Dear Peter,

Thanks for the fine essay. Very insightful and well written. I've commented about it as part of my response to your comments on my essay.

Best of luck.

Kigen

    Ulla,

    We must see through the fog & myths to what Qualia are; fine differences between memories, all interlinked. The smells of 5 different roses can be distinguished, each recalled on seeing a colour or form, hearing a name, even feeling a petal.

    Decoding half the quantum noise in a Shannon channel with Classic QM allows far more information storage and a more Intelligent Bit or 'IQbit' (fqxi2104), though, with last years red & green (reversible) socks and now finding Cos2, only now complete. This may then allow multi trillions of memories/cm3 deep within our neural RAM architecture.

    Dan Dennett found he only needed trillions, and called qualia simply "the ways things seem to us". How could anything "seem" to be anything without being memories? Infinitely small distinguishable patterns. As a cosmologist I can conceive the enormous 'room at the top' we have, and as Wheeler said - there's also "plenty of room at the bottom"! Humanity finds that similarly hard to conceive (a bit like Classic QM!) but only as we have no memory of it!

    Peter

    Peter: I have read your article. It is a scholarly article with strong bent towards intellectual logician. We have both agreements and dis-agreements. I can learn a lot from you; which means we can collaborate and complement each other, if you want. Chandra.Roychoudhuriatuconn.edu. You can also download some of my selected papers from http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/. Specifically, I would suggest down load the paper "2014.2". It explains my methodology of thinking in more detail.

    "At present we're wandering in the dark. We do know physical motion and interactions exist, but we won't know if any algorithm is correct

    until we fully understand the mechanisms."

    AGREE.

    My methodology of thinking is that we must implement Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).

    "Our brains themselves are part of the system as part of the observer."

    DISAGREE.

    Human brain is only the interpreter. It is physically separate and independent of the data-generating instrument where the interaction processes are going on (invisible to us; and that is the problem. Counter example: Unless, of course, you are analyzing your own brain. Say, you inside an fMRI machine and interactively trying to interpret the images while the images are dynamically changing as your logical brain is WANDERING to find the intellectually most pleasing solution.

    Again, thanks for writing an excellent article.

    ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri

      Hi Peter

      I agree with your statement that the REAL start of conscious intelligence is when;

      A BRAIN IS ABLE TO ORGANIZE AND ARRANGE STORED INPUT TO 'IMAGINE' FUTURE SCENARIOS, TRIGGERING MOTOR NEURONE RESPONSES, WHICH THEN LEADS TO CREATION OF WHAT WE TERM 'INTENT' and 'GOALS'.

      Also pattern matching

      Best

      John laMuth

        Dear Peter,

        now I had a chance to see your video (nice socks) and read also the old paper about classic QM. That was really hard work for a non-native speaker....

        Did I understood you right: you derived the cosine expression by geometric arguments (I was able to follow). Then you argued that an interaction term will produce the cosine square (in agreement with QM as you correctly stated).

        But here you supposed many instances but there is only one wave function. Ok if you will argue like Bohm then there is a non-local self-interaction. Seondly the wave function is not a real wave.

        Also you mispoken in the video: you described spin 1/2 (instead of spin 2) which needs 720 degrees to identity (in general 360/s degrees with spin s)

        All the best and good luck for the contest

        Torsten

          Dear Peter Jackson,

          Thank you for the nice explanations...!

          So these "You mean both blue and redshifts are simultaneously present in a single Galaxy" are visible in a Galaxy that stays edge on and both the Astronomical jets are visible. Dynamic Universe Model also explains the existence of such Galaxies. These are classified as Galaxies which are not redshifted as well as NOT Blueshifted.

          .......................Your words.................. Overall galaxies are bluer or redder. Open spirals are bluest (youngest) and large sphericals reddest (oldest), There are 2 other Blue/Red distributions of lower magnitude; First within each, which is complex and for various reasons (my papers explains) and including a 'dynamic' shift due to rotational velocity each 'side' *See Sauron, Atlas 3G etc.)................... Reply.................

          Correct

          .................................... your words........................Second there is the 'Distance' (so time) distribution. Light from further away has higher redshift. Popular theory can only think of assigning this to accelerating expansion but I show that's not required Redshift Video. ................... Reply.................

