Dear Stefan,
Your essay is well-written, and discusses what you justifiably call "the hard problem of science" of goals, intentions and meanings seriously. This is indeed a very hard problem, both philosophically and scientifically. I tried to approach it partially in my essay too, and I am very aware of the difficulty of finding a balance between these problems and objective science. Good luck!
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
Dear Cristinel Stoica,
Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.
I have already read and commented on your essay and i gave it a high rating due to its content and the contents of your reply to my comment!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
Dear Stephan,
Thank you for your honest comment on my essay.
I would like to add some explanations for you that I post also on your thread:
NDE:
When our emergent body and mind complexity is reaching the finish of a certain life-line, it is still our restricted form of consciousness that stays "entangled" with Total Consciousness in TS. At that very point of the time-line, the restricted part (in the body) and the Total are very "close", so information of other available life-lines can leak through, or maybe even the singularity of Total Consciousness may become more "available" (maybe for us in the form of a bright light.
Quantum observations by human beings.
First of all I would like to enlarge the observers with animals, trees, plants etc, so every "living" agent. In my essay I indicated already that we are living in the past (80 milliseconds). The moment the "observation" is realised, the observer is not yet consciouss of what he observes. Furthermore each observation is about a wave function that gives us the probability of measuring the location or speed of a "particle". Once this probability has become a "certainty" it is about a certainty from the past. From the time of observation decoherence takes over, and the particle side of this emergent entity continues its way to the screen. (2 slit experiment). So decoherence is caused by measurement (observation). The specific time-line of the observer and its object has changed with the action of. The only neccecity for this event in our emergent phenomenon called reality is consciousness, because without consciousness ther would be no evaluation of the location/speed so no change....the wave would not "collapse". This is in agreement with my reamark that without consciousness there would not be any emergent phenomenon.This is the cause that we are experiencing the "FLOW" of reality.
Multiverse:
My perception is that each form of Multiverse and or paralel Universeis just an availability in Total Simultaneity that only becomes an emergent reality once there is a consciouss agent touching it with its (in our case) through time and space restricted life-line. The unity of Total Consciousness and Total Simultaneity (God ?) gives reason for nay time/life-line. Of course it is not a "physical" law in our own emergent reality, but just because of the fact that we are thinking about it (evaluations of our consciousness) confirms the existance of these probabilities.
regarding : logical assumptions:
You are right with your conclusion that me neither can explain EVERYTHING. Knowledge about different life/time-lines (that will always stay unknown by us because hey only "exist" as probabilities. It takes other emergent realities and consciousness agents to make them an experienced FLOW. ALL these flows (from agents) exist in TS. There is no time nor space in TS so we could even conclude that they are ALL represented as eternal singularities. The logic of my thoughts brought me to this perception taking in acount my own experiences (scientific and personnel).
moral:
When I am looking at our emergent reality and specifically our earth then I observe that each living being is just busy with survival (eating other species) and procreation (love and agression). The beauty of nature from flowers and the colours of autum are expressions of survival and procreation. The moment we a child is born it is for us the ultimate happiness. We don't yet take into account the food neede for continuing this life (his footstep on nature, the rest of the survivers). The counterside of this is that humanity is earching for a reason of life, the WHY. Religions are giving us support that there is a better life after death. Every human being (even atheists) is looking for GOD (their TEO). This search gives us a calm that has nothing to do with survival (in this earth) and procreation, but with our HOPE that after death there will be something better.
It is this hope that drove me to search for a for me (and perhaps for others) acceptable explanation of GOD. My perception is not yet complete, I know, but I continue to think, and this essay contest , the essays I am reading (like yours) gives me more HOPE.
best regards
Wilhelmus
Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,
thank your very much for your feedback to my comment on your essay page.
Let's assume that these different time-lines do exist. Let's further assume that these alternative worlds are all configurations of all the things that can happen in our world (inclusively all the quantum possibilities, means all the different paths a particle can take and all the conscious decisions that are ever possible by conscious agents).
The question for me is in what cases the universe i assume to live in since birth does change to another 'time-line'? If a quantum measurement occurs (either by decoherence or by some other process)? Or/and if a conscious being has made an irreversible choice? Does these time-lines switch for every thought i think?
