Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

Peter,

thanks for your reply. Surely i had the link, but i cannot see the algorithm which produces the common experimental findings. You write that the dynamics you propose is not 100% deterministic, but i do not understand this statement in light of the recursive fractals you also mentioned. In a fractal, there is no room for quasi-causal mechanisms, your attempt to unite both points of view, the deterministic and the probabilistic one, are then contradictory. Therefore it is no wonder that you write you published the algorithm in 2014, but what you published was a Bayesian probability assignment on the basis of your assumptions.

If nature operates mechnistically in a fractal setting, there should be a non-bayesian equality to show at what place within the fractal the interactions you are interested in take place and how 'higher order uncertainty' within this fractal does impact the measurement results. Introducing higher order uncertainty itself does not help, because within a fractal there is no higher or lower level, but only precisely defined mechanistical relations that lead to a precise sub-picture of the fractal. With the notion of fractals, i think you run into problems with infinity, because you can zoom in and out without ever identifying the initial causal basis for each quantum event and that is something which i think really does circumvent Bell's theorem. If your main assumptions meet reality, i think this reality cannot be a fractal. But if the latter would be true, you need another 'source' to introduce uncertainty.

I am not the one to decide what nature really does. I am just not convinced by your papers. And you indeed do not need to convince me, but need to convince the professionals. I regret that your co-author, having such a prominent name like Minkowski, has not achieved to present your ideas in a more radically mathematical formulation, but mainly by words which are sometimes hard to trace if these lines of wordings really describe an ontology or merely an idea (an idea to which you personally attach a high probability to meet reality). Personally, i would say, presenting your ideas as a string of words instead of a string of mathematical symbols does damage your ideas. And personally i think your diverse concepts are contradicting each other, leading to inconsistencies, but that's only my personal view. Maybe it is the case that what confuses the one person, elucidates another person and vice versa. As Lawrence Crowell recently wrote, you cannot disprove a theory with another theory, same as you cannot disprove strict determinism with the concept of fractal emergence of different sub-pictures within that fractal.

We humans cannot in most cases attach proper probabilities for our ideas to indeed meet reality, because we lack the needed information. What seems probable for one person, seems totally improbable for another person (think of the idea of God). The consistency of the idea does not prevent us from not having the needed information to judge the proper probability for that idea to meet reality. So you are right that nothing is certain in science, at least for the things from which we yet don't know how, why and if they indeed exist.

And i am far away to pick more of your ideas to analyze them, because i see no reason to do this in general and also specfically not in the current essay contest, where the main question is much different than the ones you claim to have consistently answered.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Peter,

there is no uncertainty in Gödel's results and the latter have nothing to do with coin tosses and 50:50 outcomes.

Anyway, have a nice rugby final!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Peter,

no, my attempt is to interpret Gödel's results in a broader way, since it involves terms like logics, truth, consistency. But i am aware of that my attempt is only an interpretation (although i think it is a good one).

Your link with Gödel is also only an interpretation and i think it is somewhat arbitrary. What have Gödel's results to do with whether the earth spins clockwise or anti-clockwise? This question is ill-posed from the very beginning, because there is no external reference frame to decide it. We can not disprove an interpretation by another interpretation. I only wanted to state that both our views on Gödel's results are interpretations of it. Gödel himself never intended to interpret his results these ways - and more important, the involved mathematical relationships do not say anything about the earth's rotation or about the meaning of Quantum mechanics.

Peter, i indeed find it inacceptable, but for the reason that i don't fully UNDERSTAND what your theory says in detail. Not all things which exist are self-explaining and yours essays are of that kind, and i also criticized your style of writing and your hypnotic and suggestive language. I do not agonize about it, but if you want that professionals understand what you really mean, you should improve your capabilities to explain your lines of reasoning mor rigorously. And additionally you should really begin to model your results as mathematical equations other than merely as bayesian claims.