          Very nice Video

          .................................... your words........................ There's also an underlying 'epoch' pattern of galaxy evolution, with peaks in quasar activity, which may paper also coherently explains as a recycling mechanism, into a new blue open spiral. ................... Reply.................

          Good

          .................................... your words........................

          46c Yes, You got it. The pulse speed inside a collimated (layered) quasar jet See the NASA finding citation in my papers references. It doesn't need 'nutrino's or anything exotic. Look at Martin Rees's work going back even to the 1960's, and floods of data now available. No theory is considered worth a bean unless it confirms to the latest data! ................... Reply.................

          Real Hard to believe.... Can you please give some references?

          Best wishes Peter for your paper.

          =snp

            Hi, Peter

            A whole paper (or maybe book) could be written just to unpack the first paragraph of your essay!

            I think what you meant to say in the first sentence of the second paragraph of your introduction is "Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but so also do most physical and metaphysical universes..." ? After all, there is only one nature. Great point that math implies a creator.

            If you are interested in the "hard problem of consciousness," I have some thoughts on the "Homunculus Fallacy" [link:independent.academia.edu/DanBruiger].

            I am afraid I cannot comment on QM, which I know little about, except to say that (along with the different statistics) the fact that "light always has the polarization state given by the last polarizer" strikes me as one of the keys to what makes quantum different from classical. I could add that the idea of "spin" (QAM) is really a metaphor, based on the macroscopic notion. Other metaphors could work to describe the experimental findings, based on wave harmonics, for example.

            I like your conclusion that "We will keep wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to 'self-evolve' to allow more complex rational thinking & logic". That strikes me as a profound insight and a springboard to more writing...

            Best wishes,

            Dan

              Peter,

              My worry was that you went beyond the topic of the contest. I now realize how foolish my worry. You addressed most (if not all) the topics which is by itself a wonderful thing. Where you want to go with spin states cannot hurt and might help.

              Try to remember the little people after you win,

              Jeff

              • [deleted]

              • Post #217

              Torsten,

              Thanks. I derived BOTH Spin 1/2 AND Spin 2 (720o) in the video. But like the essay it was all packed in rather tightly! For ease I post the 100 second version here so you can see it again (just different relative rates of z axis rotation).

              And yes, the rest was correct, the cosine distribution with Latitude well known in Geophysics and known in marine navigation. The new realization was the inverse and orthogonal relationship of 'curl' (or +/- charge), so also Chiral.

              The 3D cascade mechanism squaring the values dawned on me slowly. I'd already looked at QCD and knew the 'squared by a field' effect from there, and experiments, so l knew it existed. The only question was how it was produced. Maybe also training as an architect honed 3D visualization skills - 'seeing' real 3D bodies from 2D images.

              In all it was just like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. With all the pieces related in just one of infinitely many possible ways it all suddenly fits together.

              On the 'wavefunction' I don't understand "only one". There is one for each emission, or 'photon' (or many very similar ones) and NOTHING is really 'non-local' (leaving the special case 'tomography' out for the moment). As Zeilingers experiments confirm, each 'particle', wave or wavefunction, is modulated on interaction (i.e. a polarizer or modulator) which is a total collapse, to be re-Born (lol) as a NEW function, with NO MEMORY of the old!

              I prefer to say "requantized" as a new/re emission'. (It may also be looked as as a local part of a plane wavefront - so we get 'bi/tri(etc)refringence' in diffuse media until the whole wavefront has been modulated - as Raman found long ago). Huygens construction then works fine, and is very much alive and well and central to cutting edge Optics and Photonics, and that's why.

              I hope that helps tie up the many apparent loose ends (and sweep away many wrong jigsaw puzzle piece positions and orientations!)

              John,

              Yes, thanks. I mention the key role of pattern matching in the essay, but also identify it the main basis of our 'primevally' evolved 'auto response' Mode 1 thinking mechanism (mainly called 'intuition') which I suggest we need to self-evolve AWAY from (to Mode 2 rational thinking mechanisms) in physics if we're to truly advance our understanding of nature (and stay ahead of AI!)

              In practice; Anything that's not already installed as a memory (pattern), like new physics or understandings, is 'auto rejected' by Mode 1 thinking.

              Peter

              Stefan,

              No probs. I think should challenge everything! QM & SR incompatibilities are fundamental. QM contradicts the central Principle of Relativity and needs 'absolute' time, and non-locality, both anathema to SR. Many essays here note the issues, including I recall Beichler, Yousef, Kraklaue, Roychoudhuri etc. Penrose called them 'twin pillars of science', which can never meet. I discussed in detail in 3 finalist essays from '2020 Vision' in 2010 (2011 contest).

