John,

You're right, ecosystems and economies are two of the clearest examples of this, especially when you get into the mathematical details and see that a critical condition for mathematical incompleteness in a classical physics theory is ongoing change to a dynamic network. In ecosystems this is provided by ongoing genetic mutations to organisms, and in economies by ongoing innovations in products and services.

The entity-environment dichotomy of the universe you mention would arise for example in self-creating universe dynamics, such as dynamics that changes the number of dimensions as mentioned by Jonathan. The difficulty I see is that an environment view of the universe with boundary conditions, may be physically indistinguishable from the entity view. So it could just end up being a question of philosophical preference.

On your point about perception and logic, I think it is necessary to draw a distinction between conscious perception - which can be labelled as being logical iff we can equate rational thought with logical thought - and unconscious perception, which operates by non-logical means. Unlike logic or conscious perception, unconscious perception is undeniably subjective as it is not bound by the constraints of logic. Not only could this give differences between individuals, it could give a discrepancy between conscious and unconscious perception within an individual. If a whole system possesses a property that unconscious perception can register - such as Life, Nature, Market etc - but conscious logic cannot explain/derive from the component parts of the system, then our own perception of the world would be subject to a dichotomy.

Our subconscious mind could perceive features of whole system states that our conscious mind cannot explain. If so, the generalised vs. specialised dichotomy, or top-down vs. bottom-up dichotomy, would give a conscious vs. subconscious dichotomy within our own perception of the world.

Michael

Hi Michael and Fred,

Michael, you wrote: "This necessarily results in a non-local description (non-local class 2) that is not really non-local (class 1)."

You are underestimating how serious and disturbing this non-local "description" is. It misses the point of Bell's argument. As we know, ultimately Bell's conclusion is wrong, because of his mistake in the very first of his equations (his choice of S0 instead of S3). But Bell's analysis as a whole is of immense value. He identified a form of non-locality (of class 2) that is of no less significance than a violation of relativistic causality (as in class 1). Bell was not concerned about mere practicality of experimental results, but about a serious conceptual issue. He was formalizing Einstein's conception of local causality:

"...the real in one part of space, A, should (in theory) somehow "exist" independently of that which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical system stretches over the parts of space A *and* B, then what is present in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend upon the type of measurement carried out in the part of space A; it should also be independent of whether or not, in fact, a measurement is made in A."

This is a translation of Einstein's own words. The most significant sentence here, especially for our discussion, is his last sentence. What exists for Alice in her part of space should not have any bearing on what Bob does---or does not---in his part of space; or whether he exists at all. But your theory fails on this criterion as far as I can see. You seem to recognize this to a certain extent, but I am not sure whether you realize how serious this failure actually is (cf. your sentence I have quoted above: "not really non-local").

As for my framework, the space S7 within it can be thought of as a 7D space-like hyper-surface of a yet-to-be constructed relativistic theory. The spacetime split issue arises only within Hestenes's spacetime algebra, which is therefore not very appealing to me. Like Rick, I would not want to split up S7 in any manner. There are profound reasons why both Rick and I insist on this. Whatever the relativistic extension of my framework turns out to be, it will have to be of 1 7 form, with S7 as a space-like hyper-surface. Without this Einstein's criterion of local causality, as quoted above, cannot be maintained. In such a picture quaternions---or 3D spacetimes--- would appear as S3 fibres nested within S7, just as they appear now in my Chapters 1, 6, and 7.

Having said this, I am still hopeful for finding a way to bridge the gap between your theory and my framework.

Best,

Joy

  • [deleted]

  • Post #384

Michael,

I think that dichotomy exists, in that the conscious is inherently linear, while the sub-conscious is far more distributed and non-linear. Obviously all recent work on neurology points to the brain as a distributed, non-linear network that is generally funneled through the linear consciousness. Without that funnel, we would be schizophrenic. I think on a conscious level we experience this compartmentalization of awareness as not being able to remember things we know we know. It's like anther person trying to get our attention. Aware, but not accessible. I also think there is a very strong political instinct to fall in line behind the most forceful voice in the group and this effect is similar to what happens within our own minds.

This is a top down vs. bottom up dichotomy, but a more useful description may be between time and temperature, with time as the linear/sequential, cause and effect logic, while temperature represents the non-linear distributed process, that we categorize as a scalar. Statistics are another way to logically process this cummulative situation. It should be noted that linear aspects are both components of the non-linear context and emergent from it. Most notably is the effect of time, since if all action were regular, it would be essentially a cyclical process, but it is the irregularities of the larger dynamic that imbues time with a vector effect of past to future.