Hope the rugby night was nonetheless fun and enjoyable.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Peter,

so far i agree on what you wrote concerning Gödel's results.

Thanks for the first step of your explanation. I first like to know to what kind of particle you refer, to electrons or photons. I assume to electrons, since photons are known (at least to me) to have no charge.

The OAM you spoke of - is this the usual OAM of electrons? I assume not, since you write that it is hidden from QM. But i nonetheless ask, since OAM has two components, a position and a momentum component. To define the desired position or momentum, one has to take into account all 3 vector components of position or momentum.

I now assume that what you identified as additional momentum is the momentum component of OAM. The particle spin is always orthogonal to the OAM and both facilitate the total angular momentum. This is the standard interpretation and is valid separately for all 3 spatial directions.

You should give me feedback whether i understood what you wrote or misunderstood it. I would be also helpful to first tell what orthodox QM says in each step and then tell me what your theory says for that step.

Now i imagine a sphere with the north pole above and the south pole down below. This sphere has then its equator inbetween north and south pole. It is turning in the plane of the equator such that the poles do not turn. At the poles, the charges you spoke of are maximal, at the equator they are zero. Therefore, at the equator, another momentum (is this the QM spin?) is maximal an at the poles is zero. This particle has its maximum angular velocity at the equator, and its maximal charge at the poles. During its journey from its source to some detector, the poles always stay where they are, north up and south down below (so the particle has no precession or something like that?). Alternatively, during their journey from their source to some detector, the plane in which both particles turn around is always the equator plane and always stays the same, namely the equator plane (is this more correct?).

Is this the right description so far?

"You know the common foundation with the DFM's 'Relativity' already...."

Please let us proceed on step after another. I do not remember what DFM is, although i may have read it some years ago.

What is the next step (if my conclusions so far are correct)?

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Hi Peter,

I liked your essay a lot. It reminded me of a section in Frank Wilczek's book "A Beautiful Question" where he speculates that creatures as intelligent as humans, but with a different evolutionary history, would uncover nature's patterns differently. A species of intelligent birds would intuitively grasp Newtonian mechanics, super-intelligent spiders would stumble upon waves before grasping particles. We are limited by our cognitive evolution whose boundaries need to be overcome.

I hope I understood you as well as your barmaids. God-knows I've come across a lot of them more intelligent than myself in my time.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

Peter,

This is impressive, You start your essay as a storyteller and interdisciplinary generalist, setting the table about the questions instead of just diving in with the argument. I like that. Could you clarify how the segue into angular momentum carries on to the end point, and per relevance to genetic change etc? I know how important the subject is in general in QM, what I ask is: how in particular, this aspect relates to other issues. Maybe looking at comments from others will help me understand your strategy here - and I need to brush up on "spin networks," spintronics and the like. The latter surely has relevance to neurology at the fine level such as in microtubules. There is something here to pursue. Best.

Peter,

o.k., the particles propagate on their polar axis. Therefore the equators build an up/down line, so by propagating the equators do describe a helix-like path. Is this helix-like path the 'curl' you metioned?

I understood the charge of the photons the way that only 10 exp 46 photons in a wavefront have the charge of one electron (detector field electron). Is this correct?

What do you mean by "When 'split' they maintain that attitude, so lead by OPPOSITE charges"? Do you mean negative versus positive?

"The 'requantize' the energy by absorption and re-emission, and their angle DICTATES the new Cosine values of curl and AM. (that is equivalent to entirely poorly understood 'wavefunction collapse')"

You mean *They ‚requantize'*, right? So i assume that the particles are re-quatized. What property is re-quantized, the charge i guess? Or do you mean by re-quantized that the particle's new orientation is different from the absorbed particle's orientation?

So, your DFM has two governing mechanisms, one the momentum, the other the detector field angles? What do these two mechnisms contribute to the measurement and first of all how do they contribute to the measurement result?