I would answer these questions by saying that - if those time-lines are indeed really available - that they change ('update') every time a situation occurs where a logical inconsistency would be produced by nature. For example in the case of the delayed-choice experiments. But what sense can one ascribe to an approximately infinite set of different time-lines available to 'only' conserve the consistency and rationality of the (physical) microworld?
The only answer i have to this question is that quantum events are really random in the sense that even God does not know how a particle does decide its path/energy/position and that God also does not know all the decisions of 'me'. He may have a full description of all possible 'me's', but cannot figure out which one is really 'me'. Hm, does this make sense? I think not much, because in the latter case, there should be entities similar to me, but being *not* me - as in the traditional multiverse interpretations.
The only sensible framework to incorporate these ideas is to think of reality as a kind of projection, a projection of activity into an assumed physically and spatially fundamental realm. This projection would project the results of a data processing stream onto spacetime. The only difference that has to be made here is to not assume this data processing to be a deterministic process, but being a program with some deterministic parts but also with many parts that are undefined until they interact with each other. This approach is similar to what Brian Withworth wrote in his essay from 2011 (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/806). it could explain why particles don't have any properties until measured (until they interact).
Reality may be a kind of virtual reality, driven by a program with deterministic and creative parts incorporated. A program which can alter its code somewhat. That this fundamental reality is projected onto spacetime seems not so problematic to me, since it could probably connected to some holographic attempts. Either way, to explain what fundamental level constitutes our reality, i think we have to somehow transcend the borders of space and time.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
Dear Stefan,
On your question : when are the changes taking place ?
In my perception (theory) the reality you are aware of (formed by the memories you have from your birth untill NOW) is an "emerging phenomenon". When YOU are changing to another time/life-line maybe your new emergent memory contains a whole other "past". At hat very NOW moment you won't be aware of the changed memory. It will seem as if your life-line is continuing its "normal" flow. This can happen easily with emergent phenomenae. Concrete reality as we seem to experience is only an illusion (I don't like to use this word, but it explains the meaning sometimes easier than "emergent phenomenon". The changing of time-life-lines does not mean that the time/life-line you left is no longer "existing", indeed it doesn't exist any more in your New NOW experience, but still exists as "availabilities" (Eternal NOW Moments) in Total Simultaneity. It could be compared to changing to another document on your word processor, the documents you worked on before are still available on the harddisk.
The what you are calling "updates" are not updates of NATURE, they are (see illustration 3 of my essssay) switches to other paths in TS, they have no influence on the emergent realities the agent iwas experiencing before the switch. Nature does NOT change (in the materialistic way). That is why I think that my perception is an easier explanation as the Many Worlds Interpretation, the splitting up in MWI leaves any moment two more "materialistc universes...while in mine the no longer experienced reality becomes (not in the new emergent reality) just a path of availabilities.
The consistency and rationality of the physical microworld:
Our collective memory informs us about the so called "progression" in our observations, from the pure philosophical ones of the Greek to the scientific results from the LHC and the perception of our UNiverse. This whole collective memory is a construction from a past , a specific time-line, forming the awareness of the position of our consciousness in this specific emergent reality.
It consistancy and rationality is created by consciousness interpretations and dependant of the specific NOW moments experienced by its agents. They can change any moment...(see above).
GOD does not know how a partcle....
The quantum side of this emergent reality gives us already the idea of the blurriness of reality opposite to the much easier to understand concreteness of it. The lower the scale the more we approach the Planck Wall so Total Simultaneity and Total Consciousness, the more we are approaching the idea of GOD. Total Simultaneity and Total Consciousness are the ALL that we as restricted parts of it cannot understand. So although we are part of ALL as restricted emergent entity we cannot reach this totality (only hyperbolicly). My perception is that "GOD" (TS) does not need to "know" everything because it IS everything. The concepts "knowing" and "understanding" are imbedded in the restrictions of time and space.
Projections result in a data stream onto spacetime:
The word projections could be used to explain the contact between the emergent restricted consciousness and Total Consciousness in TS. I prefer to use the term of this "contact as entanglement. Space-time is an emergent entity from TS, the stream is NOT a stream, this stream also can be called the FLOW that we experience as emergent reality.(and is compressed in a NOW moment). This time restricted FLOW (stream) is only existing for the mergent agent in his emergent reality.