              But more helpful may be a coherent solution appearing when the 'jigsaw puzzle' seemed to fall into place, but needing slightly new views of both. Lets say an electron re-emits absorbed light at the only speed it knows, 'c' in it's own local 'centre of mass' rest frame. Now consider Maxwell near/far field Transition Zone (TZ) as the surface charge free electrons of ALL matter. Light then changes speed to the LOCAL c on arrival (not quite instantly in diffuse plasma & gas). Brains into Mode 2 please! Then if you and a pal in space wait for some light, you head towards it and he heads AWAY from it, when you do so it has no effect on the light, apart from the different Doppler shifts as it changes speed by different amounts on arrival, so does c/n through BOTH your lenses.

              That 'discrete field' model (DFM) meets Einsteins conceptual description in 1953 and is very simple once embedded. It also happens to be exactly what resolves all the wierdness in QM! Bob and Alice can rotate that fine structure TZ field direction to change and even REVERSE the 'spin states' ('re-quantized wavefunction' if you like). QMs predictions emerge with so called 'non-locality' effects produced entirely classically. Uncertainty doesn't disappear but reduces in fractals, so we have complete causality but NOT complete determinism!

              (You may need to take that in 3 times a day for a week to stop your embedded pattern's rejecting it). Please do challenge any of it (but also read the previous essays to save me rewriting them here!)

              Thanks for the interest.

              Peter

              Tommaso,

              Thanks. Compatible concepts were with PDLogics "hierarchy of levels" each giving emergence, and so "goals" as just past 'decisions' at a 'lower' level leading subsequnt ;cascades; of decisions serving the first (via feedback loops), so "just a narrative trick for describing, a-posteriori, features of mechanisms."

              So then; "All we have is mechanisms - interacting, computational mechanisms all over the place". We may then have sub goals and sub-sub goals ad infinitum. So; "goals prosper as levels of emergence start to pile up,".

              On AI. Quantum computing is stalled, thus the Turing winners view. However decoding the 'Shannon channel' noise, which Classic QM seems to allow (you may also recall the 'IQBit') may accelerate that, so also AI development. Researching AI for the essay rather worried me! Hawking, Gates, Musk etc. are all worried too. Musk thinks even a kill switch would be overcome as they'd kill us first. They could certainly disable it! My guess? I don't like guessing, ..but 'not in my lifetime'. Then again I am retirement age!

              The best answer I have is to self evolve our OWN intellect so as not to be overtaken. Not as hard as some may assume, but we first need to recognise and address the problem! That means more Mode 2 (complex rationalisation) and less Mode 1 (intuitive/pattern matching) responses. I note your footnote, but consider carefull (in mode2), did that really emerge from a Mode 1 or Mode 2 response?

              Best

              Peter

              Hi Peter I have read your essay. I think it is good that you start out relating your answer to the essay topic. The second half seemed to me to be a different essay from the first part. It is clearly something you feel is very important and wanted to discuss. Kind regards Georgina

                Thanks for your kind words. I've responded to your post on yours. I also scored yours earlier.

                Peter

                Luke,

                Thanks. Many professionals disagree it's 'accessible', which is the experimental confirmation I expected proving my hypothesis about thinking modes. If there's no embedded memory/pattern of something then the Mode 1 'reactive' response is to refuse it admission.

                BUT! I'm not sure where; "abandoning classical mechanisms" came from! Au Contraire Rodders! I agree that's FALSE! What I do is abandon the illogical QUANTUM mechanism. Which is easier to do as there ISN'T ONE!, that's it's problem, there's just an imaginary 'superposed spin state' and a formula, which is classical and we essentially keep!

                The 'TWO STATE' electron was demanded by Pauli etc decades ago (Bohr rather dismissed it) but I show it's REAL! Could you find 'clockwise or anticlockwise' by touching an equator? or up/down by touching a pole? yet BOTH are momenta!, and both present in m Maxwell's equations!!

                Of course as it's not already embedded as a memory in physicist brains the common 'Mode 1' thinking means it won't be admitted by all but the most intelligent thinkers (using Mode2 rational analysis).

