Does Quantum Weirdness Arise When Parallel Classical Worlds Repel?

Steve,

Let it go, man. You aren't the one getting crazy. This blog space is not really a scientific forum, it is a chat room open to the public that is not monitored by fqxi and is only mediated when a post gets reported as *inappropriate*. It therefore attracts a number of individuals whom whole heartedly subscribe to a personal belief system that has nothing to do with science, and whom are undifferentiated in their own thinking to an extent that they mistake scientific method to be a belief system also. But where belief systems are dependent on an emotional desire to fulfuill a psychological need for security in constructing a world view having certainty that there exists an absolute answer; scientific method simply accepts that deductive logic is the best we can humanly hope to achieve and does not attempt to seek an absolute. Rather, science only seeks to determine relevant questions. What answers obtain from that, we can build with. And only with confidence that it is not an absolute solution. It isn't difficult to recognize those who come to these topics with a quiver of sciencey sounding darts to shoot down the flying wizard they call "Science". They attempt to robe scientific method in their own subjectivity to make it as logically vulnerable as are their own subjective beliefs. Don't reward them by pouring gas on their fire, you won't get a scientific answer from anti-scientific want-to-be messiahs. Take it easy on yourself, jrc

what a world John.There are several foundamental probelms Inside the sciences community.Let me enumarate them.

1 like you said, some illuminated confounding spirituality and deterministic sciences.

2 of course the vanity, and you know what I say.hmmm :)

3 the fact to be obliged to ponder innovant pappers for tecompetiion....Result:pression and bad pappers

4 the enterprise and the jobs, even if it is false sometimes, friends support a false work ??? Serious problem there John.

5 The bad comportments and jealousy.This exists also John,bad persons very vanitious and frustrated

6 corruption also is a problem,logic sciences is the most interesting business.

7 The desire to be recognised and so the publications are a play where themajority ofthe world does not understandthe generality of sciences.

8 the psychology also is a main parameter.

9 The team and the false politeness ???A real circus John, sciences are deterministic and universal.The rest is vain.

10 vanity of vanities John, all is vanity.But when it becomes hate ,it is sad, and this hatebecomes startegy ,it is still more sad.

11 The lack of knowledge of what is really the generality for a majority.Even the relativity and the entropy principle they don't understand, so how can be their works?It is bizare in fact.For the vanity, the monney, thepower or the false politeness or the recognizing,a real circus because a real searcher, a real general thinker searches simply.

12 The responsabilities and obligations and pressions.

I can continue but it is sufficient it seems to me.Take it easy for yourself John .

I have seen professors of universities saying that we can travelin time ??? or that the BH have whormholes and this and that ??? A real circus.I have had a scientific general secondary school and I have continued in several Superior schools and universities.And always when I was in geology for example(you know the piroxens, the amphibols,the silicats,....I Have classed also the mineral.)always in my schools I have had deterministic sciences where quantizations and properties are always rational.When I was at labs at University in medecine and after geology,I have always respected a pure methodology for the experiments,if not it is the chaos.It is thesame for the system of thoughts John.A deterministic methodology must be always a reality.Sciences are exact.Not theoretical physics which is atopic of extra^polations and generality.Not all unfortunally can utilise this generality.That is why we return about this said vanity.You know John ,let's take Newton and Hook,Newton is always in our book.Hookwillbe always a poor business man simply,frustrated , full of hate and with an enormous vanity.Perhapsthat our global problems are just due to these human comportments.This worldis ironical and sad in the same time but we evolve.Sciences are there to help and to improve.We search the foundamental laws of our universe.The known universe and the unknown universe, we are sofar of our quantum and cosmol singularities.But we approach with dterminism if andonly if we utilise the good mathematicalmethod for correct dterministic extrapolations.Let's take the geometrical algebras(Clifford,Hopf,Lie....)or others math Tools.How can we inetrpret the physics when we check the parameters.Associativity, infinity, commutativity, dérivations, intégrations,las, domains,.......are paramters.Physics it is exact and precise.

Manyworlds, alcubiere,travel in time,extradimensions, .....all these things are just mathematical plays.

