• [deleted]

  • Post #34

Hi Chidi,

I read your essay (and now that we have an extra week the pressure is off a bit). Your essay has interesting point and I will touch on some of them below as questions or comments. However, on e general comment (which I see was already picked up by some other commentators above is that your tried to put too much into the essay so that it is hard to follow the logic thread at points.

But there were interesting observations in the essay which I would like to point out to ask questions on.

The first thing is actually a question as to what you mean on page 2 by "no two [quantum] measurements can yield quite the same results." If you measure the energy states of a hydrogen atom that is swimming in some thermal background, which can with some probability excite the hydrogen with some probability to various excited states, then as you measure the hydro gen atom at some points you will (with some probability) measure the hydrogen to be in the same energy state. Thus there are cases where the measurement of a quantum system will show that the system is in the same eigenstate. Now maybe you mean that no two fermions can be in the same quantum state? This is true but then it is not clear that this is what you mean. In any case the statement is a bit unclear and maybe wrong.

I like the story about the chimps -- it reminds we of a similar story of a mathematician and his wife who were to leave on a trip but they wanted to check that they had the correct number of suitcase -- three suitcases. The mathematician would come back saying there were two suitcases and the wife came back with thee. When they both went back to count the suitcases together the mathematician starts "zero, one, two -- see I told you there were two."

You talk about the fine-tuning of cosmology/origin stories of physicist/creationist. I was not clear of the point here, but one ting to note is that physicist general look for ways to avoid fine-tuning (for example inflation is supposed to avoid of the the fine-tuning issues of cosmology -- although it ends up introducing some other issues similar to fine-tuning). For a creationist fine tuning if fine, great even since in the fine tuning they can see "the hand of God".

At several points in the essay you use h_0 which you say is the "threshold potential of the action potential in man precisely 55 millivolts." Where does this come from?

Lastly your mention "Humanity is going to get technology (like lie detectors!)". In fact there was some article a few years back about an FMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) "lie detector". This device as I understood would give you a real time MRI image and by looking at blood flow in the brain you could tell if a person was lying or not. This was supposed to work 100% as long as the person knew they were lying. If they were delusional or didn't remember the act they were lying about. But if the lie were purposeful then this FMRI method was supposed to be fool proof.

There are some good issues raised in your essay. My main suggestion would have been to focus it more narrowly (this is hard since the question is broad and the page/word limit is strict). Best of luck with the contest.

Best,

Doug

    Hi Doug,

    Thank you for finding the time to read and comment on this essay. As I expected your comment touches upon the more critical claims I make in this essay. Let me answer in the same sequence you ask, and permit me to answer in detail:

    1.) "...put too much into the essay so that it is hard to follow the logic thread at points."

    I was only trying for a poetic approach. Science writing wants everything said expressly, poetry would in fact leave the kernel for the reader to deduce, the best poetry would have the reader deduce necessarily what the writer wants deduced. I may be guilty of this artist's approach to scientific argument. But in this essay especially I do not attempt to show how to steer humanity, I focus on what I see to be the sure trap namely mans preference for realist (local; hidden variable) definition of things as against the emerging uncertainty principle approach.

    2.)"no two [quantum] measurements can yield quite the same results."

    This is my perhaps simplified view of the measurement problem in QM in so far as we may EXPECT the lay man to make sense of that issue. It boils down to the opposite of determinism. In my view claiming determinism is down to claiming a fixed space and time FRAME (as Newton did). Outside of such a claim the "path" of a particle (as your path integral approach well show) CANNOT be the same. To get such a result you must assume a FIXED space and time frame; a singular space-time continuum.

    3.)"...the mathematician starts "zero, one, two -- see I told you there were two."

    You get my point exactly. Actually I have not shown in this essay my reliance on the Peano Axioms in foundational mathematics. The issue of where/what to start counting from touches, in my opinion, upon the so-called naïve set theory; is the set of all sets an empty set...? So the mathematician starts "zero, one, two..." and the physicist starts "virtual particle (field?), boson, fermions (particles; spins), etc." The point is, WHERE EVER you start counting from must define eventually as the null event (zero). This is why Newton must start with the concept of inertia, and hence the utility of the concept of "force".

    Einstein dispels of the notion of an ether BUT rests instead on the notion of a universal constant (speed of light); he needs some functional simultaneity, even if that simultaneity be in fact a zero (a null-information).

