Jonathen,

Thanks for your comment on my blog. I'm not sure I fully understand your logic ref resolution of the EPR paradox. If a mechanism can be shown which produces a cosine curve ditribution at each detector, as von Neumann suggested must be the case if QM is to be consistent, then why would some entirely different solution still be required?

Sure I agree all science is provisional and we know less than "1,000th of 1%..." and all solutions are incomplete, so I that's what you mean I agree.

The asymmetric ('orbital') Aspect results the model (DFM) predicted were actually found and discarded!! That is some 99% OF HIS DATA!! That may have been fair while no theory existed to explain the anomalies, but he did rather hide them away in his French language paper!

I do think the construction project for the new paradigm will need a whole supply of octonions and someone who knows how to work them if you're interested. I think truths belongs to nature never one person.

Have fun on the final day roller coaster ride!

Peter

Dear Jonathan,

very interesting and well-written essay. As Pauli wrote it in a letter to Heisenberg: only borrowing agreement.

Your continuous flow between information and form is very similar to my view. I idetified but you made a more complex view.

So, you got a very high rate from me.

All the besz

Torsten

    Hi Jonathan,

    Letting you know that I have read your essay. I gained an increased understanding of where you are coming from. Good luck in the finals.

    James Putnam

      Dear Jonathan,

      I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

      I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

      You can find the latest version of my essay here:

      http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

      (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

      May the best essays win!

      Kind regards,

      Paul Borrill

      paul at borrill dot com

        Jonathan,

        You are my final review of this competition. Your reasoning and analogies I found to very well grounded in the world of the observable as emphasized by your comment, "In my view, Physics should admit the possibility for unobserved realities that serve to generate what is observed, but must focus primarily on what is in the realm of the observable."

        You touched upon how we come to know nature's 'cosmic dance' via the interplay of the two. I most certainly agree that nature is based on a dichotomy. All the more reason why you may want to review the findings of a 12 year experiment confirming your viewpoint.

        You have my high support of your essay and I hope that my essay will warrant your support in kind.

        Best wishes,

        Manuel

          Thank you James!

          Understanding is what it's all about.

          Have Fun!

          Jonathan

          Thank you Torsten,

          I greatly appreciate the high regard from you, as I have extremely high regard for you and your work.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Thanks Paul,

          I thank you for taking the time to stop by and comment. And of course; thanks for reading and rating my essay. Yours will get my attention tonight.

          Jonathan

          Thank you again Amazigh,

          I will try to get to your essay before midnight tonight.

          Jonathan

          Thank you All!

          I appreciate the support for my ideas and the high regard I was given by so many of you. I wish all the finalists the best of luck. But I also wish all good things, in their time, to everyone who participated in the contest. I shall continue to answer questions if asked, and to comment on other essays where there is more to say. I left some very short remarks at the end, and I need to expand on that a bit, or perhaps a qubit.

          So far as I am concerned, everyone who was in this year's contest is a winner. Another joyful exchange comparing notes with all of you. You have my respect and I was honored to be among you this time around.

          Have Fun,

          Jonathan

          Hi Jonathan,

          I'm sorry to be so late in acknowledging the comments you made at my essay; but I do sincerely thank you for your kind words and generous thoughts, which helped lift my spirits.

          Your essay is really excellent; best of luck!

          -Willard Mittelman

            Hi Jonathan,

            Congratulations on another fine essay. Your presence has made all the essay contests a pleasure. A fantasy of mine is to join you in Paris for one of the FFP conferences. I am still grinning that on FFP11 I could not get them to take my name off the presenters list.

            I was a little leery of this contest, the subject matter was just too .....philosophical. But once I started the muse made an appearance.

            Wishing you much success in this contest and in life.

            Don L.

              Dear Jonathan,

              I almost missed the list but it is part of the game. Not all the finalists deserve to be there and not all who missed out deserve not to be in the final list. I look forward to more positive exchanges in future especially on the cosmic dance of Actualities coming from Possibilities and Possibilities coming from Actualities. I hinted at this on my blog, The Judgement on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 11:39 GMT which you may also read.

              Best regards,

              Akinbo

                Dear Jonathan,

                Thank you very much for your kind words, appreciated my ideas and good wishes! I also really liked your essay and your ideas!

                And I wish you every success in the final stage FQXi Essay Contest 2013!

                I am very glad to have met you!

                Thank FQXi!

                Good summer holiday!

                With great respect,

                Vladimir

                  Jonathan,

                  I copied this from my essay blog site.

                  My essay was basically a two week effort. I happened to be rereading David Wallace's article that refutes the fatalism of Taylor when this idea leapt out at me. I was not planning on submitting an essay this cycle. So with a week of analysis and another week of writing I put this together.

                  There is a mathematical theory of unbounded but finite mathematics by Jan Mycielski, that I was recently made aware of. This is maybe useful for this work, for physics usually involves finite systems or involves finite numbers that are measured. I have been pondering whether some Godel numbering scheme that maps quantum numbers to integral solutions of Diophantine equations in this setting might lead to a finite and unbounded version of the Godel theorem. This might provide a more firm understanding of what my essay proposes.

                  Cheers LC