Peter,

I have gone through your essay once and I want to go again in order to post my comments on it. Mean while, please, go through my essay and post your invaluable comments on it.

Best of luck,

Sreenath.

Dear Peter,

thanks for your comment, I'm also sorry for the delay inanswering.

I also like your point of view. It is not totally different to my approach. It contains a lot of geometric ideas, in particular the representation of the quantum state as helical wave. I also have helical states (but in the foliation).

I rated your essay also very high but a longer time ago.

Now to your question about granularity: There is an isomorphism between piecewise-linear and smooth 4-manifolds. Therefore the granularity is not important for the results. Of course there is a limit (lower bound) for the number of used cells to describe the 4-manifold but nothing more.

Best wishes

Torsten

Hello Peter,

This seems to be one of the more interesting approaches I've read so far. Am I to understand that the Law of the Reducing Middle is analogous to there being infinite real numbers between integers?

If so then I think this turns the whole question on its head and is very thought provoking.

The nearest my essay gets to yours is that it moves beyond binary via Fibonacci's sequence, suggesting that information exchange suggests a code of nature.

Regards

Antony

Anthony,

Thank you. Yes, Infinite real numbers between integers/binaries of any scale or set, and Fibonacci's sequence is a direct analogy.

I appreciate your ability to then see the whole of nature from a quite new viewpoint. It seems so few can, particularly those with the present popular doctrines most deeply embedded in their belief system

When we then study it more closely we can find the whole picture clarified as all the unnecessary nonsensical interpretations fall away.

I look forward to reading your essay.

Peter

    Peter,

    Thanks for your most inciting and harmonious essay. I completely agree with you when you say Superluminal signaling is false as I myself have written an article on quantum entanglement and in which I have shown how QE has nothing to do with Superluminal signaling.

    Best of luck in the contest.

    sreenath

    Dear

    Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

    So you can produce material from your thinking. . . .

    I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

    I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

    Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

    Best

    =snp

    snp.gupta@gmail.com

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

    Pdf download:

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

    Part of abstract:

    - -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

    Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

    A

    Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

    ....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

    . . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

    B.

    Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

    Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

    C

    Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

    "Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

    1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

    2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

    3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

    4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

    D

    Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

    It from bit - where are bit come from?

    Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

    ....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

    Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

    E

    Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

    .....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

    I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

    Hello Peter,

    Great, I thought so. That's testament to your great writing ability - I think you've done a fantastic job here removing peoples preconceived and stubborn ideas!

    The law of reducing middle reminds me of some of my work on entangled spin using geometry, so love the idea!

    Thanks for your kind comments on my essay - I've (hopefully) answered re- outward pathways.

    Best wishes,

    Antony

    Peter,

    I am still not sure what that intelligent bit is. You speak of quantum computers. Does your quantum computer concept address all quantum-mechanical phenomena such as superposition and entanglement? What role does consciousness have in your scheme of things?

    Jim

      Peter,

      Incidentally, as you probably know, one could make a career out of studying your piece. It's quite esoteric.

      Jim

      Hi Peter,

      I found your essay this time around to be much more direct, leading the reader through smooth curves rather than employing a zigzag motion like last year. I read through the first half carefully and the second half quickly, so I still need to read for detail - but my essay has not posted yet anyway.

      I think I like your idea on first reflection, though I have some reservations. It appears you are correct, at least in part, and have made a useful contribution to our understanding. I'll have to read it again for a full understanding, before I make a rating or form an opinion. I wish you luck.

      All the Best,

      Jonathan

        James,

        Thanks. Very insightful!

        I'm not quite sure what the IQbit is either, but I think it's just a whole lot more information then yes/no held by the bit waiting for the right question.

        Imagine an arrow. In a bit it points either up or down. In a qubit it points both up AND down ('superposed') but when you ask 'up or down?' it only gives one answer. In the IQbit the arrow is rotating. You can then ask it; "OK, exactly "how much" up or down at this instant in time, and how much at that instant. You can then have in inverse (Bayesian) amplitude distribution curve to describe the possible range of answers. That is then Godels 'n-valued' (fuzzy) Logic. i.e. Things are no more just 'red and green' than 'black and white'.

        In entanglement; A particle is split into left and right handed (Chiral) rotating elements, sent in opposite directions in the EPR case. Whatever we find at one, the opposite is found at the other. But as a separate case, at short ranges the emissions can 'phase lock' with each other, so changing one can change the other. You then have optical screwdrivers, tomography etc. Check out how 'Bessel beams' behave! (just Google them).

        Conciousness is crucial. There is no 'observation' without it, so no universe. No sense can be made of any computation of detected wavelength over a 'time period' without 'awareness'. Unfortunately having it is no guarantee of sense. i.e. if the 'processor' assumes the wrong 'rest frame' for deriving 'propagation speed', (as we do), only nonsense results. Now if we used the relevant 'channel' frame not the 'approach medium' frame, it would all make sense. This implies that 'surface' consciousness is a limited but variable quality which can be enhanced, perhaps from the subconscious 'potential' lying beneath. Do you think so?

