Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

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

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

David,

Thanks, great! I look forward to discussing further. Of course QM was just a test of a coherent adjustment in understanding of SR allowing unification (see earlier finalist essays from here on) 2020 Vision fqxi 2010 It's seemed to pass! (Shocking I know).

Peter

George,

Great response. On; "do we perhaps not find a choice point --- a single quantum interaction, fundamentally indeterminate, where a 50:50 probability ultimately decides the fate of the second billiard ball? By such interactions the fine tuning constants may have emerged in our universe." Good point. I suspect there must be a direct link.

In fact the NEW PHYSICS I identify contains TWO such 50:50 probability 'crossovers', PHYSICALLY producing the twin inverse 90o curve crossovers of QM.

On the (Bloch) sphere (maybe think 'sponge' rather than 'billiard' ball) the ZERO MOMENTUM tangent points are at the Poles and on the Equator (so orthogonal). So the latter has 50:50 +/- charge ('curl'), and the poles each 50:50 UP/DOWN angular momentum.

These are real, as a dynamometer will tell us, but they've been in the hiding place every spy known is best, in plain sight, and on the very surface of eyeballs, lenses and antenna! That surface becomes Maxwell's near/far field transition zone if we're in motion in the local background, so implementing LOCAL SR as well as ClassicQM! (well you do did manage the 'difficult to follow' essay - so just read that 7 times in brain Mode2 and it'll start making make perfect sense!)

Let me know if it does. Now about those barmaids....

Best

Peter

PS; Lots of other stuff flows out as may be expected, but to keep interpretation on the rails; god MAY still exist, the model is entirely causal (ok 'quasi'.. as Gell Mann) but NOT entirely deterministic, and uncertainty does NOT go away, it just reduces as a fractal with scale (as heliospheres are bigger than planets, beach, balls, peas etc. & electrons).

Peter.

Thanks. Good idea. What to call it was tricky, but there's a popular UK radio channel 'ClassicFM', so ClassicQM just sounded natural!

I thought your own essay revealed deep understanding of QM and scored it 10. Some key extracts/quotes for others who may believe the 'folklore' of QM's mystical; 'superposed spin states';

"Heisenberg [4]: 'I pointed out that we cannot, in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition probabilities, but no actual path.'

....there is a motion of the superposition state of spin AND electric charge (Dirac describing spin and charge of the electron) ...how naturally such quantum invariants as spin and electric charge independent from a quantum setup may be included in the geometry of complex projective quantum state space."

The two 'states' were always right there, but one just ignored!. Even more shockingly they're also equivalent to the orthogonal E and M of EM!

Best

Peter

Chandra,

Fantastic, thanks. (Chandra.. Raman was a hero of mine).

Yes, I agree. I'll have to check the context of my 'brain' comment as I've pre agreed your description. See; fqxi 2012 7th. to see how it matches up.

I've also hit your link and the 2014.2 button, (live here); www.natureoflight.org/CP/

Anybody reading this please look at Chandra's essay and score it up as it really should be a finalist!

Empower Mathematical Equations Using Evolution Process Congruent Thinking.

I'm away at a wedding this weekend so I'll read 2014.2 and we can talk next week. I'm sure I have much to learn from you too.

Very best of luck in the run-in

Peter

Thanks Georgina.

Yes, the 2 parts (really 3) are directly as well as indirectly connected which 'reverse engineered' the ontology, but I had to trim a few of the words that that clarified how. (And a few too many others!)

Essentially; The fine structure complexity required to produce 'Qualia' (Ullas excellent word) and 'intent' from the architecture and 'mechanisms' in our cortices simply wasn't adequate. However decoding all the 'noise' (in a Shannon information channel, - see my It from Bit IQbit essay) by revealing the second Cos2 momentum distribution on the surface of an electron easily allows it.

We then 'loop' back' (as the neural architecture does) to thinking modes, which shows why, because physicists have no 'memory' (patterns) embedded in that complex RAM, that all such new concepts are rejected a priori when thinking in Mode1 (primeval evolved intuitive response mode). So once you see the link you should see a massive elephant sized Catch 22! (some smaller scale ones have been identified!)

I actually announced a medium sized one; Anyone 'skipping over' the essay (mode 1) would miss most of it's true value. You'll see I guesstimated ~20% would 'get' the BIG and important (ClassicQM) discovery (many aren't interested in QM) that's just been surpassed, which is great progress!

I hope that helps. I hope that didn't feel too much like decoding Shakespeare in English Lit!- but I AM saying we need to self evolve to more Mode2 analytical thinking to understand nature better after all!!

Very best

Peter

Dan,

Thanks. I need to learn from Amazon; Use a shoe box to send a copy of Nature! It's all that thinking outside boxes! Yes, I agree that's what I meant in sentence 2.

Ah that was it; 'Humuncous fallacy'! I was trying to think of that term in answering Alexey Burov above. Did my reply re his 'Totalities' cut it? Do step in, ..and give your thoughts there and/or here.

Was I right dismissing the agent? (his % was too high!)

Best

Peter

snp

Both jets aren't always 'visible'. Often near full power the receding jet is too fast so the light is redshifted out of optical range. many are found in the IR, but nay not 'seen' at all! (The 'approaching' jets are then severely blue shifted).

I think the Sauron Galaxy rotation shift etc stuff is here; http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/sauron/publications.html

The HST 46c finding is here; Meyer, E.T. et al. Optical Proper Motion Measurements of the M87 Jet: New Results from the Hubble Space Telescope. ApJ, 2013 774, L21. I can't find a link for the mo but Google will. Nothing PROPAGATES faster than c, but from here Hubble 'see's' the inner pulses at 46c. It only takes a bit of mode2 thinking to work out! Most physicists seem to use mode 1 so dive for cover screaming rather than even look at it! It's simply angular change over distance, so only 'apparent' speed. See my earlier essay;2012 2020 Vision fqxi.

Also look up Rees's may papers, like; Rees, M.; Cosmic Jets. 1985. NASA. Goddard Space Flight Center Nineteenth International Cosmic Ray Conference. Vol. 9 17 p (SEE N86-31483 22-93)

But read, read, read, snp. Don't 'believe' a word of it but store the actual findings away upstairs ready for coherent interpretation! (or read & test mine!)

Best

Peter

PS try to never write 'Correct'. Nothing is fact or proved wrong, it just has more or less consistent evidence. You should just 'Agree' or explain why not!