I couldn't watch your video, because your link has no valid internet adress attached.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Peter,

Here's a 10 bomb for you. This is not vote collusion. I ask nothing in return, although a comment or question in my forum might be nice.

It's amusing, my first essay did not even receive 10 votes total, but this year's has had almost that number of 1 bombs.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Peter,

the field electrons dictate orientation (due to their own orientation relative to the incoming particle) and this orientation dictates the measurement outcome (if no more intermediate interactions occur), is this correct so far?

The dial you spoke of is the polarisation filter, i guess?

"Yes, +/-. If North happens to be left, then even when split, if heading left it will only be found negative, so the one heading right is Positive."

Let's assume that the two polarisators have the same angles (there is no relative difference in angles between them). Then the one particle (say, the left with north) is re-quantized with a certain 'power (charge)', depending on the particles initial angle relative to this polarisator, is this correct? For the other particle it is the same, but with the difference that the certain 'power (charge)' i spoke of is complementary to the one for the first particle (the north particle). Complementary in the sense that if one would add up both 'powers (charges)', it always results in the maximum charge that is possible on a single particle. Is this correct?

So if we give the maximum charge (power) an arbitrary value of 1, then the charges of the two particles always add up to 1. The same principle should then be true also for the other property you spoke of, namely the tangentially linear momentum. If charge has a zero peak at the equator, this tangentially linear momentum has its maximum peak at the equator and vice versa. The two properties of the particle, the charge and the linear momentum, have their opposite interaction powers both at 180 degree.

Concerning the two-channel photoamplifiers, i now could investigate how these tools function in detail due to mainstream physics. But i guess they work a bit different in your scenario. Anyways, it would be helpful for me if you would explain me the detailed mechanism. Only ever one channel will click, i understood so far (and is self-evident). What channel will click depends on the orientation of the final re-quantized particle arriving at the photoamplifier. But how can a clicking rate depend on the (charge and/or linear momentum) amplitude of a single particle event? As i understood it so far, at the poles, there is no tangentially linear momentum, but maxiumum power (charge). But what for the case *near* the pole - does a certain channel, say the minus-channel (arbitrarily choosen), click here and what is the mechanism that would *prevent* this channel to click? I mean i must understand how a continuum of charge-values from the pole to the equator translates into a binary clicking behaviour of either + or - channel. At what point of the mentioned continuum does the clicking-channel switch from + to - ? The same question arises for the continuum of the tangentially linear momentum. How are these continua quantized into + or - clicks in the photoamplifiers for a *single* particle event? Something inside them must decide which channel clicks for a single particle event and this is something i haven't understood yet from your hitherto explanations.

After a flue and lots of antibiotica i do well again! Thanks for your compliments concerning my essay, i do my best to clear up some issues which i consider as fog concerning the essay contest's questions!

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Sir,

Your opening sentence is very interesting. We have partial knowledge about many things. Other have knowledge about some of it, part of which may be similar and partly different. Assuming all are correct, it implies that there is more to know and the limit on our knowledge of any subject can be boundless to include all knowledge on that subject. This can be said about knowledge on all subjects. We find a pattern in physics, where the infinite complexities are sought to be explained by a few particles and we are searching for a GUT. On the same analogy, we can think of a 'creator', who is the repository of all knowledge. As you say: All have infinite recursion, in both directions. Yes. We call extending from one to multitude as "science" and the opposite effect as "knowledge". For your "mathematical universe, physical and meta-physical universes and a creator", we call it matter, energy and conscious interpretation.

Your description of Jimal Khalili's 'Shut up while we calculate' is in conformity with the above view. Measurement or calculation or experiment are dynamical processes involving some kind of energy. Result of measurement is a static quantity. A process cannot be measured. Only after the process ceases (even in an intermittent level), we can measure it another static unit through comparison to get some scalar quantity. The static quantity is information, which must be cognized by an observer through measurement again. This implies, observer is also static at conscious level, though the observation has a material (hence mathematical and physical) and an energy (including meta-physical) component.

