Collapsing Physics: Q&A with Catalina Oana Curceanu

Hi again Joe, please could you help me out a little and let me know if you are seriously proposing your belief system or whether it is an attempted parody of physics modelling of the universe (or some kinds of physics model). A science "spaghetti monster"?

Georgina,

The one real observable Universe that consists only of infinite unified surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light is not a FINITE invisible "model" of reality. It is the only irreducible uncontestable FACT that can be pragmatically proven by direct observation. YOU will only ever see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed flattish varied colored infinite surface wherever you look with your infinite surface covered eyes. You will only ever touch infinite surface with your infinite surface sense organs. You will only taste infinite surface with your infinite taste organs. You will only smell infinite surface with the infinite surface of your nasal organs. You will only hear the clashing of infinite surface with the infinite surface of your real or fabricated infinite surface hearing organs.

Scientific journals have refused to send out my truthful infinite surface statement for peer revue. They will never allow it to be published. Like you, and Hawking, everybody only believes in invisible codswallop.

First-order logic

Main article: First-order logic

Whereas universal algebra provides the semantics for a signature, logic provides the syntax. With terms, identities and quasi-identities, even universal algebra has some limited syntactic tools; first-order logic is the result of making quantification explicit and adding negation into the picture.

A first-order formula is built out of atomic formulas such as R(f(x,y),z) or y = x + 1 by means of the Boolean connectives {\displaystyle \neg ,\land ,\lor ,\rightarrow } and prefixing of quantifiers {\displaystyle \forall v}or {\displaystyle \exists v}. A sentence is a formula in which each occurrence of a variable is in the scope of a corresponding quantifier. Examples for formulas are П† (or П†(x) to mark the fact that at most x is an unbound variable in П†) and П€ defined as follows:

1. (П† в€Ё П€), (П† ∧ П€), (В¬П†), (П† в†' П€) 2. (в€ѓxП†), (в€ЂxП†)

(Note that the equality symbol has a double meaning here.) It is intuitively clear how to translate such formulas into mathematical meaning. In the Пѓsmr-structure {\displaystyle {\mathcal {N}}}of the natural numbers, for example, an element n satisfies the formula П† if and only if n is a prime number. The formula П€ similarly defines irreducibility. Tarski gave a rigorous definition, sometimes called "Tarski's definition of truth", for the satisfaction relation {\displaystyle \models }, so that one easily proves:

Thus в€Ђy (rxy) в€Ё в€ѓy (rxy) means (в€Ђy (rxy)) в€Ё (в€ѓy (rxy)) .

A set T of sentences is called a (first-order) theory. A theory is satisfiable if it has a model M |= T, i.e. a structure (of the appropriate signature) which satisfies all the sentences in the set T. Consistency of a theory is usually defined in a syntactical way, but in first-order logic by the completeness theorem there is no need to distinguish between satisfiability and consistency. Therefore, model theorists often use "consistent" as a synonym for "satisfiable".

A theory is called categorical if it determines a structure up to isomorphism, but it turns out that this definition is not useful, due to serious restrictions in the expressivity of first-order logic. The Löwenheim-Skolem theorem implies that for every theory T[2] which has an infinite model and for every infinite cardinal numberκ, there is a model {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}\models T} such that the number of elements of {\displaystyle {\mathcal {M}}} is exactly κ. Therefore, only finitary structures can be described by a categorical theory.

Lack of expressivity (when compared to higher logics such as second-order logic) has its advantages, though. For model theorists, the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem is an important practical tool rather than the source of Skolem's paradox. In a certain sense made precise by Lindström's theorem, first-order logic is the most expressive logic for which both the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem and the compactness theorem hold.

As a corollary (i.e., its contrapositive), the compactness theorem says that every unsatisfiable first-order theory has a finite unsatisfiable subset. This theorem is of central importance in infinite model theory, where the words "by compactness" are commonplace. One way to prove it is by means of ultraproducts. An alternative proof uses the completeness theorem, which is otherwise reduced to a marginal role in most of modern model theory.

