The Intelligent Bit by Peter Jackson

Peter

You start by asserting that you have "no issue with any of your comments", then go on to say something which, as I have already said, is contrary to what I am saying.

1 The essential problem with your theory is that if one reduces the reference against which speed is being calibrated to a singular circumstance, ie each frame, then given the way light propagates, the resulting relative speed will always be the same. This is self-evident, but also fails to address comparability of references, because you are using a different one on each occasion. It is the same form of circumstance, but physically a different circumstance.

What matters here, is the speed, ie duration incurred, for light to travel from A to B. Light being that physical effect which if received, the eye can process. Light is just a physical entity, which, as a result of the evolution of sight, has acquired a functional role as a physically existent, independent representation of what occurred. Leaving aside how, given its physical properties, proficient it is at fulfilling that role, its travel is affected by the physical circumstances it travels in.

2 Leaving aside the correctness of your argument, it has no impact on relativity. Immediately you speak of SR, which as I have pointed out so many times, with quotes from the man himself, is not what you are saying it is. However, leaving that aside and just considering the concept of relativity. The point is that there is no observational light in Einstein. The second postulate, and hence the possible contradiction, is irrelevant. Einstein just used a constant to calibrate distance and duration. It could have been anything. It was not observational light, nobody observes anything in Einstien's writings. There is a 'ray of light', later it is lightening. In Cox & Forshaw it is a light beam clock. c is just a constant. In other words, the attempt to resolve rate of change and light speed constancy is a wild goose chase, the issue was never there. The so-called paradoxes do not exist. Because the man spoke of observers, etc, people have been assuming they were, and that it is all about light. But there was no light.

Einstein did not make any presumptions about background frames, this is your interpretation of what he did. He made two fundamental, and counterbalancing , mistakes;

-he failed to understand how timing operates

-he did not differentiate between what occurs, and the light representation thereof

There is no relativistic effect in existence, it occurs at a specific time in a specific physical state. The point is that light representations of that then travel and are received at different times depending on spatial relationships. The relativity which he attributed to existence (in effect, he did not mean to) is in the receipt of light.

Paul

Peter,

I've had a chance to reread your essay. As always, you're impressive! And, you old yachtsman, you are always obsessed with waves!

You suggest that far greater information capacity exists in areas not yet fully searched. Let's hope you're right. You then discuss the "orbital angular momentum" (OAM) of photons. I've collected several articles on this phenomenon but have not yet had time to study them. I am therefore somewhat confused about OAM so I can't reasonably judge statements about it.

You discuss the 'law of the excluded middle'. One of the first standards for integrated circuits (TTL) was based on this concept in that proper designs guaranteed either high or low outputs but not outputs in the 'forbidden zone', or excluded middle. These outputs were of course fed into the input of the following stage, which had a smaller excluded middle, thus providing reasonable noise immunity.

You note that QM's nonzero statistical amplitude distribution cannot offer any hint about underlying mechanics or meaning. You also point out that Born had no physical explanation for squaring the wave function. I would note here that my previous essay (The Nature of the Wave Function) does offer a physical explanation for this!

I also agree with your interpretation for approximating nature with increasing precision, and particularly like your suggestion of Bayesian analysis as a "law of the reducing middle", but I'm somewhat confused by your discussion of 'natural universe' followed by 'infinite universe'. I am more and more coming to distrust any argument framed in terms of the 'infinite'.

I do like your remark about the observer's rest frame being the rest frame of the channel to the processor. I know you've spent so much time thinking about Doppler shifts that my inclination is simply to take your word for anything to do with them. I don't follow all of your remarks in that section but I do note that your helical wave is compatible with the C-field wave function mentioned above. And my toroidal model of the electron does possess a closed form 'helical' soliton-nature.

Your axioms are reasonable although as I said I don't put much faith in 'infinite' arguments.

As for Bell's so-called 'proof' that no locally real model can produce the cosine squared result, I produce it in my previous essay (link above). Joy has complained that it only works when Alice and Bob make independent selections, but I believe that is implied by Bell's formulation. I'm communicating with MJW Hall who specializes in determining the limiting cases implied by Bell assumptions. So I need to study your EPR discussion more before I form an opinion about it, although I am favorably disposed to your argument that there is a mismatch between statistics and 'real physical interactions' at each detector. I plan to study your approach further.

To sum up, your essay, like my essays, requires more than one or two readings to comprehend. Too bad most people (for obvious reasons) will only read once.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Peter

"It's probably my fault calling his rejected 'ether' frame a 'background' frame..."

It does not matter about a correlation between what was said. The point is, as light works in a fundamental way, then if one calibrates its speed with respect to some individualistic frame on each occasion, then the same answer will result. But this is not the speed of observational light. That is a function of the duration incurred from its creation, as the result of an interaction with whatever occurred, to its receipt by anything (but it has to be a sentient organism which can indicate in some way that reception has occurred!).