The program that cannot be altered is in my opinion not a positive approach of our existence.First of all it is your free will at any ENM that that can change the flow of your life-line in TS. As a matter of fact the possibilities of so much probable life-lines is a very positive thought. The only back-draw is that we do not yet have the oppotunity to have infuence of REALLY change between these life-lines, at this very moment we may indeed be changing but still we are NOT AWARE. So I agree fullywith your last sentence : we have to transcend the limits (restrictions) of space and time in order to make a closer contact with Total Simultaneity.
I hope this explained a little bit more my point of view and also hope you can give me a rating.
best regards
Wilhelmus de Wilde
Stephan
An excellent essay, with subtle and powerful reasoning.
I especially liked:
To eliminate the subject from the consideration of meaning "would be like talking about thoughts and at the same time claiming that there is no need for a thinker of them."
"mathematics speaks to us, and the message is that there is more to existence than mathematical structures ever can deliver, not even an infinite tower of axiomatic turtles can do this."
I would have encouraged you to exclude the part about near-death experiences, as it only gives the dogmatists a convenient target to divert upon. Your logical arguments are devastating unless they're carefully avoided.
Stefan,
When I am reading your posts, I always enjoy, although not always feel myself able to follow you :) . Well, anyway now it's your turn to visit our page, my dear colleague, express there your critical ideas about our essay and maybe score our aufsatz (german words sound sometimes so funny for my slavic ears :)).
Yours, Alexey.
Hi Stephan,
I liked everything about your essay.
There are more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamt of in FQXi essay questions.
Thanks,
Don Limuti (and do check out my essay!)
Dear Alexey,
thank you so much for your kind words. Yes, german words sound funny in the context of english language. For example 'Gedankenexperiment' or 'kindergarten'.
I aready scored your essay high after having written the comment to you above, but i will re-read it and try to contribute something essential when i am able to.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
Thank you, Stefan.
Alexey.
Hi Don,
thank you so much for reading, commenting and for the kind words!
I will check out your essay soon!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
Dear Arnold,
thank you so much for your kind words, i am happy that you like my essay and its lines of reasoning!
I know that mentioning near-death experiences in a forum for physics with many experts is not a thing that guarantees huge storms of enthusiasm. But i couldn't leave it out since in my opinion it shows that there are some things in reality we haven't understood yet. I take it as guaranteed that these experiences transcend our physically known world, although the religious interpretation of these experiences remains a question of personal taste.
I know that these arguments are a target, but at the other side, there are not yet any objections to it written as a post on my essay page. I think one can debate such experiences on a rational basis with arguments, instead of dogmatically rate the essay with some 1's as recently been done twice. Doing this is in my opinion not scientific behaviour, it avoids the arguments and instead wants to create facts in favour of the own position where no facts are (at least i cannot read any on my essay page).
Thanks again for your kind words, James.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
Right after having submitted the post above, i received another 1-bomb (without explanation or comment). The dogmatists are getting nervous and i enjoy to watch how they have no arguments but only small mathematical numbers.
Dear Stefan Weckbach!
. I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.
I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic
I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.
The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.
Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.
Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
Dear Stefan,
you write science should take terms like goals, intentions and meaning more seriously -- I agree. Goals are an essential part of our best macroscopic theories and as such should be taken seriously. Our best microscopic theories, however, don't use the language of goals. That's the basic tension.
You report on a way (decade of the brain etc.) to ostensibly resolve this tension by letting the microscopic take precedence over the macroscopic, by eliminating the subject. You reject this solution and rightly so.
You then move on to your own solution positing external goals rooted in a greater consciousness. I'd just like to mention that there is also a way to resolve the basic tension within the initial setting, without leaving the realm of science and leaping into metaphysics (as you put it over at the discussion of Alexey and Lev Burov's essay). In my own essay I explain that goal-free microscopic theories are not automatically at variance with macroscopic theories of goal-oriented behavior. With this I don't mean to imply that you shouldn't try to explore the metaphysical explanations and consequences, I'd merely like to point out that we don't have to in order to resolve the basic tension.
Cheers, Stefan
Dear Stefan,
first time that someone has the same first name as me :-)
It is no question for me that we can describe parts of the macroscopic world in terms of goal-oriented behaviour. This is exactly the crux of the essay's contest question. We *can* do it - because there is indeed goal-oriented behaviour! The hard question for me (and probably also for you) is how dead matter can give rise to life, consciousness and aims and intentions.
