The Intelligent Bit by Peter Jackson

Hi Peter,

I reread your essay attentively,

and it seems that we have a lot of paralels ( not exactly the same ideas but they share the same thoughts).

* the two higher order spaces you describe as infinite hierarchical subsets of "sample space" and the "excluded middle" are perceptions of what I called Total Simultaneity, and in my essay (which is submitted now and waiting for acceptance) I try to find the origin of this Total Simultaneity in the form of the "Primal Sequence".

* Your "excuded middle" may seem like all the possible pure states between the two extremities of yes/no 0/1 etc.

you say " no two physical entities are identical". fully agree because of the fact that each individual is receivibg different data (difference in distance means difference in time observation) so Aristotle is only Aristotle for himself, all the other ones as described in history books are not the real one , just because of the fact that nor you nor me IS aristotle.

Cardano's sample space : you mention : set of all possible outcomes, sample space is also an infinite scale hierarchy of many higher order spaces or subsets...... touches my Total Simultaneity, only I place this entity beyond the Planck length and time where there is no longer before and after.

* you say : by using some datum for signal speed etc "only then can any measurement be made" We can make any measurement just by agrreing on the references but.... also these references stay relative, the reference of reference is our consciousness.

* I do not understand your line : Free space is faster than solid optics, or does it mean that in absilute vaccum light is faster as in solids ?

* In the EPR paradox you mention : The "interveing" results etc... This is what in my essay is meant by "the shades of grey".

I enjoyed very much your essay, we are both on the same road, and once I received my code for rating I will rate you in accordance.

Wilhelmus

Thanks Peter we agree about some basic things. I re-read your proposal concerning EPR and Bell's experiment. Are you proposing using green and red light? How can such an entangled pair be produced? It is a highly technical field that I do not have the gumption to enter at this time! I am entangled in lines of computer code trying to simulate some scenarios in my Beautiful Universe theory

To my mind the crux of EPR and Bell is that everyone, Einstein and friends included, assumed that the two photons are probabilistic, so that when it turns out they are related it seems so strange and some hidden explanation is necessary. Not if one thinks that the pair are in sync (but with opposite spin) from their initial emission until they reach the detectors. It is the randomness of phase (state in the atoms) of the detectors - not the assumed probabilistic randomness of the photons - that produce the famous non-classical sensing effects. It is much ado about nothing really. I hope this explanation makes sense and can be used to demystify the experimental results.

And of course when I say 'photon' I mean a wave packet not a point particle.

Is your son presenting an essay this year? With best wishes to you both.

Vladimir

Dear Sir,

You have again quoted us wrongly ("In denying Aristotle = Aristotle you had in mind the name only"). We never denied this, but supported this, while you denied this. If "A=A cannot apply", the "2 coconuts" will be meaningless. Addition is possible only between objects of the same class. You can add one coconut and an apple as fruits only. Otherwise they will be individual members. If we treat a set of one element, we will land in the Russell's paradox. We have used this to disprove the equivalence principle.

Although we are not interested in betting, still we advise you to type indiscernible on GOOGLE and you will find many papers on this subject starting with Leibnitz.

Mathematics is said to be the language of Science and logical consistency is the proof of validity of a mathematical statement. Thus, if you dent mathematical logic, then your logic must be unscientific. We have already clarified that all of mathematics is not physics and logically inconsistent manipulations are not mathematics. Your reply shows your limited knowledge of physics - particularly elementary particle physics. Thus, our position is difficult for you to understand.

Regards,

basudeba

P.S. We are not addressing your person, but to your intellect. Hence we are addressing Sir.

Vladimir,

Red and green lights are fine if we have a photographers light meter to obtain an 'intensity' reading in each case. Better still, red and green lights as toroidal rings of smaller lights, which would genuinely represent the orbital energy distribution in the case of EACH interaction.

What fools experimenters at present is the belief that 'statistical analysis' of many non correlated photons in a stream can take the place of real comparisons between individual pairs. In other words, the Malus' Law orbital distribution at interaction is simply not available to most present experimental techniques.

Or the 'Shapiro' trick is used. Throw away as much inconsistent data as you need to get the result you want. Get a 1 second delay of a radar signal bounced from Venus when near the sun, then make an allowance of all but 2ns for ionospheric diffraction (not existent in SR at the time of course) then take that away from the total and, guess what; you get a result of 2ns! precisely as predicted!!