This component/emergent relationship between the linear and non-linear has many reflections, from the ecosystem in our bodies to the ecosystems in which we live, with ourselves as the linear vehicle inbetween. As I've said, I think the right brain, intuitive side is how we mentally process this. Often I've had physicists dismiss intuition, but I see it as a reflection of their lack of understanding of how the mind functions. Consider that intuition for anyone is largely a reflection of that person's cummulative knowledge. A farmer and a physicist would certainly have different intuitive responses. So it is how the mind orders the scalar of knowledge, rather than the vector of knowledge.

As for the universe, yes, there are boundaries, but they seem to be porous, whether horizons or membranes. If I may ask a question that only seems to irritate most people I ask; If space expands, how is it that we have a stable speed of light against which to judge it? In other words, if two galaxies are x lightyears apart and the universe were to expand that they were 2x lightyears apart, that would seem to be an increasing distance, as measured by stable units of lightspeed, so what provides the basis for a stable speed of light, if the very fabric of space is expanding?

Part I:

John Merryman observed that "math is inherently dynamics." This reflects the essential nature of the physical world and is why physicists place such value upon finding invariances. After all, in an ever-changing universe electron and protons (left undisturbed) seem to last forever.

John asks whether there are feedback loops that are unperceived. My model of elementary particles (electron, quarks, and families) is based on such a feedback loop and I've succeeded in proving that the third order induced effect is identical to the first order inducing effect and therefore all such contributions will produce identical effects to any order. This is how stable structures can evolve and get 'locked in'.

Touching on other matters mentioned in this thread, my model predicted chiral superfluidity in RHIC collisions while Phys Rev Letters papers were predicting a 'quark gas' (2006). The flow is perfect; no cowlicks.

Lisi's E8 approach is to find a math structure and fit all known particles into it, then postulate new particles for unfilled slots. In 1979, in "The Automatic Theory of Physics" I derived a 'theory of theories' showing how a robot (programmed with the goal of acquiring data then inventing theories to describe the data) can use pattern recognition over measurement space to partition data into 'object classes' and then derive dynamical equations relating these objects. In 2009 several researchers demonstrated exactly this.

Rob Spekkens, in his winning essay, points out the essential artificial aspect of the kinematics vs dynamics "division". This is consistent with my [robot's] approach. The point is that once objects exist, observers can classify and group the objects and their translation and transformations into each other to find groups and algebras. If there is any conservation present, this is inevitable. If there is no conservation, then all is chaos. By default, we find ourself in a universe that supports such group and algebraic representations. Rick Lockyer shows how R, C, H, and O algebras can represent all of the work, energy , and other conservation laws or relations. I do not find it surprising that there are a limited number of such physical conservation laws, nor that the appropriate mathematical representations reflect these limits. Any other result *would* be surprising.

Rick states a key fact: "the 8D stuff cleanly partitions into the sum of what looks like 2 4D similar structures." In my model these are electromagnetism and gravitomagnetism (linearized Einstein equations). That's all we need! Michael argues with SU(3) color symmetry (vs Spin(3)) but accepts the 'reality' of color. My model replaces color with gravitomagnetism (retaining SU(3) symmetry) -- significantly reducing the dimensionality of it all. (Sorry, no 11D). The model supports SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). And QCD has been moving in my direction over the last decade, not vice versa. (See 'Chromodynamics War') [Caveat: the Higg's, if really spin zero, is still a burr under my saddle.]

Joy has staked a lot on his exploding balls and Michael on Spin(3) vs SU(3). I believe both are wrong and it is good that they recognize the existence of tests of these issues. I agree with Michael that it's mistaken to perceive a "switch in description from discrete particles to continuous particle fields - in order to describe the wave particle duality." This is a problem with representation, not with reality. He is "primarily concerned with the difference between the description of reality and reality itself." In three essays I've tried to summarize a theory based on the evolution of one thing, the primordial gravitational field continuum, with it's implied quantum constraint on action, and to show how stable particles evolve with accompanying induced 'wave' and the inherent relation of this to probability. It's *not* 'wave' versus 'particle'. And it doesn't require color, but does include SU(3), SU(2), and U(1).