You imagine John and all

if all the scientists skiling and general, rational were focused on one main project.We could solve the problems of the planet in some years.The problem is just human.We decrease our globalvelocity of evolution in being in competition and dispersed.But it is the life but we evolve also John the jedi :)

Steve,

Well... yeh, but we aren't going to change human nature. Myself, I was one among what is called 'the bluejean revolution' that Ronald Reagan and my Dad hated so much, but so did all the big shots east of the Iron Curtain. And our generation produced some great tunes, and it changed the world. One of those songs goes; "Take it easy/ take it easy/ don't let the sound of your own wheels/ drive you crazy"

On occasion, there are competent people whom have studied enough to understand the questions posed here, and whom do not mistake posting as a validation or endorsement, nor are they posting out of a need for attention. Rather they actually have some significant thing to share, from which others can benefit in acquiring knowledge and a better understanding. I think we do ourselves more good to refrain from indulging those with personal agendas, and reserve comments for those made in earnest by individuals who have made the real effort to study, research, and condense complex subjects into concise statements of modest scope. 'Grand Designs' are the imaginings of spectators. It's a beautiful afternoon where I'm at, think I'll go out and not waste it. jrc

And if we made a global transparent project here on FQXI for the harmonisation of our main global problems.The solutions exist by adapted sciences,methods and universalism.We have the potential and the capacity to harmonise and catalyse , imrpove even our environments and the matters.The solutions are really possible.In ecology and substrates and composting and vegetal multiplication,I have already thought a lot about the global solutions for now and the future.Soon 10billions and we have so many problems.The energy, the water, the food, the jobs, the criminality, the corruption,the wars, the economy,the global social psychology,the religions,the governances and altruism ..........we could find the roads of harmonisation.What are the scientists ? just a job? ,what is the real meaning of a thinker, a searcher, a scientist? sciences community have a big responsability for this planet.Politicians and business men have shown us that it is not the solution.Perhaps it is time to give the power to universalists and scientists having concrete global solutions simply before the chaotical exponentials.It is not possible if we continue like now.We must change our global system and the governements must take their responsabilities.If not...............SHAOS INSTEAD OF HARMONY.Regards Jedis :)

I have seen John the future of life institute,it is relevant,they have also a responsability.Technology,inventions, évolutions,....all this is very intresting but if we don't solve our global problems, never thefuture humans shall can live correctly.It exists so many things possible considering our global human potential.We must even already think about our adaptation on Mars and in space with a enormous Wheel implying gravitation.compost and vegetalmultiplication are essentials for soils, vegetals and anaimals.We can increase the compost and the vegetal mass and so animal mass.Without these foundamentals, never we could live in space or on Mars.In all case we are obliged because soon the earth will be too small and even perhaps too much polluted or even too much chaotic considering the climate.We must find solutions now in fact John.Regards

I think that I understand what science is about quite well: both my school and university education being mainly maths, physics and chemistry (and most of my school and university education was funded by scholarships). Perhaps I understand the downstream implications of physics theories in a way that the adoring uncritical followers of physics don't.

Physics has been struggling for a hundred years to explain quantum mechanics. Only people who have never had science training could ever mistake the MIW or MWI theories for science: they are belief systems. Perhaps those who are uncritical of theoretical physics never noticed the hefty dose of explanatory narrative in these theories of reality, narrative that is NOT provable because it is not represented by equations or algorithms.

Going by the numbers, it seems that there is something about the male character that has a certain naïve fundamentalist/purist view of reality: e.g. the MIW and MWI adherents. I'm saying that seemingly, men can't face ACTUAL reality: subjectivity of information; experience of information; creativity of information. Seemingly due to problems with the male character, physics is currently NOT able to face up to the fact that reality is NOT 100% deterministic.

I think that ordinary people (unconsciously) understand science all too well: that's why they keep away in droves. They see the ivory-tower theorists, e.g. the MIW theorists, entranced and inspired by the beauty of human-created mathematical equations, instead of being entranced and inspired by the beauty of actual physical reality.

Of course all must eat at the same table, that said, if we continue we shall not have food to eat John !

All the problems Inside the sciences community have been enumerated.It is there that the point ofequilibrium, universal must be reached.The rest is vain it seemsto me humbly.Sciences have a responsability, and the monney, the notoriety and the pressions of team are sometimes a problem.It is simply an evidence.Competition sometimes is well, sometimes no.

One real observable Universe could only have one real physical observable aspect. The only real aspect you can verify by observation is SURFACE. You have a complete SURFACE including the SURFACE that covers your eyes. Everywhere you look with your SURFACE covered eyes, you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed varied colored flat SURFACE. The laws that govern the real Universe must be consistent. Only infinite SURFACE exists everywhere in the real observable Universe. There is no space. The only reason you can only see SURFACE is because it is always illuminated by an infinite non-SURFACE light. All of Science is utterly mistaken human conjecture concerning the invisible.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Prince is dead. But all too alive are the MIW and MWI theoretical physicists (mainly men) telling us that everything that Prince did, every note he played, was 100% determined by nothing but laws-of-nature interacting with the environment (where the environment is itself 100% determined by laws-of-nature). These naïve physicists are telling us that all of reality is identical: they are saying that the murderer, the musician, the Nobel prize winner are all identically 100% victims of circumstances and 100% ruled by law-of-nature rules.