    4.)"You talk about the fine-tuning of cosmology/origin stories of physicist/creationist."

    My great example of the necessity of fine-tuning is the Hoyle state (as predicted by Fred Hoyle). Whatever our preferred theory of cosmology, in so far as we must think of life itself as also a valid state of the nature we observe we MUST make a logical connection between the existence of man (the observer) versus the laws of nature it observes.

    5.)"At several points in the essay you use h_0 which you say is the "threshold potential of the action potential in man precisely 55 millivolts." Where does this come from? "

    Just the one question I so much wanted to go home with! I adopt this value to PHYSICALLY define man as our working observer (i.e. our quantum/threshold of observables, and hence our "uncertainty" if Heisenberg Cut). Now, to understand how I have arrived here you need to read the paper where I have developed my argument in full. The preprint should be ready within a month. Please send an address to my email and I will love to send you a link, because then I will also need your judgement.

    Dear professor Singleton, I will beg you to investigate this one claim most thoroughly. I think it unravels basic issues about PRACTICABLE quantum gravity. I define the observer PHYSICALLY as own quantum (threshold) of observables.

    This certainly is an outrageous claim to make in QM but the reason why we predict is to be falsifiable. So I ask you to deploy your expertise and investigate this one claim on your own. Try, for instance, to plug it into equations and have it in the appropriate dimension represent the graviton, photon or "virtual exchange" and then see what results you get. As for the literal value please see the subject ACTION POTENTIAL in any standard reference like the Britannica or the Wikipedia. Of course, you must have access to more specialized sources.

    Thanks a lot, Doug. Feel free to ask me more questions.

    Bests,

    Chidi

    Dear Chidi,

    Many thanks for your kind comments and support my ideas. I hope that the information age gives excellent technological resources and capabilities to control political bureaucracy at all levels. People - the source of power and it is necessary to proceed from this postulate of democracy. The time has come for "Democracy 3.0". Let's hope that the journey of Protogeometer and Humanity in the future will be more secure. Thank you very much for supporting the idea of relocation of the UN in Iceland.

    Best wishes,

    Vladimir

    Dear Chidi,

    impressively original and putting human existence so close to the basics. My thinking needs more protective layers- physics to chemistry to biology to psychology to sociology- but your approach is simply captivating. I wish you success!

    Peter

      Thanks, dear Peter. Yours is one of the most practicable essays I have seen yet.

      Chidi

      Hi Chidi,

      It seems I voted for your essay about a month ago. Usually I leave a post when I vote...perhaps a little crack in space-time? More likely another website glitch.

      1. I like your essay very much and wish I could vote again!

      2. The story of the chimps was excellent... and yes we are still counting :)

      3. CP Snow is interesting: You cannot win, You cannot break even, You cannot leave the game. However, I prefer Jerry Garcia: Small wheel moves by fire and rod, Big wheel moves by the grace of God, Couldn't you try just a little bit harder.

      4. I could quibble about the uncertainty principle (I am with Einstein), as I did in the last essay contest, however we are together in just about everything else. I will use a quote from you to summarize this: "Humanity must always make conscious effort to return back to the communal spirit, the notion of an ideal man as that state of being at peace with self and nature.

      Don Limuti

      Dear Chidi,

      I like the idea of civilizations as "expeditions in conservation laws". Beautiful essay, very original and imaginative, making surprising and intriguing connections. Good luck with the contest!

      Best regards,

      Cristi

      Hi Chidi,

      I think you did in your essay a lot what Niels Bohr did in trying to grasp what quantum mechanics brought in our thinking and how we could think quantum mechanics. So let me quote Niels Bohr to comment on your essay:

      "We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections."

      High regards

      Luca

        Thank you Chidi,

        For your kind remarks on my page.

        Warm Regards,

        Jonathan

        Ups. Allmost forget to rate. This should bring you up a Bit.

        Luca

        Interesting premise Chidi,

        I enjoyed your essay, and I will have more to say when there is ample time.

        All the Best,

        Jonathan

        Hi Chidi,

        Re your post to my essay blog:

        Just to let you know, I rated your essay at least a week ago (and I gave you a good rating too!).

        Regards,

        Lorraine

        Write a Reply...