It's not enough to put things in 'slots'; one should show in detail the dynamical evolution of the predecessor 'thing' into the 'slot-filling' thing --show how the field evolves in continuous fashion into a particle and how particles can evolve into other particles, under appropriate circumstances. I say *the* field versus the QFT practice of inventing a new field for every new particle. QFT's use of fermion fields and 'creation and annihilation operators' is simply a sophisticated version of 'abra-cadabra' and 'presto-chango'. It's also necessary to explain why three families exist, and no more. And how and where the fine structure constant comes into play. And, given electron mass, how other masses can be calculated.

And "reading off the SM chiral particles existing in spacetime with spin 1/2 against the structure..." of the appropriate mathematical structure, is 'slot-filling', not physics. It's inconceivable to me that physically real structures and relations would exist as 'territory' without a corresponding mathematical 'map'. The map does not 'cause' the territory, it simply describes it. It is a shadow, showing only the outline of reality -- no mass, spin, charge, force or energy -- just description.

I see the goal as the derivation of a physical evolution of the world, and the creation of maps that represent the relevant symmetry/conservation relations as opposed to mathematically finding lots of slots and fitting 'things' [fully formed, not evolved!] into them.

In Part II I discuss the related issue of nonlocality.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Part II:

Part I discussed the question of whether the world derives from Octonion algebra and subsets or whether these are inevitable structures derived from the facts of the physical world.

A second theme running through this thread is non-locality. Quite a bit has happened since Shimony and others formulated their approach. The last decade has produced a large number of papers concerned with these issues, the latest reaching me only last week. They contain very interesting analyses of "degree of violation" of Bell's inequality in terms of partial measures of no-signalling, determinism, and measurement independence (free will). Indicative of this is MJW Hall's remark:

"[in the no-signalling case, S=0] it is not apparent in what sense violations arising from underlying indeterminism can be considered 'nonlocal'."

In another paper he produces an analysis

"from which the tradeoff between the degree of free will and Bell violation can be seen."

In other words, the Bell religion is based on hard and fast assumptions that support his logic but may or may not be physically realistic. If the assumptions are relaxed, the inequalities are violated **without any necessary implication of nonlocality**, and these violations are *quantifiable*. That some resist relaxing the assumptions, for purposes of preserving the religion, is understandable, but the rest of us should consider that Bell has claimed to build a playpen with iron bars while in reality the bars may be rubber. It is only Bell's assumptions and his conclusion that are the cause of all the hoopla, and Joy has already stated "ultimately Bell's conclusion is wrong". He simply wants to argue WHY he thinks it is wrong. Others have other arguments.

I continue to think Joy's main contribution has been to reformulate a 'point' and 'vector' (two points)-based formulation into a volume-form-based framework that can resolve Bell's mistakes in either physical or topological manner. I believe there is inherent indeterminism in a dynamic volume of perfect fluid that calls into question the whole issue of non-locality (based on incorrect calculation of 'inequalities' that physicists worship but Nature ignores).

The two main protagonists here are locked into their theories [as, I admit, am I] to such a degree that 'surrender your theory' vs 'surrender your life' would be a tough choice. Ego death either way. In appreciation of Merryman's Frank Sinatra quote I offer:

[ Robber to Jack Benny: "Your money or your life!" (pause) "I'm thinking, I'm thinking!]

Most of those following these exchanges tend to be in agreement with major points on either side, but like Jonathan Dickau, I find it appropriate to organize my thoughts on the key issues discussed here and try to focus attention on those issues. I hope these remarks are helpful to some.

Thanks again to all participants.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Here is what Fred Dieither wrote yesterday on the viXra blog:

[Begin quote

Ervin asked, "I may be missing something here, but can you reference any single research work produced by the Perimeter Institute that has convincingly solved an outstanding problem of contemporary theoretical physics?"

Joy Christian's "Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables" is one that I can think of. Produced while a long term vistor at PI.

(http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179)

It seems that Einstein was right after all. Dr. Christian is also the most active FQXi member on their blogs. For those interested, more can be read in his book,

(http://www.brownwalker.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599425645)

Well... work is still being done to convince everyone but it is just a matter of time.

endquote]

And further on Fred wrote:

[Begin quote

Perhaps some of those "unsettled challenges" can be answered now that we have a more complete model of physical behavior thanks to Dr. Christian. As Dr. Christian says in the conclusion of the first chapter of his book, "In our view these correlations are the evidence, not of non-locality, but the fact that the physical space we live in respects the symmetries and topologies of a parallelized 7-sphere."