We only can describe parts of the macroscopic world in terms of aims and intentions, because obviously there are really such aims and intentions present in the world. I wrote my essay because i had the intention to participate and to share my thoughts. Even if the microscopical level would totally determine my aims and intentions, i nonetheless have consciousness and are somehow 'able' to think about the essay contest's questions. The big question is how a 'bunch of quarks' can emerge to a phenomenon that has space- and timeless features (we can imagine thinks far away from our location and far away from our present time).
Stefan, you wrote
"I thus conclude that goal-oriented dynamics - formulated mathematically or not - is part of essentially every successful theory of the macroscopic world. And successful macroscopic theories should be taken as seriously as their microscopic counterparts."
I think here you miss a crucial point. Not all theories of the macroscopic world are formulated in terms of goal-oriented behaviour. For example Special Relativity, or the behaviour of galaxies. I used the term 'behaviour', because there is no other suitable word (at least in german language - or is there one?). But galaxies are a dead bunch of aggregated particles, following some dynamics according to the mathematical laws discovered so far.
You are correct that a rock cannot / should not be described as an agent. You write then
"At this point a mechanistic model of your macroscopic dynamics no longer works. Instead I will switch to a theory involving goals and intentions."
Yes, in practice a mechanistic model does not work anymore. But this hasn't prevented many scientists to claim that if one had all the initial data for a specific time and enough processing power, one could calculate the future behaviour of my arm. Surely, it does make more sense to describe the behaviour of my arm in terms of goals and intentions, but this - and here is the crux again - does only make sense, because there exists goals and intentions at all in the universe, goals and intentions which aim to describe someone other's goals and intentions. The question how this can come about at all in the universe, is left unanswered (for good reasons).
Personally, i think that it is not only impossible in practice to forecast at which point in my future my arm will reach out for a glass of water, but also impossible in principle. But this does also not solve the main question scientifically, because it is only a belief of mine.
Although it seems possible that our world could be fully determined by the physical laws, what does this assumption add to our understanding of aims and intentions other than they are merely rigid illusions? If the world is fully determined, the predetermined thoughts in my mind in this moment i write these lines of reasoning are dictating me to write that this kind of determinism would be very strange. Strange because it must be orchestrated such that it leads to an appropriate answer to your comment on my essay site! How can this be possible without both of us having physically interacted ever? The only explanation i know of is, that there are quantum correlations sieved out over time so that the ones left over, are all consistent with each other (in a strange way, because not all human communication is per se consistent).
If i assume nonetheless this scenario to meet reality, then i arrive at quantum correlations and information flow in quantum systems. Since we need a kind of entanglement for this scenario, some kind of unexplained behaviour of the microworld is inclusive, either as the question of what this fundamental randomess means, or as the question of how an individual measurement result is choosen from the multitude of possibilities. I have also no answer to the question why in a multiverse it should be me to observe the particle taking the left way and my alter ego in the other world observing it taking the right way and not vice versa.
Surely, galaxies have not the kind of rigidity and the kind of flexibility as living systems. And i agree that you identified - at least for life as we know it - some properties of the latter. I do not know whether these properties are necessary for some conscious entity, but according to Darwin i would think they must. But as i wrote in my essay, the problem with Darwinism is that it does not fit into an assumed to be fully deterministic world. In the latter, the process of evolution would evolve in every single detail in the same manner as we assume it to have happened - if we would trace all trajectories back to their origin. At this origin there had to be a highly ordered initial condition to lead to Darwins results. But here i come up with an exception: If many ordered initial conditions lead to Darwins results (one way or the other), then his theory would be not much in conflict with radical determinism. But again, how precise and of what nature should these initial conditions be to lead to meaningful conversations between two bunches of quarks (me and you:-) which never interacted in the past?
At the end of your essay you wrote
"Summing up, we have seen that goal-oriented macroscopic dynamics is equally real as goalfree microscopic dynamics. Moreover, goal-oriented macroscopic behavior is compatible with goal-free microscopic laws, if the macroscopic entities under question are sufficiently flexible and sufficiently rigid. Under these circumstances mindless mathematical laws can give rise to aims and intention."
Surely, macroscopic dynamics is equally real as goalfree microscopic dynamics. This is only the case because there exist goals and intentions that can be described as such (but it must not necessarily be described with these terms. As i remarked above, some people think that it can at least theoretically be described with goal-free microscopic laws). The circumstances you describe for mindless mathematical laws to give rise to aims and intentions are those that are in the middle between rigidity and flexibility. Let me note that i cannot see how these mathematical laws - although i only assume here that they indeed do exist - should be facilitated to give rise to aims and intentions. Although it sounds logical that life occupies the realm between the flexible and the rigid, i would not claim that these characteristics ground the path for life to be possible from an emergent point of view.
