Hi Steve,

Moldoveanu's contention that the laws of physics are invariant under additional degrees of freedom is fundamentally wrong-headed.

It would deny quantum mechanics any dimension at all, save the 1-dimension real line. And that is correct as far as it goes -- metric spaces. I agree that is the proper domain of quantum mechanics (as my proof for what I call Khrennikov's theorem establishes). A very useful concept for information theory, not for foundations.

The Hilbert space quantum formalism is two-dimensional. M's translation to a "para-Hilbert space" deprives complex analysis of its power to generate both real and complex solutions, since he has discarded the fundamental theorem of algebra. In any case, if my informal proof is correct -- the physical existence of reversibility in 2 dimensions contradicts irreversibility in 1 dimension, and favors a topological theory.

In any case, though M implies (reductio ad absurdum) that the only physics is either classical or quantum, there's nothing classical about his theory. Nor even necessarily physical.

My approach is compatible with category theory.

The FUNDAMENTAL quantum reality state balances being and experience AND is NECESSARILY one OF INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE SPACE IN FUNDAMENTAL EQUILIBRIUM AND BALANCE CONSISTENT WITH HALF GRAVITY AND HALF INERTIA.

  • [deleted]

I really enjoyed reading this article. See a response to Jozen-Bo which I wrote in 2008:

This theory of an information system directly affecting the physiological function of the eye is an absolutely true statement. Reality is entirely all-inclusive. It includes all the beliefs as well as the facts, all the mental and the physical sides. There is a complete absence of separation. The dark is absence of light. Light is truth and cannot be contradicted unless by lying. And information systems like the internet are consisted of elements of truth and false statements that are analogous to real and unreal. That which appears to the human eye is information and the mind creates the interpretation. As reality is an all-inclusive set containing mental and physical elements, mind and reality cannot be separated. Reality is contained in the mind via perceptual awareness all at once these processes are creating and containing information. Perception takes place and awareness is the complex network of the creative consciousness in which reality appears. Thoughts that are both true or false are governed by perception. Perception of both the inner and outer halves of the body concept or object are happening in but one reality or the monic term infocognition. Each moment the creative mind contains mental and "physical" information.

    Dear Fellow,

    The real unique Universe am infinite. You wrote: "This theory of an information system directly affecting the physiological function of the eye is an absolutely true statement." All finite statements are unrealistic. Any abstract theory of any abstract information system abstractly affecting the abstract physiological function of an abstract eye is utter codswallop. You need to get real.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    • [deleted]

    WHY ONE MAY NEVER SEE GOD

    Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread).

    If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's. One may walk around and experience one's fear rising in a pitch black room. Since mind is reality, you are transparent and your thoughts may become manifest unless one takes full control. According to Christopher Langan, we are transparent to the global conscious agency God, which means God is there in the room with us even in our most ignorant and fearful moments as God sees all. In regards to how and why God rarely responds to us I would think it is due to the fact that we must "go beyond" the everyday existence to reach Him and in return we may or may not be disappointed. I leave any further speculation on this matter to you the reader.

    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/why-one-may-never-see-god.143202/

      • [deleted]

      According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space. Again, this interpretation of quantum mechanics is realist in that the space of all configurations has its existence and properties quite independent from our observations. But once again, this configuration space is perceptually inaccessible to us -- we can only see the effects it has within our much smaller three-dimensional space. The upshot, as before, is that if you really believe quantum mechanics, then you believe that the physical world outruns our perceptions of it.

      Taken from: https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/what-does-quantum-mechanics-suggest-about-our-perceptions-reality

      Nicholas I Hosein, Idealist

        • [deleted]

        The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy.

        "The identity between the world and Brahman is explained. On this ground that all is known when the "one" is known is accounted for. Since all entities are real only as the effects of Brahman and as ensouled by Brahman, it has been said, "That is True". In no other way are they real. Just as, in the illustration of clay and its products, the products are real only as of the nature of clay, even so the world is only as sustained by the indwelling Brahman. [10]

        The universal, omniscient backdrop of Brahman as the primary stage for all further acts and scenes of the evolutionary drama, Maya, as described in Vedanta, explains the onset of the multiple layers of differentiated Consciousness, Mind, Brain, Matter, actually in the reverse, as manifestations, that are distinct and yet one and the same as the original consciousness. A logical fallacy it would seem but defended as follows. "The signfication of an identical entity by several terms which are applied to that entity on different grounds is coordinated predication. In the illustration of (say) a Purple Robe, the basic substance is one and the same, though purpleness and robeness are different from it as well as from each other. That is how the unity of a Purple Robe is established. The central principle is that whatever exists as an attribute of a substance, that being inseparable from the substance is one with that substance." [11]