To explain the statement further, let us see what is mind. Think of a system at rest. It implies, all the forces acting on it are cancelling each other and with reference to its environment, it is "charge neutral". Now if one of the forces acting on it is disturbed, it will lead to a couple of motions: one in the direction of the force that was removed and the other the back reaction created by this motion on other parts at rest. It is like bringing a positive or negative charge near a charge neutral body. The point from where action starts is called mind. It acts like the sodium-potassium pump in our body. The external impulse starts a reaction that activates the mind both ways and the impulse is carried to the brain for processing.

We frequently compare mind with RAM and brain with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time to time if overloaded. Similarly mind goes to sleep if overworked. Intelligence is like CPU, which does the processing of all sensory inputs. Just like CPU cannot execute a program that is "not on the disc" and has not been loaded in the RAM, intelligence cannot act without mind. If memory speed is less than FSB, it takes too long to fetch an instruction or an operand. Similarly, mind shows dullness or brightness based on its species specific speed. Just like the CPU and RAM differ in processing capabilities (arithmetic dexterity) and storage capacity respectively even after the computer breaks down; different species show different levels of behavior. These are input, memory, processing and output related and not perception related (as "I know" or happiness, pain, desire etc.). Vital energy that starts breathing, which continues perpetually is like the power supply (electricity provided by a battery). The first breath is like the BIOS Chip, which boosts the computer and searches and loads the OS to RAM from ROM that cannot be modified, which is equivalent to memory content of the new born (such as to cry to draw attention of others when it is uncomfortable or to suckle the nipple when it is brought near its mouth when hungry and many such first time behavior, which has not been experienced by it since birth). First breathing is like first boosting of the computer. Like Consciousness, OS is same for all computers, but BIOS varies from computer to computer. Similarly, consciousness in all living beings exhibits itself through DNA coding, which is species specific. It is a program semi permanently stored into one of the main chips. The OS creates virtual memory in HDD by creating a page-file when the system runs out of RAM. Similarly, we recollect more recollections correlated with greater connectivity among different regions of brain. Sometimes "over-clocking" boosts up OS speed. Similarly, suddenly we have bright ideas.

More RAM directly increases the amount of applications run simultaneously, faster loading time, faster boot up, and overall greater boost through all aspects. Greater brain size and surface area (creases) does the same for living beings. The better the CPU, more information can be processed at a time. Similarly, better intelligence can take faster decisions. The better the HDD, the faster the information can be passed on to the processor. The bigger the HDD, more information can be stored. The bigger the brain surface area, the faster and better operations could be performed. The CPU processes information in computers using logic gates. Intelligence does the same thing through sensory agencies. CPU directs RAM to do what is important. RAM can provide inputs, but cannot directly take decisions. Intelligence takes decisions based on inputs provided by mind only. When switched off, RAM becomes empty. CMOS battery keeps the CMOS alive the chip even when the computer is turned off. Similarly, intelligence remains active even in deep sleep. This way, macroscopic phenomena are connected to the brain's known neural activity. But when someone says "macroscopic quantum phenomena", we are at a loss. If it is macroscopic, it cannot be quantum. If both are the same, both these terms are superfluous.

There are differences between brain's software and computer software. A computer can simultaneously test for more than one condition or execute multiple commands. But the brain cannot do so. They follow sequence of logical efforts first and knowledge of such efforts later. Computers run on standard/special programs, which are soft, i.e., flexible to be instantly reprogrammed. These are put to the hardware to become operational. Similarly, the body matter including the bacteria, neurons, DNA, microtubules, etc., are hardwires that operationalize the life's software. But who writes the program? Only conscious beings can initiate action based on freewill. It is different from motion, which is a mechanical reaction. Thus, we have to admit a super consciousness outside all mechanical devices including robots.

The rest of your paper is extension of this concept through illustration. A thoroughly enjoyable exercise.

Regards,

basudeba