Let me shortly also cite a sentence from Ines Samengo at your essay page:
"But I know that people working on insect behavior, for example, can reproduce their actions to a remarkable precision, they truly behave as tiny robots."
This is no wonder, since we humans can also predict the behaviour of our fellow friends in many cases. But this does not mean that we are robots. The insects have a rather small space of goals and intentions and therefore i would expect that the prediction of such behaviour is possible. The more interesting question is whether some kind of God can *to a remarkable precision* predict the actions of humans, since from the perspective of God our space of behaviour may be equally small than that of an insect.
Thanks for your comment and for your essay. Your identification of rigidity and flexibility as a necessary ingredient for life is very interesting.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
Dear Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich,
thanks for your comment. I'll take a look at your essay and comment on it if i have to say something substantial!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
Stefan,
Response to your post on mine;
Yes, it'd be ideal if such major advancements were perceived immediately, but it never happens, as history shows. Big new physics is 'wrong', ignored, and finally 'self apparent'. In 2010 I estimated 10 years ('2020 Vision') so it's on track.
But there are no 'local hidden variables' in the model. Bell was correct. The 'secret' is found in the particles themselves, hidden from current theory and designated as the second unreal but 'superposed' quantum state. It isn't unreal. IT IS REAL! (And we know well the process in an eyes lens 'decoding' lambda!!).
We get lots of discovery's in astronomy, only the odd one BIG. An astronomer in my field, Nick, had the previous big one a while ago, but that similarly proved TOO big to be accepted! To save loosing his job and livelihood he stopped pushing it. All very sad. Finally, more recently, it 'crept in' after verification by someone else, but it then caused that guy endless problems too!
As the US Chemical Soc. president said explaining why Dan Sheckman had 40 years of pain before his recent 'quasicrystal' Nobel, "That's how science is done". That was only a minor advance! but he was right, and I'm a realist. I just hope nobody ends up like the guy who followed Nick, he ended his life under house arrest by the Pope!
To answer your question; People really should READ essays as I try to, not skim them! I identify clearly that, and why, there can be NO 'perfect printer plot!' Chaos and stochasitic variables are not eliminated. They just can't reproduce the QM findings, as Bell showed. you'll find the explanation partly under 'mutation'. 'Curl' is uncertain to 50:50 at an 'equator' and similarly linear momentum at EACH POLE (So both orthogonal to the angle of max amplitude).
"how can it make a difference if it has no experimental consequences?" It's a fair question but I don't think you thought much before asking it. Nicholas Copernicus and Galileo's discoveries also had no physical consequences. Celestial bodies didn't suddenly head off in different directions! They just explained what we DO find (that's what all Cosmology is too!) Yet those were the greatest advancements in understanding for eons, and have ended up affecting almost everything in physics in some way or another! (I don't include Relativity or QM as both are flawed and have been counter productive).
So; Yes. Unlike Eddington's view, science ISN'T 'all sorted'. My papers and video's include long lists of the mojority of anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies in physics which the combined 'SR/QM' model resolves. They only have to be actually read! If you're interested in any one in particular just ask and I'll show you how it emerges.
Unlike most I DON'T want to be a 'new Einstein' and don't want rewards. I was a legend in my own lunchtime by 30, have a nice yacht and drive an Aston. But think about it; if you were me wouldn't you feel guilty if you 'kept it all secret'? It's actually now rather a cross to bear!
Very Best
Peter
Dear Peter,
thanks for your reply.
I really read your essay, not skimmed it. You used 47 times the term 'may' in the sense of 'it may be that'. Therefore and for the reason that i am not into cosmology, i don't want to comment on the anomalies, paradoxes and inconsistencies you claim to have resolved. It only appears to me that you use two different modalities to communicate your ideas, one that does claim something to be ultimately true (IT'S REAL), the other which suggests a probability for something to be true in a subclause (it may be).