        I have yours on my list and look forward to reading it.

        Peter

        Jonathen,

        Thanks. Glad to see you're here. I look forward to reading yours.

        I hope you should find increasing value in mine towards the end. The ontological construction comes together and builds to a 3D climax.

        Please do raise any reservations or questions. I had to leave out over 90% of relevant matters and evidence to squeeze it all in!

        Peter

        Giacomo,

        Thanks for looking. A number of conclusions emerge, possibly too dramatic to even 'see' at first, like the suggestion of our flat earth being spherical, but becoming entirely self apparent and logical once understood and assimilated.

        1. Some fundamental assumptions are wrong. Nature is non-commutative (no A=A!)

        2. A qubit caries more information than we ask of it, hidden in a higher order.

        3. The EPR paradox may then be resolved as Bell believed, without spookyness.

        4. Relativity and QM are then unified with only adjusted interpretation of both.

        I agree with you the change to relativity is slightly greater, but only to the assumption that the QV can only have one 'absolute' rest frame. The postulates are proven via the quantum mechanism of scattering (CFS) at c. Close analogies with all QM interpretations seem to exist, including Copenhagen, via the proper definitions and logical application of 'detection' and 'measurement'. But you may hopefully advise on that?

        Best wishes

        Peter

        Dear Peter

        thanks for clarifying your points.

        My only advise is never try to patch theories. Never use nice math as a motivation. Look for solid principles (really solid from the logical point of view), and pursue them up to their extreme consequences, and you will discover new solid physics. At least, you will have the statement of the theorem: "These principles imply that ...".

        Best wishes

        Mauro

        Mauro,

        Many thanks. All sounds like good advice, but in presenting the model in the part I've been told it means nothing if not primarily mathematical (but I wasn't fooled!).

        I've tried not to 'patch', but look for hidden likeness and expose consistencies where possible.

        It would be possible to call it a 'replacement for relativity', but as Einstein did state all of SR is in the postulates, and it derives the postulates direct from a QM, that wouldn't be accurate, and such ideas are dismissed out of hand anyway!

        I have published the extreme consequences (i.e. a cyclic cosmology) but that too can't get into a PR journal. Nevertheless I agree your advice, and thanks for the moral support. More direct logical clarity is what I like.

        If there's anything in particular you think I'm patching, or any parts you actually disagree with, please do let me know.

        Thanks

        Peter

        Hi Peter,

        I have finally read your interesting submission. But reading your submission is a little like listening to a person running a stream of conscience conversation, you get everything in the conversation. Yes, you said A not equal to A, but you didn't try to contradict that with counting sheep or any other form of counting, where A = A is the rule. In my world, I see everything through my eyes, and who doesn't see the world through their own eyes, but it was nice to read your vision through your eyes. I clearly don't see the way you do.

        Jim Akerlund

          James,

          (also posted on your thread)

          Thanks for your comments on my blog. With respect to the slightly peripheral matter of a=a, I'm not sure if you gleaned the full meaning from my essay, which agrees that a=a is precisely correct for mathematics, just not shown also applicable to nature. This explains why mathematics is then a good approximation of nature, but to be precise a computer the size of the universe would be required, as Shannon's implication.

          That proposition is consistent with the quantum uncertainty principle and is fully falsifiable so can be falsified as described, by finding any two entities at observable scale which are precisely identical. This remains an open invitation

          An early objector whose spent months with a microscope and some sand dunes gave up when he realised he'd found nothing close, even in terms of any one of the many parameters. Aristotle = Aristotle is then fine as a metaphysical concept, so for mathematics, but I'm just pointing out that assuming the physical world also uses those laws appears to be incorrect.

          So perhaps it's not so much 'how' we see things, as exactly 'what' we're looking at. I suggest our understanding of maths and the freedom from infinities it brings should be as big a benefit as the improved understanding of nature. Maths should then become more useful and precise, not less so.

          That's certainly an unfamiliar way looking at things, but does that make it wrong?

          Best wishes

          Peter

          PS. Addition; You may also be aware that all logical systems famously, are 'ultimately best by paradox'. They all start from A=A, which it seems may be the issue, resolved by Godel's n-valued logic and theorem.

          James,

          Expressing my proposal with far more authority than I is Bill McHarris in his excellent essay;

          "Mathematics can state things with certainty; physics cannot."

          It's certainly a 'must read' essay, mainly on chaos theory and infinite regression, and underpinning all the foundations of mine which I thought could be no deeper!

          I think it very solidly supports my conclusion; mathematics can be commutative but nature is not, and the space between 0 and 1 is of ubiquitous self-affine regressive determinism.

          This is not a 'problem' but seems to expose a new opportunity for precision in the modelling of nature by mathematics. I'll be interested to see whether Bill's essay influences your perception.

          Best wishes

          peter