From: Model Theory, Wikipedia

Also see, Introduction to the CTMU:

That this structure is completely self-distributed implies that it is locally indistinguishable for subsystems s; it could only be discerned against its absence, and it is nowhere absent in S. Spacetime is thus transparent from within, its syntactic structure invisible to its contents on the classical (macroscopic) level. Localized systems generally express and utilize only a part of this syntax on any given scale, as determined by their specific structures. I.e., where there exists a hological incoversion endomorphism D:SГ {rГЋS} carrying the whole structure of S into every internal point and region of S, objects (quantum-geometrodynamically) embedded in S take their recognition and state-transformation syntaxes directly from the ambient spatiotemporal background up to isomorphism. Objects thus utilize only those aspects of D(S) of which they are structural and functional representations.

From: http://www.ctmu.org/Articles/IntroCTMU.htm

Here we see a relationship between Quantum Mechanics and Logic.

Logic is Quantum. Quantum, logic. Recall that reality is logic(al). Hence, so to is Quantum reality. First order logic formulas are built by atomic formulas. Which themselves combine to form first order theories. A first order theory that is satisfiable has a model M |= T. We derive Quantum logic from this and the CTMU derives a reality that is Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded. Where spatiotemporal containment defines the location of objects within time and space. As the objects move through time and space, they take their state-recognition and state-transformation syntaxes directly from this ambient spatiotemporal background. Now, what does this have to do with first order logic? Well, if you read the very first paragraph of what I posted from the Wikipedia article, it says that Universal Algebra provides the semantics for the signature of a formal language, whereas logic provides the syntax. So we have reality being logically Quantum-geometrodynamically embedded within itself using syntax.

Does this make sense?

Nicholas I. Hosein, 2016.

Hi Joe, thank you for taking the time to reply. I now understand that what you are describing is not a scientific model but your own (indisputable ) belief. The main reason it will not be published in a scientific journal is because it is not science. What peer review do you think is possible when you say your statements are indisputable truth? The time and thought I have spent on it (as one of your peers) is probably as good a review as it will get. What is and isn't "codswallop" is a matter of subjective opinion.S. Hawkins ideas are at least based on concepts and mathematics that can be, and are, disputed.

Georgina,

It is science that is wrong, I am right. All scientists squawk about the treatment Galileo received from the Catholic Church. But the Church bored a hole in the roof of a Basilica in order to track a sunbeam and prove that Galileo was right about the earth orbiting the sun. You know I am right about infinite surface. That must now become the science of visible reality and all of the quantum quackery must now be consigned to the science fiction of invisible implausibility. I converted you, it is now time for either the AIP CHAOS Journal to submit my essay NOW SEE HERE to two female scientists for Peer Review, or for the Journal of North Carolina Academy of Science to do so.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Georgina,

Professor of Microbiology Melanie Lee-Brown, who is the Managing Editor of the Journal of North Carolina Academy of Science accepted my educational essay, NOW SEE HERE. She cannot find any Peer reviewers for it. Ms Overstreet, the Peer Revue Manager of the AIP CHAOS Journal specifically requested that I submit my essay to the Journal and she consulted with Professor Jurgen Kurtha to find the proper Peer Reviewers. Ignoramus Kurtha rejected my essay without sending to out for the Peer Review the Peer Review Manager had advocated.

Joe Fisher, Realist.

I think I've learned a useful phrase today:

" ... invisible implausibility."

Hello all,

Hello Tom hope you are better ,happy to see you on fqxi.Take care Jedi :)

Georgi,

don't bother giving anyone free rent in your head, God knows how many of those polite rejection form letters a publisher like AIP sends out every week. jrc

Hi Joe,

I think it would be helpful for you to take a break from thinking about and promoting your ideas and then come back to them later with a refreshed frame of mind. You may see things differently. It appears to me that you are not currently able to rationally discuss them. Your false comments "You know I'm right " and I have converted you", and others, show some delusional thinking is going on, not helping your cause. I'm not saying any of that to insult you. Wishing you well, Georgina

Dear Georgina,

Observable unified infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light is not my idea. It is pragmatic reality that anyone can easily apprehend by using their senses. Hawking's book, A brief History of Time is filled only with his ideas about invisible atoms moving in invisible space; and invisible black holes in invisible space, and an invisible expanding universe. Scientists are supposed to be ethical seekers of the truth. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but there was supposed to be another Essay Contest at this site concerning The Physics of the Observer that was mentioned in the Grant application rules. Why don't you query Dr. Foster, the Projects manager as to why the Essay Contest has not been started.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Joe,

I have already given you lots to think about in previous posts, but you have not logically addressed the arguments raised. In my last post I offered some advise that you are also ignoring. This will be my last response for a while as I think you need to take some time to sort out your thoughts.