"about SR from 1905"

Really? When was the first time he mentioned SR? Not that it matters because in 1916 he defined it, and it is different from what was said in 1905. Fundamentally in 1905 he has two states of existence. Light is in vacuo. Everything else is not, because there is length alteration (ie some force is operational). This is why he recognises a potential conflict between the two postulates ("apparently irreconcilable"), and is so concerned with states of inertia. One cannot have a theory where two different 'elements' are in different states of 'being'. So as far as he was concerned, SR resolved this. In SR there is no force at all, in GR there is.

And it is not what he said, intended to do, or thought he did, that matters. That is what he actually did. And he failed to understand how timing worked (which resulted in a superfluous layer thereof) and conflated reality and the light reality (which resulted in him losing a layer of timing). The nearest he got to acknowledging a differentiation was when speaking of "immediate proximity", when he said the times would be the same, which they are not. He can speak of frames of reference , observers, etc, but they do not exist if there is no observational light. Nobody receives that ray of light, and I would certainly not sugget trying to see with lightening!

The point being that this holy grail of trying to resolve rate of change and light speed does not exist, because he never had any light in the first place. All he does is use a constant to calibrate duration and distance. And it happens to be the speed of light. Obviously, he and all the interpretations since, believe this accounts for observation, but it does not. In effect, the difference in the timing of the receipt of light has been shifted to a characteristic of reality itself. This is his best statement on the nature of relativity (forget SR, that is a red herring):

Einstein para 4 section 9 1916

"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

This is rubbish. Events are events, they occur at a time, and at one time only. They do not occur wrt some other event. What does happen is that the timing of receipt of light varies depending on spatial relationships, and if there is relative movement then the apparent rate of change will appear to alter for the recipient from that which occurs.

Paul

Hi Peter,

Good to see you participating in this contest also!

I finally had time to reread your essay. And my original impression has not changed: you did much interesting work but, as probably you yourself already know, the essay would have benefited tremendously from the expository editorial improvement.

Just to take one example, the first sentence of the conclusion:

"An intelligent IQbit with new helical/toroidal freedoms is found hidden in a Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1, including [math]\Psi^2[/math]".

I'm a mathematician by education but who knows what the "Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1, including
[math]\Psi^2[/math]" is? ;-)

Now let me move on to your questions in my essay forum.

1. "to hear your views on my suggested division line (proposed by Dirac) between real physical nature and that of numerism."

I assume you refer to this in your essay:

"Dirac's Line then more clearly divides Proper Time (unchanged) from apparent co-ordinate time xi"

I had to go to the reference xi you supplied and found:

"if we add two more time variables t(subscript theta), t(subscript phi) as the quantum hidden variables, i.e., 3-dimensional time (t, t(subscript theta), t(subscript phi) ) instead of 1 dimension, we'll find that the motion of single particle under 3+3 time-space posseses the same qualitative behavior as the particle in quantum physics and the spin of particle can be simply interpreted as the topological property of 3-dimensional time."

I'm sympathetic to a more sophisticated view of time, but I'm very skeptical of approaching time via spatially motivated "dimensions". As you might have seen in my essay, in ETS, the idea of time is treated as embedded in the struct. So I believe that time, as you yourself say, is embedded in "change" and is not a numeric concept.

2. "I've also tackled measurement as a real interaction, trying to define 'detection' as a separate prior interaction and would welcome your views."

Again, I am of the opinion that any interaction is of the structural nature and cannot be adequately addressed in the conventional numeric framework.

3. "I end up offering a 'real' resolution of the EPR paradox so also saw analogies with your last figure. There is 'hidden information' which i have actually found researching Aspects discarded 'anomalous' data!"

Peter, I couldn't figure out what your "resolution" is, but our two approaches to entanglement cannot be that similar, because I'm advocating a *primary* informational reality that 'specifies' the spatial reality.

So, to put it mildly, I'm not the best person at all to comment on your essay, but I wish you good luck in the contest, and most importantly, interesting discussions!

Lev,

You're right. I tried to squeeze too much in again! But I did indeed identify the wavefunction 'psi' twice in the essay, and refer to and explain Born's rule of squaring the wavefunction;('psi'^2)!

I'm confused that you ask if I referred to it. Did you only read the conclusions?

Then, on the "Dirac Line", I not only discussed it at length in the text but also gave the full Dirac quote!! again you seem to only refer to the conclusions, but say at the top you read the essay! The conclusions can't and are not supposed to be a repeat of the whole essay! So I really can't grasp whether you read the text or not, so don't understand your comment.