For 100 years now, reality has clearly been telling physicists that this is not the case. Reality has clearly demonstrated that it is NOT 100% deterministic. But the male dominated physics world is too frightened to accept the implications of a non-deterministic reality.

Gary,

Do you, or do you not have a complete skin surface? Does every piece of observable matter, be it natural like a tree, or be it fabricated like a chest of drawers made from a tree not have a complete visible surface? Is the law of reality not consistent throughout the real Universe. Then obviously, the real observable Universe consists of SURFACE. Surface is not put together mathematically, so why would I be stupid enough to show you useless calculations. The real Universe is not scientific. It is utterly simple. So why are you persisting to believe in complicated scientific codswallop.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Lorraine,

I am telling you that physical reality is merely infinite surface. It is easy to spot because surface is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. No need to thank me, it was a pleasure explaining it to you in terms I am confident you can understand.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Mr Fisher, please.Develop your ideas and reasonings.We don't understand nothing with your surface ,really.You know if you have things to say.Please develop.That has no sense Mr Fisher to always repeat these things.You confoundfor me ,the subjectivity and the objectivity spiritually speaking.

Steve,

Reality is not MY IDEA. Please understand that you have a complete surface that includes your eyes. Everywhere you look with your real surface covered eyes; you will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed partial flat varied colored surface. Only observable infinite surface exists. There is no space. Nature provided that infinite surface. Hawking's silly contention that invisible nothing exploded 13 and three quarters of a finite billion invisible light year's ago in the big bang singularity may be scientifically acceptable, but it is utterly unrealistic. It is now up to you. Do you want to continue to believe in the fabulous errors of science, or will you please join me in the promulgation of revolutionary reality.

Joe Fisher, Realist

You see when you want that you can develop a little :) a phenomenon.

Can I ask you several questions?

1 how do you interpret the begining of the physicality? There is the hypothetical BB ,personally I prefer a gravitational spherical expansion.But You you think how about this begining?

For the space ,I agree space does not really exist,matter and energy only exist.

2 for me a surface is a 2D,and we live in a 3D, of course we have 4D models(Minkowski,Lagrangian.....) for the metics and others calculations of evolution,but our 3D is essential even to see the things,you speak about our eyes like a surface,but in fact it is not really a surface.So my question is simple ,why you insist on this surface like if it was a scientific revolution?Convince me Mr Fisher ?Regards

Steve,

Surface is infinite. It had no commencement. Surface is unified; therefore, it has no finite dimension or finite duration, or finite predictability.

Joe Fisher Realist

I beleive that you interpret spiritually the luminerous aether.That said the finite systems are essential for the calculations of our universal proportions.All finite system is coded in its uniquenss serie.We can calculate the mass of an aton of hydrogen considering the mendeleev table.An atom is a finite system with its properties.You are a finite systems encoding furthermore Mr Fisher.You are coded in your singularity.You have youe own fréquences and own finite serie of particles and codes ofevolution,gravitational.A Star, an adn, a planet,a particle,....All mass is a finite system with its intrinsic coded.Let's take the evolution.......H ......CNO......H20 HCH H2C2 CH4 NH3 primordial soap......+Energy time by encodings......proteins,amino acids .....ADN..........UNICELLS ........PLURICELLS........fishs.....Reptilians....Lemurians....Mammalians.........Primates.....Hominids.....All these créations are finite systems encoding and evolving.Universe is also a finite system.The infinity has many meanings.It appears with our adds or other mathematical exrapolations.The infinity is also this infinite entropy above our physicality.The infinity can be also in the pure imagination.But our physicality utilises finite systems with coded and properties.The problem it seems to me is that you confound simply this infinite entropyabove our physicality in inserting it in this physicality.I see an interesting spiritualanalyse, that said the lunminerous aether has several problem due to c and the distances.So the instantaneity with this entropical God if I can say cannot appear with this luminerous aether.The gravitational aether is more rational considering particles of gravitation speeder than photons.We can indeed so subjectivelly speaking that all is infinite because we are created by this infinity above our physical universe.But we cannot insert this infinity in our calculations for the proportions.The energy is infinite indeed but relativelly speaking.What do you think ?Regars

Steve,

Visible surface am infinite and unified. Surface has never contained any finite invisible atoms. Visible infinite surface was never created by an invisible God.

Joe Fisher, Realist