Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

I admire your brilliant ability to emphatically comment even on mutually contradicting essays, and I feel your comment on mine more fair than I could expect after I quoted Kadin who plausibly at least to me explains why he does not consider photons particles. You might blame my lacking qualification for my failure to immediately grasp your slightly different concept.

While I do not deny that intuition can provide the basis for questioning certain assumptions, my essay tries to show to what extent science has been based on rather shaky intuition.

Well, on the first glance my essay seems to just reiterate well known deficits. My lists of enigma, suspected basic flaws and confessions coincides by chance and only in part with my criticism of arbitrary decisions made from a more or less intuitive background.

I am the nobody to whom even a Norman Cook is a nobody. I recall Jont Allen admitting something similar more briefly: No model (of cochlea) fits all data.

Dear Eckard,

You are correct that I find mutually contradicting essays interesting and to some degree convincing. There are a few arguments here that I am unable to decide between, and others in which I wonder if some middleground is possible.

As for Kadin, I do not recall his exact stance on photons as particles. I certainly do not envision photons as material particles like electrons. The question is whether there is any 'local' energy packet (and hence equivalent 'local mass density') as Einstein and Dirac and many others concluded. If so, then this will induce the C-field circulation I have described in my essay. It is my assumption that such localization does apply, as the implications of the alternative seem completely unrealistic to me. And it seems indisputable that photons carry momentum, which is the 'source' of the induced circulation. I hope you might reconsider my approach with this in mind.

You say "on the first glance my essay seems to just reiterate well known deficits." Re-reading my comment I realized what my first sentence sounded like and I disliked my own wording. A good part of the reason that I am mindful of the basic problems with math is because of your previous essays and arguments on FQXi. So I would soften that sentence in favor of the third sentence.

You state that "No model (of cochlea) fits all data". I am not an expert on physiological structure and function, but I believe that biological reality is so many more orders of magnitude more complicated than elementary particle physics, gravity, etc, that multiple models of biology are more to be expected.

What I would NOT change is my final sentence, "Thanks for a well thought out, well written, well referenced essay. It is excellent and I wish you good luck in the contest."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello Eckard,

Thank you. I am always happy to see your deterministic road.

There are several relevant essays. Your line of reasoning is rational, it is the most important. I am going to read yours still one x and the other essays also. It is cool this year. I play like a child, after all, the innocence is our best friend.

I wish you good luck for this contest.

Regards

Dear Edwin,

I intend learning from you to regard concerns of others at least as important as my own. Therefore I will try and first tell you what might be of interest with respect to your C-field. You know that I do not understand anything in this area. Kadin wrote: "This transformation from a real wave F(x,t) to a complex wave psi = exp(imc2t/h_bar)F contributed to the widespread belief that the matter wave was an abstract mathematical representation rather than a true physical wave in real space." Then he dealt with the earlier established evidence for Wave-Particle Duality for several quantum entities. His Table 1 is convincing to me. The evidence for photons to be particles is just a weak one. I understand the spin of electromagnetic waves as their polarization. And why should wave not have energy? Strong evidence for being a particle is the property of atoms and the like to be arranged in lattices with certain distances from each other. I am also declined to take seriously the arguments by Dieter Zeh and Eric Reiter. Moreover, you pointed me to Michael Goodband. See Tom's reply to my belonging questions to Michael. That's already all I can possibly do as to support you.

Let me once again stress my intention to show that intuitive attitudes are not just to be found if young people are having problems to swallow formalized so called counterintuitive theories but the other way round, at least some of such allegedly rigorously founded theories are actually based on hidden possibly questionable pre-mathematical intuitions. Accordingly I decided to choose the title of my essay QUESTIONING PRE-MATHEMATICAL INTUITIONS and not questioning theories by means of intuition.

I apologize for sending my last reply unintentionally unsigned.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Actually I have learned many profound details from your essay and when I was analysing my work with that, I unintentionally started the sentence with, 'Thus'.

Your descriptions on this article provide me vital intuitions to confirm my assumption that the universe is infinite. Hope you may understand my anxiety of concluding.

You may please visit

With best regards,

Jayakar

Steve,

Doesn't determinism imply monism, the block universe, and denial of free will?

I consider determinism the belief in the possibility to calculate the future. Therefore I do not see myself on a deterministic road.

Yuri suggested to somehow unite Permanides and Heraklitos. I do not see any factual justification for that. Of course, mandatory idolizing in particular of set theory and of SR led to many desperate maneuvers by those who are a bit coward and maybe even ready to be a bit less honest. Yes, your innocence is my best friend.

Which essay do you consider relevant with respect to the issue I mentioned above? In other words, which are the most hurting ones?

Regards,

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #26

Eckard,

You really take a sledgehammer to the whole rickety structure. I certainly don't have anywhere near the depth of knowledge you possess, so thank you for adding me to the list of those you consider worth reading, even if my essay wasn't what you may have liked to see.

Reading various of the entries in this contest, there are many more serious proposals to really question the conceptual foundations than I had expected, so it gives me some hope a real paradigm shift might be in the foreseeable future. Possibly after this contest is over, some organized effort can arise from those looking outside current boundaries. It is safe to say there is little momentum within the status quo that isn't fantastical speculation, so maybe the momentum will switch to the outside. As I've put it before, the future is a continuation of the past, as long as current structure can absorb new energy, when it can't grow further, then the future becomes a reaction to the past.

Best wishes and congratulations on a take no prisoners essay.

That list you asked for.