My visual system is able to generate an internally appreciated appearance that has been formed with electromagnetic radiation information input; and the internally processing that links memory to the appearance allowing 'object' recognition. What is seen is not the external material reality. It is illuminated and so seeable because of the way the EM information is processed. Without EM radiation input to the visual system, (or without correct processing due to a fault in the system ), it is dark and the previously mentioned 'appearance'is not formed. If you are going to relate your infinite surface to vision then I will have to disagree with the statement that it is infinite ( as the output appearance only relates to the information received.) I will also disagree that it is always illuminated. Complete darkness can be difficult to achieve and the visual system is able to detect the response to a single photon. However there are places such as caves (with wall surfaces) where there is no light. I will not believe that the output of my visual system is the totality of what exist but it gives a useful representation of what is outside of me for navigating in the world. Surfaces alone can not fully account for the form and function of the structures of the material universe.If you wish to use vision as evidence for your statements then you have to allow for something ( such as particles and processes) that permits vision to occur.

Georgina,

Tellingly, the physicists at CERN have not, cannot, and will not ever be able to produce visible proof of the invisible theoretical Higgs Boson's existence. The reason for this is that only unified observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light can ever exist. Air surface may have been removed from the interior of the cyclotron, infinite surface remained.

Your surface covered "visual system" often referred to as your eyes can only see a plethora of seamlessly enmeshed flat looking varied colored SURFACE. You have not given me anything to think about. That is the beauty of my assertion that the real Universe consists only of unified visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light, it does not require any thought. The repeated mentioning of the invisible phenomena you have skillfully memorized apparently from reading the works of theoretical physicists are very entertaining and I do thank you for bringing them to my attention.

With fond regards,

Joe Fisher, Realist

I have now informed the Heads of the American Institute of Physics; the Canadian Institute of Physics; the English Institute of Physics; the Australian Institute of Physics, and I intend to inform the Heads of the Chinese Institute of Physics and the Russian Institute of Physics that Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: the Special and General is utterly wrong. The rude, ignorant executives will not even give me a form letter response. I have also notified Professor Max Tegmark by telephone and by numerous emails, he has not replied. Apparently, the fact that I have an ORCID means nothing to him.

:) You are a phenomenon Mr Fisher.Take care Jedi :)

Joe,

IMHO it would be good for you to take a break and get some quality rest.Rather than writing more unproductive letters that you may regret later on. Your efforts are not going to produce the results you desire while you maintain the same frame of mind. Said with the best intentions for your well being. Georgina

Georgina,

In 2013, the National Science Foundation provided researchers at the Physics Department of the University of California and the Kavi Institute with a grant of $1.32 million to examine the accuracy of Einstein's Theory of (invisible) Relativity: General and Special. The researchers reported that Einstein was correct. I have a valid ORCID. Einstein was utterly wrong. I should not be "resting" for being right. You ought to be supporting me in at least asking Professor Max Tegmark why he will not answer me. You have had no problem answering me, why is he so ignorant?

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe,

Infographic 16 effects of sleep deprivation on the body

Article based on various research Harvard: Sleep and mental health

Kind regards Georgina

The Lisa Pathfinder at 145 days mission has returned its first paper after 55 days of science and it shows very low noise...except an unexplained bump at low frequency.

It is very nice to see some real data from the L1 saddlepoint for the two 2 kg Pt/Au cubes. FQXI should really do an article on this paper and more data is coming. The spacecraft is 475 kg and follows one 2 kg cube and then measures the noise for the other cube as it dephases from the followed cube.

They measure 5e-15 m/s2/sqrt(hz) until about 0.6 mHz, which is something happening about every 27 minutes or so. The noise jumps to 1e-14 and then they do not yet report anything longer than about 3 hours or so.

Unless they can get to at least six months or so, they will not see aethertime decoherence, which also shows up at about 1e-14 or so, but with the frequency of a year. There is a dc offset that they throw out but already in the paper, they mention the possibility of a very small variation in G...which of course should not be. No experiment has ever been able to measure G with such precision over time.