Then you go on to claim that 'the secret is found in the particles themselves'. Peter, why don't you then - after a couple of essays on your topic - eventually write down the relevant equations which describe the particles and their interactions and show mathematically that they violate Bell's inequality? You can't argue that there isn't the appropriate maths out there if you have already identified the physical mechanisms. Please show mathematically the interactions between your particles and how this necessarily leads to the violation of Bell's inequality. Put in some stochastic terms to even mathematically model the chaos you spoke of.
I never saw an elaborated equation of the interactions from you, nonetheless seeing you so heavily claiming these interactions meet reality. This is not a cross to bear, but could be elaborated together with a good mathematician. The fact that you do not show up such equations leaves the impression that if indeed done, they wouldn't lead to your intended claims.
You cannot compare your case with Galileo and Copernicus, unless you have done the mathematics. I very well thought about it, and additionally i must note that even if Galileo and Copernicus couldn't prove some of their ideas by observation, the later generations could - and verified them. Your theory is immune against testing it empirically and moreover, there are a multitude of different ideas about how to explain what you want to explain out there. How can you, for example show that your theory IS REAL instead of the one David Bohm developed, unless you have exemplified your theory with mathematical equations that show that your theory is more than just a suitable idea?
Peter if you have a yacht and you drive an Aston, you should also be able to find a mathematician with whom you can develop the needed mathematical equations. Nobody is guilty of developing and publishing some ideas. But couldn't it be that your were really guilty if you would further insist that IT'S REAL without simply doing the maths? This would be your fault, nobody in the scientific community can be blamed for that, not even i myself for criticizing you! You constantly complain about modern science and its omnipotent behaviour and its trickery, but yourself do just the same - you constantly claim something to be true without putting the mathematical litmus test on the table!
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
Stefan, (copy)
I did so & published the algorithm in 2014. You had the link. (Diracs twin stacked 'spinor' pair equation is then fine). DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3754.1287 (open access). Most schoolboys know spherical surface momentum (Earths surface speed) varies by the cosine of latitude, and QCD shows Amplitude2 values emerge in fields ('squared' 3D 'cascade' geometric progressions couldn't be simpler!) and I identify WHERE - which is in cascade photomultipliers or avalanche photodiodes). The words 'cascade' and 'avalanche' kind of gave that away, hiding before our eyes!
All I can do is publish it, point to it and keep working Stefan. I'm a scientist not a salesman. In the end notes of my 2014 essay I even reported an experiment deriving it subjectively with students and did a full results chart! So it's certainly NOT immune to testing! In the next I showed that 'reversible' socks, like dipoles, or simply 'lining' red socks with green, allowed the classical solution. In algorithmic terms the (mathematicians) correction of QM's 'state pair' revised algorithm was;
p(A1 B1 |a,b, l b,a, l) = p(A2 B2 |a,b, l b,a, l) = p(A1 B2 |a,a, l b,b l) = p(A2 B1 |a,a, l b,b l) = 1. Certainly perturbation theory always applies too.
I do ask mathematicians regularly if they'd like to look and play with it, but have the same problem Einstein found with that! (You'll even note a co-author is one J Minkowski!). I don't know what else you want. I can teach students and children, but it seems that beyond 25-30 everyone knows better so ignores it. That's really not a problem for me Stefan. I'm really anyway not entirely convinced humanity is quite ready for any great advancements in understanding.
On "MAY", just so you know; I've said 'NOTHING is certain in science', but some are more certain than others (My 'Law of the Reducing middle' in logic is Bayesian curves) so adopt the convention "may" for anything suggested but not 'required' (or 'highly probable' like finding 'left' or 'right' near an equator).
Lastly on ANOMALIES etc. Your assumption that these are just in astrophysics is wrong. Try me on ANY well known anomaly, the chances are I've 'turned the model on it' and a resolution is shown; CP Violation? simple dynamic geometry produces it, Lorentz Transformation? I described & derived that 5 essays ago, 3 Filter problem?, Non-integer spin states etc? - all in the video, Quantum eraser/backward causality? simple and all in a current draft paper. Just pick one.
For me this is an academic excercise Stefan. I don't have a website (the net abounds with them!) I don't 'OWN' it, nature does! I don't want to belittle work by others, much of it has informed the DFM, and I'm certainly not an expert on everything! But at the end of the day it's veracity can be judged as a jigsaw puzzle. Either it fits together or, like most current science, heaps of confusing inconsistencies remain. Anyone who looks at it all can see this fits rather better.
Please take any part you wish and improve it (but do beware the papal police!).
Very best
Peter