    Dear John,

    Your judgment Is seemingly the opposite from other reactions. I copy what Yuri Danoyon wrote to me:

    -- Dear Eckard, My correspondence with other Nobel laureate G.Hooft about Blumschein essay

    Yuri:"What is your attitude to essay Eckard Blumschein?

    http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/833 I think that it raises for discussion a very important issue for the revision of the foundations of modern physics"

    His answer:"I found this essay too long and too boring to read. My superficial search for anything touching upon the foundations of physics led to negative results." --

    Frank Wilczek preferred not to answer at all. Meanwhile I got aware that he had advocated for a preferred frame of reference.

    Thank you very much for providing the link to cosmologystatement.org So far I did not manage opening it. However, this might be my fault.

    Best,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #28

    Eckard,

    Those who create, promote and work within the current model are certainly not going to give credence to those who question it. Ask yourself which side of the debate you would prefer to be on; Those advocating for an increasingly fantastical orthodoxy, or those questioning it?

    I've been wondering how those within the establishment would respond to this contest question. If Philip Gibbs and [lin:http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1379] Professor Abraham Loeb[/link] are representative, then they are projecting on from current speculation, not debating its foundations.

    If the foundation is weak, whatever you build on it is transitory.

    John,

    I looked at Gibbs and Loeb and agree with you. The important things first: You forgot the k of link, and I forgot to ask you for confirmation that the link to cosmologystatement.org still works.

    Philip Gibbs wrote to James Putnam on Aug. 11, 2012, 18:05 GMT: "I think more people would agree with you than me but that is because I am ahead of my time :)"! Maybe, he envisions viXra ahead. While I appreciate the possibility to publish anything, I did not yet find any good viXra paper.

    P. G. revealed to me why 't Hooft understood that my reasoning contradicts to "the holographic principle of Susskind and 't Hooft [6]. Understanding of this deep idea came in a number of steps each of which sought consistency through hypothetical thought experiments."

    My understanding is different: I see unitarity reversible because it belongs to the level of abstracted from reality notions. It is elusive if understood as an attribute of reality. Only abstracted probabilities can add up to one. Ontological causality also belongs to the level of abstract notions. I maintain what I wrote about causality and elapsed time.

    Best,

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #30

    Eckard, nice to meet you again

    There are Gerard's new articles

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4926

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.3612

    Dear Yuri,

    Since John blamed me for a no prisoners essay, I would like to beg the more for your further support. I highly appreciate a lot of hints you gave me including Winterberg, to whom I referred to at [1], Popper on Parmenides, and the Pauli issue to be found in perhaps the first interesting to me viXra paper. Your new hints might be more appealing for those like Lawrence Crowell and Michael Goodband than for those who follow Popper's view like me.

    In my reply to Steven I stressed that I consider determinism related to models, not to the open in the sense of reasonably taken for potentially infinite reality. I reiterate what I wrote in my essay 1364: "While reality and causality are, of course, also assumptions, we need them as logical alternatives to unacceptable mere imagination and mysticism, respectively."

    By the way, didn't give Lawrence Crowell an intriguing straightforward answer to the question what might be wrong: unitarity, locality, and spacetime geometry?

    Best,

    Eckard

    1st submission, not yet submitted, while reviewing similar works for End Notes.

    Excellent review of Pre-Math and intuition. Disturbed by statement, "no consciousness for future time", but love "now time is zero".

    One (of many) approaches to this contest looks at E/f = h and Power = E/t. Dividing one gets, t/f, so IF t = 1/f it implies either t squared of 1/f squared. Square roots generate plus and minus, a past and future with no present?

    Comment? (may be used in my End Notes)

      • [deleted]

      • Post #33

      Eckard,

      Tom and I have been arguing over causality, so I'll post my explanation of it:

      I'm not arguing against causality, but just trying to clarify it.

      Is one event in a sequence the cause of the next, or are they both surface descriptions of deeper process? Does it really make sense to say yesterday is the cause of today, or would it make more sense to say they are both the effect of the earth spinning relative to the light coming from the sun?

      If I was to hit a nail with a hammer, it makes sense to say my swinging the hammer is the cause of the nail being driven into the board. So what happened here? There was a direct transfer of energy from my arm, to the hammer, to the nail. My output of energy became input for the nail.

      So why doesn't yesterday cause today, but the rotation of the earth and light of the sun does? Energy. There is no direct transfer of energy from yesterday to today, but there is both the momentum energy of the rotation of the earth and radiant energy of the sun, which does go to create this event we call a day. So causation is a function of the transfer of energy, rather than to a direct sequence of events.

      Hello Eckard,

      I must tell you that in fact it is simple and complex.

      The free will is an essential. Like is essential the free critics. The catalyzations are after all the most important when the determinism is the torch of causes and effects. So the free will is the sister of the free critic. In fact , I beleive strongly that a real universal teacher must be always rational.In fact we cannot affirm a thing if we have not the proof. That said, it exists universal evidences which sometimes does not really need a proof. It is important to be deterministic. It is essential for a scientist at my humble opinion.

      If you simulate the future ,you can be determistic but it is difficult because you cannot compute all the parameters.

      About the essays, there are all kind of essays. I like, you know it, the determinism, so I hope that the most rational essays shall be recognized. I have my prefered but I don't say anything :)

      Best Regards

      • [deleted]

      • Post #36

      Eckard,

      News from Gerard

      http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

        John,

        I dislike imprecise thoughts. In my understanding any measure of time like for instance the timespan yesterday does neither cause nor be an effect of anything.

        While primary or so called temporal causality is bound to reality, so called ontological causality refers to abstractions from real processes.

        Nonetheless I agree with you: A causal relation is obviously more than merely a temporal order between earlier and later. You are ascribing it always to a transfer of energy. Hm. I rather see processes integrating influences. Instead of a single cause, I see a plurality of influences. In case of a family tree it would not be justified ascribing a transfer of energy to the male or the female line of influences.

        Eckard