I can see the Chen paper is a bit advanced for some non physicists, (though I'm strictly included in that group) but had to remove the simple definition due to space. This may indeed be seen as a single 'Proper Time' embedded in each of your 'structs' which may in that way be analogues to 'inertial systems'. I then propose only the emitted ARTIFACTS can be changed, (i.e. Doppler shifted) not 'time' itself. But the "change" is then to the 'apparent' time seen as being from from the OTHER frames clock thus an arbitrary 'co-ordinate time' subject to observer motion. This is a quite new insight.

MEASUREMENT. I'm talking 'optical science' rather than 'theory'. But saw no reason your structs could not be valid.

EPR SOLUTION. I suppose you won't see the solution without a full understanding of the Bell Inequalities themselves and von Neumann's proposal, which I do describe; (a cosine curve AT EACH detector, not just from statistical correlations between them.

Malus' Law simplified says if two donuts meet face to face, then tilting one gives a different contact point round the ring. So if a third donut is at a known angle relative to the first, a relationship can be described subject to that angle. It's a bit more complex, so difficult to precisely explain, but this had not been considered before, so the evidence had been discarded.

It does however seem it's beyond many physicists too! Hey ho.

Best of luck anyway,

Peter

Peter,

"I'm confused that you ask if I referred to it."

I didn't.

"again you seem to only refer to the conclusions,"

Peter, the reference I gave is to pp. 2(bottom)-3 of your essay and not to the conclusion, but you were probably also referring to his quote on p.2.

So I still think that "the essay would have benefited tremendously from the expository editorial improvement".

------------------------------------------

Peter, what I found quite useful is a very careful and intensive development of the paper plan/outline, in which the main points are flashed out and very carefully logically *coordinated* wrt each other. Most people don't like doing it but I find such dry/mental run of the basic ideas involved and their interconnections super helpful.

My best wishes to you!

Peter,

Hi. I totally agree with you on the need to recognize the difference between physical reality and abstract, in-the-mind reality. And that the rules that apply in the abstract world may not apply in the outside-the-mind world seems blinding obvious, but apparently it isn't to many physicists and mathematicians. It's very good of your essay to point this out and remind people of it. One of the examples that bugs me is that just because an equation has a variable t, for time in it, and in one's mind, one can put in a negative t and the equation still works, this doesn't mean that time can go backwards in the outside-the-mind world.

In regards to A being similar to A instead of identical, I also agree. One can have two instances of the A class of objects, but the two As are separate existent states in separate locations. This may sometimes also apply in the abstract, inside-the-mind domain. For example, one might think another rule would be that A does not equal -A. But, as an example of why this may not be true, one of my views is that the words "something" and "nothing" are just two different ways of describing the same underlying thing, an existent state. We've always distinguished the words "something" and "nothing" as having opposite meanings, like A and -A, but I think that's because we've always been misdefining the word "nothing". If we could think of the situation we previously defined as "nothing" slightly differently, we'd see that it's actually "something". So, even in the abstract domain, A doesn't always equal A, and A may sometimes equal -A. It all depends on the observer's perspective of what A and -A look like to him or her.

The toroid stuff was above my level of knowledge, so I won't comment on that part. But, one interesting coincidence is that helices are very common in biochemistry, too, like in the DNA double helix and in the alpha helix structure of some proteins. We're surrounded by toruses and helices!

Anyways, great essay! I think many of us seem to be hitting on the same idea about the need to dethrone mathematics and re-install the outside-the-mind, physical world as the king of the universe!

Roger

Peter,

Your critique of Aristotelian Logic is right on. Something that has been in the back of my mind for some months now.

Your evaluation of paradox is also quite good; as I'm a believer that even science is not exempt from the saying: "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."

Like you, I found myself finding many synchronicities between our work; and its always interesting to see how dialectics can mystify the fact that we're pretty much talking about the same things. Very enlightening. One simple question for you pertaining to this:

"An intelligent IQbit with new helical/toroidal freedoms is found hidden in a Sample Space of hierarchical subsets, and an Included Middle between binary 0 and 1"

Basically what we have here is a type of 'fractal-information'?

Uncle Peter

Very happy to see Uncle.

Uncle still like that, there is an essay with analyzing diversity and scale, as well as number of theory was always very much integrated.

At this time, the appeal be to the title "The Intelligent bit" and 6 axioms, it looks like Uncle very seriously with the causal relationships - me too.

I am always appreciated the fussy, meticulous work and scale that Uncle mentioned.

Wish Uncle stay healthy, joyful and successful with his own passion.

Of course, always going to be a high score for Uncle.

Dear Peter,

I have red your essay with interest.

I am not sure that the questions you ask rely on quantum mechanics and the qubit concept. They may be more related to nonlinearity as it arises for instance in the devil's staircase and the Farey tree 0/1< ... 1/3...