                And yes, I explained in an earlier essay how 'frequency' is not 'real' but a time derivative and is abused. As an astronomer I know we HAVE to use lambda (wavelength) as fundamental to make sense of the universe.

                I can't remember section 9 but do please use/take up that department in collaboration if you wish and if helpful.

                Yes, I jammed it full but left a lot outside the boxes. Very perceptive. Much is already written elsewhere but far from all as it flows out rather overwhelmingly. All collaborations welcome!

                I just checked, I did score yours earlier, one of just a few 10's.

                Please do stay in touch.pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

                Very best,

                Peter

                Lorraine,

                'Is your idea refutable; have you spoken to appropriate theoreticians & experimenters for their various opinions." Yes. The process with new findings still seems to be; "First it's ignored or rejected, then misinterpreted and argued over, then trivial, then entirely self apparent anyway." It's had all those responses, because once properly studied and assessed it actually is "entirely self apparent". Indeed it's consistent with Maxwell where QM isn't! But most are at stage 1, with no response at all.

                That's not a surprise and supports the first thesis of my essay; in Mode 1 thinking if a memory doesn't already exist then a new idea won't match anything so is rejected a priori.

                I understand your point on AI, but it's now being overtaken as AI learns in ways not anticipated. Indeed experiments are run to FIND OUT what it can and can't do! (Take a look at Larissa Albantakis 'experimental analysis' essay for a very simple current example). Sure we make rules and set conditions, but often we have no idea what's possible within those. In advanced deep learning & fluid AI it may then reasonably become possible (with more layering, 'RAM' and 'feedback loops' etc) for the 'brain' to overcome the initial rules and set it's own! That's what Elon Musk found and is worried by; even if we have 'kill switch' it may kill us first or disable it.

                Is that reasonable? Also look at my response to Ulla's question on qualia here, and at Danial Dennett's work.

                I owe you a response on your blog, also a rating, which so's you know what's cumin I'd noted as provisionally 8 but I'll re-{speed} read it). I'll pop up to see you shortly (I know most think of South as DOWN but I think it should really be UP as its , and I do insist on looking fo ALL ways to look at things! - Is it UP to you?)

                Very Best

                Peter

                David,

                Thanks. I did state it needed to be read slowly! (Thinking Mode 2) but English being a foreign language (and not brilliant for science!) makes it worse. I speed read most essays first. I penetrate to between 90% & 10% (& often read again in mode2) With mine It'd be less than 10%!

                "Where can we say that the separation between the two occurs?" Not just two in my book! Literally; like interleaved pages, and exactly as (in logic) the infinite (indeed 'fractally' structured) number of possible bracketed functions within bracketed compound functions/propositions(2015) in arithmetic. So at EVERY 'scale'.

                I'd be delighted to receive your book. (I'm thinking about mere effective ways of getting info embedded into our networks but only video's beat reading so far!)

                I just checked, I did score yours (highly). Can you tell me why you think the condensate itself is also fractal? No reason why not, but any evidence or reason why?

                Tanks

                Peter

                Alexey,

                Yes I recall the essay, scoring well & close to mine. I was intrigued by, but recall finding no convincing argument or evidence supporting, the starting proposition; "The wide range, high precision and simplicity of the fundamental laws of nature rule out the possibility for them to be randomly generated or selected. Therefore purpose is present in their selection."

                Indeed as everything is relative I think could make a good case that our current laws are quite the opposite; Limited in range, incomplete and often approximate. Of course that can't rule out; 'purpose in selection' but I didn't feel that 'rule out' randomness.. or 'therefore' purpose.. were proven to be the best choice of terms.

                You note I wrote 'may imply a creator'... because I agree it is indeed uncertain. My point is that 'agency' is an inescapable infinitely recursive concept UNLESS we step over to the metaphysical. I noticed someone else made that point better than me, and agree with Alan Kadin who argued 'Humans see agency and intent everywhere, because we are programmed to do so". Also agreeing with Dennett, who points out essentially that all such concepts and matters of 'totality' are emergent concepts.

                I can't recall, did you have another 'non metaphysical' definition of a 'totality.'?

                I also can't recall what intelligence you assigned the 'purpose' to?

                I did rate this years higher, but think you've missed some excellent work and derivations here in saying of; "connection between thought and matter... attempts so far turned out to be futile." I hopy you'll study carefully when you've time as I think it's become clear some now look well beyond that!

                Very Best

                Peter