If true, which I believe it is, Christian's work is ground breaking new physics.

endquote]

How very kind. Thank you, Fred!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #388

A light hearted interruption of a great scientific conversation:

Edwin quoted:

[ Robber to Jack Benny: "Your money or your life!" (pause) "I'm thinking, I'm thinking!]

One of the writers for the show told this story a long time ago. I don't know if it is known widely or not, but, this is what he said (parphrasing). We had the scene with the robber saying "Your money or your life!" and we had Jack's response "You mean I have a choice." But, we thought we could still do better.

There were the two writers in a room struggling to do better. One laid down on a sofa. The other paced around the room. The pacer walked up to the sofa and shouted at the writer who was lying down "Your money or your life! - Your money or your life!" The writer on the sofa shouted back "I thinking! I'm thinking!" They recognized immediately that they had Jack Benny's answer. True story.

James putnam

Hi Joy,

I assure you that I am not "underestimating how serious and disturbing the non-local description" is, it is just that I am accepting it - precisely because it is just non-locality in description and not in reality. I would argue that I am not missing the point of Bell's argument, I am transcending it. The elephant in the room with his HVF, is the tacit assumption that the space of all propositions P stateable within the domain of locally realistic classical physics is the same as the space of all derivable proposition PD within classical physics, i.e. P=PD. Bell seems to have thought that by constructing a HVF over P as the hidden domain L, he would show that quantum correlations - stated as propositions in PQ - could not be derived within L=P. However, as we know he messed this up, and when corrected it is instead PQ subset P.

Now in the current paradigm of science where P=PD, this result would imply that PQ subset PD, which seems to be the basis for why you are encountering none-to-subtle opposition. However, the objections to PQ not being in PD are correct, and Einstein was wrong on this, but this doesn't alter the fact that you have proven PQ subset P (note Einstein was also assuming P=PD). This is not the contradiction it appears to be. The electron-wave example of my essay has the same pseudo-contradiction. A wave property w is derivable for a collection of particles, w element-of PD subset P, and so the statement that a single particle has a wave property wq element-of PQ is stateable within the domain of classical physics, wq element-of P. But it is not derivable within classical physics. Once you let go of the ideology of the paradigm P=PD these pseudo-contradictions are trivially resolved, P=PQ union PD.

Such acknowledgement of the obvious is just an issue of letting go of the ideological belief in the paradigm P=PD. My paper contains perhaps the most ideologically unacceptable proof in the history of science: the domain of propositions in classical physics is P=(PU!={}) union PD where PU intersection PD={}. In English: some things in classical physics are describable, but not derivable. This really is a *proof* as the maths is just Gödel's incompleteness theorem, and the rest is just systematically establishing a 1-to-1 correlation between objects and actions in reality, and mathematical terms and operations in a theory (Einstein failed to do this to the required level).

The ideological unacceptable bit stems from the historical belief that anything not in PD was "spooky", and required some extra "field", "energy" or ... err ... "thing". But this is WRONG. The bits not in PD - such as quantum results PQ - are not "spooky" and beyond the reality of classical physics. They are within classical physics, PQ subset P, because PQ=PU!={} and P=PU union PD. A shift from a false ideological belief in P=PD to P=(PU!={}) union PD is THE paradigm shift, because the physical systems for which the incompleteness conditions of classical physics hold are EVERYWHERE in science.

I draw your attention to the fact that your HVF does NOT describe particles as being the discrete objects that they physically are - by my results, this is actually the reason why the HVF succeeds - and so would fail the physically-real standard that Einstein was trying to set. The locally realistic theory of the form Einstein was looking for does NOT exist - I have proven this, and this time it really is a *proof* - but that does NOT mean that QFT is real, it is just a descriptive ruse to deal with P=(PU!={}) union PD. The HVF is a viable *alternative* formulation because it is over P, and not just PD, but no formulation of it can meet Einstein's desired standard for a theory to supersede QFT.

Unpleasant looking descriptive forms are a feature of the new paradigm. For QT they look non-local, but aren't in reality.

Best,

Michael

  • [deleted]

  • Post #390

I come to this thread after some comments at vixra; let me note that any discussion of S7 and, most important, (S3xS5)/U(1), should consider the work on 7 dimensional Kaluza Klein theories and very particularly the fact that the manifolds of later type have isometry group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1), as Witten published in that age.So SU(3) is not lost, and it is somehow connected to so(6)~su(4) in 8 dimensions. The connection to the S7 is very retorted, via the branched covering of CP2 with S4 (or S4 on CP2, I never remember how it is).

