathematical nuts-and-bolts method to describe physical situations, but that this 'probability' is an outcome of an ordered, local, causal process. Thanks again for appreciating my art. My physics needs some more work!

Cheers. VladimirAttachment #1: BUFIG28.jpg

Tom

I congratulate you on an excellently written essay but even better content. It seems I'd misjudged you as a reactionary, probably my fault by not admitting to 'knowing' anything, leading you to 'direct me' back to a quagmire I'd just spent years rising above! But I see you can be very open minded and reject majority 'wisdom' when appropriate. The work certainly deserves a much better score than at present.

I like your fresh view that it's the 'Bellites' who are determinist, and of questioning the assumption that reality is (only) observer created. I also noted your post about better understanding of Georgina's thesis of two apparent 'realities', each observers being only subjective.

I extend this to derive two distinct classes of observation. One by direct detection or (particle coupling) interaction with the phenomena being measured, and a different 'apparent only' class equivalent to Minkowski's "imaginary c+v" (1908). The mechanism is explored in detail but an analogy is TV i.e. The Enterprise taking off at warp 3, (or as I said to Paul, the Keystone cops dong 100mph). They all have a secondary mechanism in between the original reality and the detection, but the real signals to and from the TV all do c. Only one uses 'Proper Time', and gets the real result 'c'. I quote Lorentz expressing his doubt about 'excluding' this apparent c+v in 1913.

This physical analysis using quantum logic turns out very analogous to your metaphysical approach supporting Joys mathematical one. Even down to the 'handedness', which is evident in Chirality, IFR, and the orientation of the CMB anisotropic flow of Smoot etc. A wide range of astronomical anomalies are resolved including ballistic free relativistic stellar aberration matching observation which the IAU have been seeking since abandoning the 'constant' in 2000, and resolving the outstanding ecliptic plane issue.

I do hope you find time to read mine and can spot the consistencies, if from a totally different viewpoint. It is dense and probably tries to explain too much as it will test any intellect. 'Kinetic thinking' is unfamiliar. I've put in in a slightly theatrical setting to lighten up the read a little. I greatly look forward to your views.

Best of luck

Peter

Tom:

You've done a wonderful job with this abstract topic. Due to the subject nature, and my lack of familiarity in the area (which I want to remedy!), I've found your essay challenging each time I read it---but, those limitations aside, I thought you did an excellent job of presenting an enjoyable, even poetic argument, in which a number of interesting bits fall neatly in line.

Good luck!

Daryl