Peter,

I have read your essay but it makes me difficult to understand given its depth and complexity, but I agree with you that our essays are complementary and that in the future we can discuss them more in depth.

I understand that your proposals are centered on the smaller scales (between the quantum scales up to the Planck scales (10 ^ -20 to 10 ^ -35 m).

These scales are still a mystery and different concepts (strings, KK spaces, loops, ...) and theories (CDT, DSR, ...) are being dealt with ... and also Fractal Theory can be an alternative.

For me, the fact that the processes that occur on these scales, then can generate other processes on higher scales as different as simply an immaterial being, or an intelligent being, makes the concept of emergency so important.

Where can we say that the separation between the two occurs? ... evidently it seems that it begins in the biochemistry, that is, from the scale point of view to the 10 ^ -10 m.

I will send you my book that best explains my proposal ("THE FRACTAL RAINBOW") and I trust that we may be in contact in the future.

    Dear Peter,

    Since I am not sure that will be able to read your text entirely and with full attention before April 7, I am limiting myself so far with a brief remark on just a single statement: "Maths or matter may imply a creator, who must be created." The causal source is required for special things, but not true for totalities. You might be interested to see how we deal with that problem in our previous fqxi essay Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe .

    All the best,

    Alexey Burov.

      Hi Peter,

      Lots of interesting concepts raised in your essay - and I will have to spend some time contemplating their bearing!

      I have also started looking at some of your related material on QM.

      Regards,

      David C.

        Hi Peter,

        Having another look at your nice essay as the competition draws to a close. A commendable effort...

        Regards,

        Akinbo

        Dear Peter,

        many people call unification of QM and general relativity (GR) the 'holy grail', probably also Penrose. Do you have a reference for Penrose calling unification of QM and special relativity (SR) the 'holy grail'? SR vs. GR matters a lot here.

        I know EPR and that Einstein coined the word 'spooky' in this context, but not in order to claim a fundamental incompatibility of QM and SR.

        QFT has it's issues, I'm happy to agree on that.

        Do you have a good example which illustrates the alleged incompatibility of QM and SR?

        Please don't take this as criticism, I'd really like to understand your point.

        Cheers, Stefan

        Hi Peter,

        This is easily the most overwhelming essay in the contest.....in a good way! And you conclusions are logical and enlightening. I looked at it in chunks now it is time to vote.

        Thanks for your epic work,

        Don Limuti

          Peter - Thank you for the comment on my essay. I have responded, and include my remarks here as a matter of convenience:

          "Thank you for the careful read and excellent comments. Yes, I did read your essay - I found it difficult to follow but I am in general agreement with key points. Specifically, I would agree that "Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but it also does so for most physical and meta-physical universes and a 'creator'. All have infinite recursion, in both directions." An excellent and profound observation. I did stumble on the following sentence - "Maths or matter may imply a creator, who must be created." This implies infinite regress, which of course one is free to follow - although a single infinite (recursive) first creator is a much simpler speculation.

          I cheerfully agree as well with your final conclusion: "No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our or any universe."

          In your comment above, I am struck by a thought I had not articulated in my essay. Perhaps the undecidability of the nature of cosmic architecture (random vs. specific) that I discuss in some detail extends down to fundamental QM events at the point of interaction. A billiard ball (simple model of a spinning moving sphere) connects with another billiard ball --- is that precise interaction exactly the one required to send the second billiard ball into the pocket? As we conceptually dive down past the macro-particles to the QM level where the contact is instantiated, 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.

          It is a pleasure to converse with you! Perhaps through more conversation we will be able to meet Einstein's criteria - "we should be able to be explain physics to a barmaid" - or bartender as we should say in the 21st century..."

          Cheers - George Gantz

            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