        Taken from: http://sciforum.net/conference/isis-summit-vienna-2015/paper/2962

        Nicholas I Hosein, Idealist

          My dear fellow,

          Reality is easy to see, all you have to do is open your eyes. You mistakenly wrote: "Because reality is hard to see. (Also see this thread). If we work on this premise, we can prevent deceiving ourselves by distinguishing the differences between God's work and blind nature's." Reality is not dependent on any abstract we abstractly working on any abstract premise so that abstract we can abstractly prevent abstractly deceiving abstract us from abstractly distinguishing the abstract differences between an abstract God's abstract work and an abstract blind abstract nature's abstract work." Please stop thinking about abstract we and concentrate on the real you.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          My Dear Fellow,

          You bewilderingly wrote some more abstract codswallop: "According to the configuration space intepretation of quantum mechanics, the world of our perception is just a projection of an incredibly high dimensional configuration space" Forget about any abstract "our" abstract perception. No matter in which direction you look, you will always see a plethora of real intermeshed flattish surfaces. As only real surface can be really observed, there can be no space.

          Glad to set you straight,

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          Dear Hosein,

          GET REAL. Please stop repeating abstract codswallop: "The fundamental starting point for this alternative paradigm has to be speculations about Universal Consciousness as laid out in the Vedanta of Indian Philosophy." Only real surface is always observable by real eyes that have real surface. Real surface has no abstract fundamental starting point.

          Joe Fisher, Realist

          • [deleted]

          lets say we view quantum theory to counting from 1 to infinity (start with one because we cant start at nothingness), when going from a number to the next you can find similarity and rules etc... that govern what the next number with no duplication's. However there are events that do not have any context except that of themselves and the original starting point. in the case of counting this would be prime numbers. So as we may find ways to describe events such as odds/even multiples of 3 etc... there is nothing that can definitively define primes. Anyway if you apply what you are saying to my statement above then you are saying the starting point of your observation is the phenomenon creating this "quantum contextuality" ... i leave the rest for your own conclusion/judgment

            Dear One,

            Please stop offering poorly written codswallop ruminations of an: "lets (sic) say (abstract) we (abstractly) view (abstract) quantum theory to counting from 1 to infinity (abstractly) (start with one because we cant (sic) (abstractly) start at nothingness), Open your real eyes and take note of the fact that no matter in which direction you look, you will only always see a plethora of real enmeshed flattened partial surfaces.

            Joe Fisher, Realist

            I agree that prime numbers are the context for quantum domain. See "Khrennikov's theorem" pp. 10 - 13 in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/T_H_Ray/contributions

            • [deleted]

            Existent and non-existent are one.

            See: http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Is-True-Reality-the-Immaterial-Influencing-the-Material

              • [deleted]

              Let's see that a real observable with contextuality can exist thus showing that a hidden variable model of QM could possibly be contextual, thus not obeying the premises of the Kochen-Specker Theorem. The definition of noncontextuality given in the reference The Kochen-Specker Theorem is :

              «If a QM system possesses a property (value of an observable), then it does so independently of any measurement context, i.e. independently of how that value is eventually measured.»

              Let's take a macroscopic spinning object like a pencil with a central spinning axis. It can have a clockwise or anticlockwise sense of rotation when viewed from its top.

              Let's define what I call the «relative sense of rotation». Instead of refering to the topview of the pencil for the sense of rotation, we will refer to an observer's Z axis of reference making an angle with the spinning axis of the pencil. We will measure the sense of rotation relative to that axis. In that case, its value, clockwise or anticlockwise, depends upon the angle between the spinning axis of the pencil and the Z axis. Rotate suffisantly the Z axis towards or away from the pencil, as could be done with an astronaut in a weightlessness state, and you change the «relative sense of rotation» of the pencil from clockwise to anticlockwise or from anticlockwise to clockwise.

              The measured sense of rotation here is a «contextual» value of the observable I called the «relative sense of rotation». We deal with a real observable with contextuality. I therefore see no reason why hidden variables models in QM should be presumed to be non-contextual. The key of the matter should lie in the three dimensional spatial behavior «perceived» by the measuring apparatus of the quantum phenomenon or particle under study. No «magic» there.

                Dear Bertrand,

                Could you possibly try a bit harder to write understandable English? You mystifyingly wrote: "Let's see that a real observable with contextuality can exist..." All observations made with real eyes are real because they are seen with real eyes. You do not need to see if any abstract context could exist, the fact that you are really looking at a real plethora of real surfaces automatically provides all the context you will need.

                Glad to have been of health,

                Joe Fisher, Realist

                You are right. «Real observable» should be replaced with something like «an observable taken from a classical physics context». Sorry for the confusion between the word «real» and the intended idea of giving a «realist» example!

                • [deleted]

                Joe,

                One reality. Where reality is dual. Immaterial wavefunction and material particle. Metaphysical/ subjective and physical/ objective.