Of course SR CAN admit diffraction, but they didn't know that then, and the real data didn't emerge until much later. Venus Express has now also confirmed the cause. If an experimenter doing his PhD like Aspect found result INconsistent with Bell's prediction he'd have failed of course. Yet to his credit he was honest, in the French paper at least, about the aberrations thrown away.

I suggest now that 'wave-packet' be 'squared' by Born's Rule to work in 3D not 2D and considered as a helix. It won't happen of course!

I think Matt was a bit disillusioned last year but I don't know about Charley. It seems the trolls now start instantly; A score of 2 seemed to hit mine within a minute of appearing! I hope most are too honest to lower themselves to that.

Peter

Dear Sir,

What is meant by the equality sign? Both in physics, mathematics and metaphysics, this means we are comparing two related aspects of some objects, when by changing any parameter on the left hand side the behavior of the right hand side matches observation. If you assign the "person" to the left hand side, he being unique, A=A. If you assign the "name" to the left hand side, it being unique among names, again A=A. Where is the confusion? Your definition of metaphysics is correct, but that does not affect the outcome. There are no paradoxes in mathematics. All paradoxes are wrong description of facts, as is explained below in refuting equivalence principle:

The cornerstone of GR is the principle of equivalence. It has been generally accepted without much questioning. Equivalence is not a first principle of physics, as is often stated, but merely an ad hoc metaphysical concept designed to induce the uninitiated to imagine that gravity has magical non-local powers of infinite reach. The appeal to believe in such a miraculous form of gravity is very strong. Virtually everyone, and especially physicists, accept Equivalence as an article of faith even though it has never been positively verified by either experimental or observational physics. All of the many experiments and observations show that the equivalence of gravity and inertia simply does not exist. If we analyze the concept scientifically, we find a situation akin to the Russell's paradox of Set theory, which raises an interesting question: If S is the set of all sets which do not have themselves as a member, is S a member of itself? The general principle (discussed in our book Vaidic Theory of Numbers) is that: there cannot be many without one, meaning there cannot be a set without individual elements (example: a library - collection of books - cannot exist without individual books). In one there cannot be many, implying, there cannot be a set of one element or a set of one element is superfluous (example: a book is not a library) - they would be individual members unrelated to each other as is a necessary condition of a set. Thus, in the ultimate analysis, a collection of objects is either a set with its elements, or individual objects that are not the elements of a set.

Let us examine set theory and consider the property p(x): x does not belong to x, which means the defining property p(x) of any element x is such that it does not belong to x. Nothing appears unusual about such a property. Many sets have this property. A library [p(x)] is a collection of books. But a book is not a library [x does not belong to x]. Now, suppose this property defines the set R = {x : x does not belong to x}. It must be possible to determine if R belongs to R or R does not belong to R. However if R belongs to R, then the defining properties of R implies that R does not belong to R, which contradicts the supposition that R belongs to R. Similarly, the supposition R does not belong to R confers on R the right to be an element of R, again leading to a contradiction. The only possible conclusion is that, the property "x does not belong to x" cannot define a set. This idea is also known as the Axiom of Separation in Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which postulates that; "Objects can only be composed of other objects" or "Objects shall not contain themselves".

In order to avoid this paradox, it has to be ensured that a set is not a member of itself. It is convenient to choose a "largest" set in any given context called the universal set and confine the study to the elements of such universal set only. This set may vary in different contexts, but in a given set up, the universal set should be so specified that no occasion arises ever to digress from it. Otherwise, there is every danger of colliding with paradoxes such as the Russell's paradox. Or as it is put in the everyday language: "A man of Serville is shaved by the Barber of Serville if and only if the man does not shave himself?"

There is a similar problem in the theory of General Relativity and the principle of equivalence. Inside a spacecraft in deep space, objects behave like suspended particles in a fluid or like the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Usually, they are relatively stationary in the medium unless some other force acts upon them. This is because of the relative distribution of mass inside the spacecraft and its dimensional volume that determines the average density at each point inside the spacecraft. Further the average density of the local medium of space is factored into in this calculation. The light ray from outside can be related to the space craft only if we consider the bigger frame of reference containing both the space emitting light and the spacecraft. If the passengers could observe the scene outside the space-craft, they will notice this difference and know that the space craft is moving. In that case, the reasons for the apparent curvature will be known. If we consider outside space as a separate frame of reference unrelated to the space craft, the ray emitted by it cannot be considered inside the space craft. The emission of the ray will be restricted to those emanating from within the spacecraft. In that case, the ray will move straight inside the space craft. In either case, the description of Mr. Einstein is faulty. Thus, both SR and GR including the principles of equivalence are wrong descriptions of reality. Hence all mathematical derivatives built upon these wrong descriptions are also wrong. We will explain all so-called experimental verifications of the SR and GR by alternative mechanisms or other verifiable explanations.

Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling up of the angle of incoming radiation) changes at a particular rate. But locally, there is no such impact on the mountain. It exists as it was. The same principle applies to the perception of objects with high velocities. The changing volume is perceived at different times depending upon our relative velocity. If we move fast, it appears earlier. If we move slowly, it appears later. Our differential perception is related to changing angles of radiation and not the changing states of the object. It does not apply to locality. Einstein has also admitted this. But the Standard model treats these as absolute changes that not only change the perceptions, but change the particle also!

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

We are not discussing Bell's theorem or Godel here because of space constraint. In case you are interested, we can mail these separately to you.

Regards,

basudeba

Thanks Peter!

Yes working with single packets of light if possible is the only way to study all these amazing mind-boggling phenomena. One day someone can prove experimentally whether the photon is helical or not). As you point out there are many clever ways to get wrong results, particularly when relying on statistical arguments.

As they say let's "keep on truckin'!"

Vladimir

Dear Sir,

Your statement on reality echos the ancient Indian Philosophy of Vedanta. It was proposed to resolve the seemingly differences between various texts dealing with consciousness. Since the mechanism of perception, which is associated with consciousness (as in the statement "I know this"), is same in all cases to all persons at all times, the ultimate reality is one and immutable and cannot be directly accessed. But when we come to the physical world, the position is different.

It is true that everything is ever changing. But change is ever present. And that is real. The question is: in an ever-changing world, how do we define reality? The only possibility is by accepting the "representations thereof, if they correspond with existence as knowable to us" - as per your statement. This correspondence is done by assigning an invariant concept to each object and giving it a name. This is nothing but information. Thus, information has three components: the transmitter, the receiver and the message. The link is perception. Unless the receiver decodes and perceives the message, it is meaningless. Since transmission is subject to interference from the ever changing environment, we have to take into account of that also.

Hence we define reality as the invariant aspect associated with all objects and consistent with other universal physical laws (existence), that can be perceived as a concept (knowability) and expressed through a language (communicability). Since the three aspects are related, anything showing these characteristics is real.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Sir,

Leibniz formulated the principle of identity of the indiscernibles, which states that: if there is no way to establish the difference between two objects, then they are identical. This implies that interchanging the positions of two identical objects does not change the physical state of those two objects. This interchange symmetry of identical objects had no observable consequences in the classical physics. But the realization that the quantum particles like electrons and photons are all identical and there is no way to distinguish one electron from another or one photon from another led to the belief that a consequence of this identity is the existence of a new kind of force, called "exchange force", between them. This has led to further developments of quantum physics. You are questioning the very foundations of quantum physics.

The examples quoted by you are not appropriate. They all refer to causality and times arrow. Once something is destroyed, it is gone. Even if you reassemble, it is not the same original object, because in the meanwhile, everything in the world has changed; though imperceptibly. So your recombination will be similar not same. "Excluded middle" is a misguiding concept that tries to creates another category of the same object. If it belongs to a different category, it cannot be middle except for position or event. According to your logic, all charge neutral objects will be "excluded middle", because, they are neither positively nor negatively charged. But to be "excluded middle" it has to be a charged object, which it is not. Thus, it leads to a contradiction.

About hiding the truth, please read our essay, which has been published just above your entry. The very title describes it.

Mathematics is not "an abstract (metaphysical) 'approximation' of nature". On the contrary, it is most precise. Only its manipulation has led to the approximations in physics. Mathematical space always contains one dimension more than physical space. For example, a point in physical space has existence, but no dimension, but a point in mathematical space requires at least a line or intersection of lines. A straight line in physical space is the minimum distance between two points, i.e., in one dimension. In mathematical space, it must be drawn on a two dimensional paper. So on. This leads to abstraction.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Astronomer Jackson,

I am stunned by your praise of my essay. Due to my abysmal lack of a formal education, although I tried as hard as I could as I read it; I did not understand any of your essay at all. I responded to the "identical states" impossibility noted in the comments posted about your essay. I accept unequivocally your solution to the unique/identical problem.