John,

The role of intuition in physics, and science in general, seems to be something that is there, but few want to admit to because it doesn't fit with the story of science proceeding by logical deduction. Many theoretical science and maths results were due to intuitive leaps that were then retrospectively filled in with logical analysis. For example, Joy used the word epiphany to describe spotting the error with Bell's "theorem", and I would describe my experience in a similar way.

On your speed of light issue, I've also tried raising the same issue but have been ignored. If you've irritated people, then you've had more of a response than I've had so far. You're right, the constancy of the speed of light in General Relativity is with respect to location, direction and speed of observer, but implicit is the assumption that the measurements are made at the same radial scale factor R(t) for the universe. The same implicit assumption is also made for the gravitational "constant" and the cosmological "constant", for which simple physical analysis like you describe (e.g. see attachment) easily concludes that it is unphysical for these "constants" to actually be constant with the expansion of the universe. Consequently, I don't see the standard answers currently given for the big cosmological questions - age of the universe, open or closed - as being believable. It's a bit of a mystery to me why everyone seems to be going along with assumptions that are so obviously wrong in physics.Attachment #1: 3_Balloon_world.pdf

Hi Michael,

You are accepting Bell's conclusion without accepting his reasoning. I think Bell would have been fine with that. He would not have been happy, however, with your characterization of quantum or no-signalling non-locality as non-locality in mere "description" and not in reality.

The bottom line for me, on the other hand, is that within your theory of everything it is not possible to reproduce the quantum mechanical prediction of one of the simplest non-trivial quantum states, namely the four-particle GHZ state, in terms of explicit local functions of the form A(a, L), B(b, L), C(c, L), and D(d, L). Thus, from my point of view, your theory fails to be a local theory of reality, just as quantum mechanics fails to be a local theory of reality (excluding many worlds possibility).

I continue to maintain that the only way a theory of physics can be local, realistic, and deterministic is by recognizing---as in my framework---that the physical space we live in respects the symmetries and topologies of a parallelized 7-sphere. In other words, by having S3 in S7 rather than having S3 x S7 as in your theory.

Best,

Joy

  • [deleted]

  • Post #393

Michael,

My experience with using that part of the mind is to simply move back and take a larger view, as opposed to the normal thinking instinct to move in closer and study the details. If you really examined this sense of epiphany, as it occurs, it's like the pieces of a puzzle arranging themselves. So what you are mentally doing is simply giving them the space to work, as opposed to trying to force them together by concentrating. The mind is a very dynamic and organic process, which our sense of immediate consciousness is a particular component. Almost like a lookout on a large ship. Designed more for detecting immediate dangers and reacting to them, or opportunities and acting on them, then serious cogitation.

One point which occurred to me many years ago, regarding the rubber sheet analogy of gravity, is that a cosmological constant means the sheet is only flat when it is completely undisturbed. So when you create pressure on one point, it will "balloon" out over the rest of the sheet to match that pressure. So say if galaxies act as gravity wells/pressure points, the flat space/sheet will balloon out between the empty space galaxies, thus balancing the effect of gravity. This "expansion" of the space between galaxies doesn't mean the overall universe is expanding, only that gravity is being equalized. Currently it seems cosmology forgets galaxies are not just inert points of reference, but contractions of space and neutralize the expansion.

One idea about the nature of gravity that has received some positive response from other amateurs is that since releasing energy from mass creates pressure, logically having energy condense into mass would correspondingly create a vacuum. If E=mc2, then M=e/c2. They can't find any dark matter halos around galaxies, but there are large clouds of radiation, cosmic rays, interstellar gases, etc. So what if gravity is not so much a property of mass, but an effect of energy fusing into mass?

So then you have the expansion of radiation and the gravitational condensation of mass as two sides of the same cycle. The issue of radiation being that while it is absorbed and therefore measured at points, it expands when released into space, rather than traveling through space as a point particle. That way, redshift doesn't have to be explained by recession of the source.

In my digital vs analog contest entry, I used the analogy of a dripping faucet as a possible explanation. In that for local sources, the light is streaming in like running water, but the further way, the more the quantity is reduced, like a faucet being tightened. Eventually the stream is reduced to a drip, but since drips are the same size, the time between each drip grows longer. So if our telescopes are viewing galaxies billions of lightyears away, the light is coming in as single photons. Since the size of a photon, the amount required to trip the electron, stays the same, the wave properties of this light are being stretched/redshifted, as it takes longer for each photon to accumulate. There are other possible explanations as well, such as Christov's Wave packet experiments.

