Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

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

Akinbo, Don,

(sorry, but lets save posts!) Thank you both. Much appreciated. I think you both did very well too and (just checked!) scored both accordingly.

Very best

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

Stefan,

Sorry about the delay, busy reading & responding, then a weekend away.

I think we too often rely on assumptions and hearsay in physics. Those and poor descriptions leads to much misunderstanding. Lets just deal with actual results rather than what people may of may not think or 'know'.

The only 2 slit experiments I know not showing interference patterns on a backboard are when actual states are changes or blocked. I've done the one removing it with twin orthogonal polarisers myself, similar to to the 3 filter case in my video and as my model predicts. The single slit after the pair in Fig2 just makes it a single slit diffraction case. Zeilinger was of course entirely correct in the (once removed) correlation of paths 1 and 2. If you can find any actual experimental results showing no 2 slit interference do please post them.

Also compare Zeilingers findings 15 years later that photons have 'no memory' of previous state with the analysis his 1999 paper, assuming the contrary at the path 1 lens! (s290 right hand para; "..provides information about it's direction, i.e., momentum before entering the lens.") Sure understanding improves, so lets keep up with it!

The Key point here is more fundamental Stefan. In my schema there are TWO 'states' as opposed the the assumed one, and orthogonal, and thus no case of 'which path'. It's the false initial assumptions that cause all the confusion that follows. All have recognised there looks like something wrong or incomplete in QM, Einstein, Bell, Feynman, and Anton Zeilinger!; (s292 bottom)"Such a picture would imply a theory underlying quantum physics which provides a more detailed account of individual mechanisms". All I've done is identified it, allowing a coherent interpretation without needing the illogical nonsense!

If it were the other war round, if we HAD the sensible derivation and I was proposing an illogical one relying on wierdness and backward causality then I'd expect all to resist! I suggest the only problem here Stefan is quite normal cognative dissonance, as the first part of my essay identifies.

But do present any ACTUAL apparently contrary findings. I have searched for some time but perhaps not exhaustively.

Very Best.

Peter

PS; See also my blog ref to Pauli's important spectral lines solution, from which we got the periodic table. His strict condition was that the valance electron HAD to somehow have TWO-VALUEDNESS! He never did did find an explanation of what that meant so we've always assumed it's 'classically indescribable'. No longer perhaps as that's exactly what the 2nd state is.

Peter,

I mean that from Maxwells equations and in standard electrodynamics (EM) electricity and magnetism have an orthogonal relationship, exactly as the two states; 'curl' (peaking at the poles) and 'angular momentum' (peaking at the equator) - so 'orthogonal', or acting at 90 degrees to each other.

Then their inversely proportional complementarity and cosine distributions, (which we've now reproduced classically), also reproduce the predictions of QM (once the cos values are squared by the photo-detector cascade). All we then need is to agree electrons DON'T all re-emit absorbed energy at 'different' speeds wrt their own 'centre of mass' rest frame, and Special Relativity fits naturally into the whole 'Discrete Field' model as well! (see my essays from 2011 on).

That IS a lot to take on at once, but does it now make better sense?

Very best

Peter

Conrad,

Thanks. What I've identified is that a classical explanation of QM's predictions can help REVEAL a deeper level of understanding to the quantum domain. There's a fantastic amount still to discover but I suggest we can never do that if we're making the wrong 'starting assumptions'.

Very best

Peter

James,

Thanks. I agree. Secret judging, like peer reviewing, is reasonable and acceptable as long as you get some degree of feedback from those doing the evaluation. I have suggested it but (again) had no response. Form an evaluators viewpoint there will seem many reasons not to.

I'm not concerned about the prizes, just advancement of understanding of nature. However as my essay identifies we seem to be far slower than we could be at intellectual evolution, perhaps as Hawking, Gates, Musk and other suspect, too slow to stop AI overtaking & eradicating us in the foreseeable future!

Very best

Peter

Jonathan,

Thanks. Yes, it does. I'd actually tried to make contact with the Vienna lot but had the usual (no!) response. The raw data all agrees with the causal model (as do ALL experiments) but their analysis is 'one dimensional' (they note they aspire to two in future!) so they're some way behind other work and Nature, which is 3D!

I'd only speed read most of it so went back, which was worth doing. The 2nd (orthogonal) 'state' is actually identified but they say (as it's still not understood) that they're only "concerning themselves" with the one! (that's rather like trying to solve a Rubic cube from a picture of one side! A few other labs are ahead of them with 3D work (i.e. Allen, The Planck Inst. etc.) See also my prev 3 essays and refs etc on the helical paths they 'discover! The hype may have been as much about funding as anything.

They also rely on old doctrinal assumptions which gives rise to the 'surprise' findings etc and makes their limited analysis even less useful. - Indeed most analysis focuses on an anticipated range of possible practical applications (consistent with a funding motivation).

Thanks for flagging it up. It should indeed have been relevant, but like most current experimentation, though the data all fits the 2nd, orthogonal, momentum state I identify it remains simply 'invisible' to most minds beyond Maxwell's 'theoretical construct' and a bit of lip service!

Have you managed to 'hold' it in your mind? (I assume you watched the video - short version here; 100sec 'glimpse' video. )

Very best

Peter