Since space is treated as a measure, it is much easier to describe the contraction of mass in terms of points of measurement, then it is the expansion of radiation, when the actual expansion is better explained in wave, rather than point terms.

As for why physics spends to much effort building on century old models without reviewing their foundational assumptions, that's just a matter of the top down structure constricting the options of the bottom up initiates. Politics.

Regards,

John

(I'm actually at my home computer this time and have access to stored links, but that's a long story.)

I've greatly enjoyed reading the segment above. I agree totally about an interplay between bottom-up and top-down causation bouncing between process limiters, and Michael's description of that dynamic is elegant. Paola Zizzi has recently done work contrasting the divergent logics of schizophrenics with the congruent or convergent logic of 'normal' individuals, that bears looking up in relation to the Dec. 10 02:04 GMT post.

I'll check back here later, and chime in when there is time.

Jonathan

I should add quickly;

I've already been giving quite a lot of thought to the question of how some of the structures can arise by an interplay of bottom-up and top-down constructions, employing the meta-principle of 'make no preference' over the R, C, H, and O number types - and generalizing on an ancient geometry lesson.

My idea of playful exploration - observe, explore, compare - using what Wolfram calls the cascading circular template, but generalizing that each figure is an n-sphere - where n is unknown (according to constructive principles) until there is constructed a framework of half overlapping figures such that a determination of dimensionality can be made.

Anyhow; if we assume 'make no preference,' I think that R,C,H,O emerge naturally as stable algebras - given that construction and little else. I'll work out some details offline before saying much more on this.

Regards,

Jonathan

Greetings All,

I want to thank Edwin Eugene for his insightful and helpful summary of contrasts, before commenting on what's further down.

Reading this particular thread; I find my mind or perceptions turned inside out, again and again, by reading contrasting views of things I thought I understood, and seeing that I understand both parties in large measure, but sometimes need to struggle to comprehend the ways in which they disagree.

This conversation is very educational for me.

Thanks to Michael, Joy, Ed, Tom, and Fred for your interesting food for thought.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hello again,

The notion of S3 residing in S7 is easier for me to visualize (for whatever reason), than having one (S3) for our spacetime and the other (S7) for particle definitions, but with S7 playing the role of fermion generator it makes sense of the notion that the geometry of spacetime becomes non-associative in the extreme microscale. I am drawn to ask again what role the implied time arrow might play, because growing and shrinking are the same operation - exactly the same - but in opposite direction wrt process evolution in time.

I've more to say, and will comment further later.

Have Fun!

Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

In my picture, which differs from Michael's, there is no growing or shrinking. Tense-less time (which differs from the tensed time discussed in one of my earlier papers) can be viewed, for example, as a parameter that parameterizes a path in a given S3 fibre of S7, with the latter being S4 worth of Clifford parallels (parallelized 3-spheres).

Cheers,

Joy

Hello again,

The enumeration of 4 types of non-locality in Joy's post on Dec. 8 at 18:45, and discussion about this, was especially interesting. My understanding is that the quantum correlations in Joy's construction arise solely out of the active role played by parallelization - where the surface we are on determines alignments that both the local and distant frameworks are forced to observe. The sense of this arises from the notion that a topological fabric of spacetime is much like the literal interpretation of a Hopf fibration.

Going out on a limb to continue; if we assume S7 is macroscopic then some kinds of observation, or even the particular choice of an experimental apparatus, constitute a choice on the part of the the experimenter that determines, in some manner, which radii within the 7-sphere we are riding through - because those are the dimensions that appear macroscopic - as both size/distance and interiority/exteriority are relative projections in octonionic space or S7. It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it? What am I missing here?

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Ah so,

It appears that the post from Joy, just above it, anticipates and partially answers my question raised in the last post. I still want to emphatically make my point that it's really about the parallelization joining the local and distant frames of reference that makes Joy's framework a valid way to explain Bell's and GHZ results. Things that are parallel here are also parallel there. Of course; the experimentalist in me wants to find other ways to validate that spacetime is topological - having the nature of S3 in S7.

More later,

Jonathan

Interesting comment Alejandro,

I'm wondering which Witten papers they are, and also I am sad your comment gets hidden.

Regards,

Jonathan