Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson

Dear Peter Jackson,

I really enjoyed your essay, and being a computer engineer especially the parts on the need for hierarchical layered architectures to achieve learning and use of algorithms to possibly program some form of aims and intentions in machines. I need to read it a few more times to understand the QAM part better.

I would be interested in your thoughts on my submission titled 'Intention is Physical' in which I explore the possibility of learning dynamics and intentional agency as a manifestation of minimal energy dissipation. I too end up requiring an hierarchical predictive model to implement those dynamics, and explain how a little bit of wandering is not bad. Thanks and good luck.

Natesh

Sorry for the delay in replying, Peter. We all get a bit busy sometimes. It was a real pleasure looking at your ideas! You're correct that all any of us can do is follow our intuition and do the best we can. Then we have to wait and see what happens. It'd be nice if a paradigm shift could happen by 2020 (or even 2017). But from the way human nature appears to me, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait ... and wait ... and wait. It might be 2120 before people can accept a better paradigm. Best wishes, Rodney.

Your essay seems to be about two very different things; neural networks and the angular momentum of a rotating sphere. My focus is on the rotating sphere.

You argue that a classical rotating sphere of charge, which of course radiates at its precession frequency in a magnetic field, describes the spin of an electron. While a classical charge sphere has a continuum of states as it slowly loses energy in a magnetic field, an electron has just two states.

Until an observer bonds to the electron by a photon coupling, the electron exists in a superposition of up and down and the observer finds the electron either up or down in the magnetic field. Now both the phase and amplitude of the electron affect the phase and amplitude of the observer since the observer is also made up of spinning electrons and has bonded to the electron with other electrons.

It is difficult for me to understand why your argument of flipping a classical sphere helps me to understand the superposition states of an electron in a magnetic field. Now two electrons can exist in a quantum superposition state, entangled across the universe where one is up and the other down. Why this simple quantum concept is so difficult to understand is something that I do not understand.

It is true that most of reality behaves very classically and this is because quantum phase coherence exists for only very short times for macroscopic sources. For microscopic sources, quantum phase coherence can persist seemingly indefinitely for mainstream science. But in aethertime, there is an inherent very slow phase decay for the universe, 0.26 ppb/yr, that is what drives the universe charge and gravity forces. This phase decay is also what sets the arrow of time.

Your description does not seem to include phase decay and so it is not clear what happens to your two classical spheres that begin spinning together. How long do they spin in phase? Two classical spheres will only be subject to the chaos of classical noise, but two spinning quantum electrons are also subject to a quantum phase noise of decoherence.

So a classical observer can couple to a classical spinning source and measure the source spin without changing the source spin in ways the the observer can always know. A quantum observer bonds with a quantum source and therefore changes the source and observer phases in ways that the observer cannot know.

You have a very good intuitive approach and that intuition tells you that something strange goes on with physical reality. When you try to articulate your intuitions, your words seem to get in your way.

Orbital angular momentum is a well known classical and also quantum notions. However, those classical and quantum notions are not compatible because quantum phase and amplitude have no classical analogs.

You posit a classical observer who detects the angular momentum of a classical rotating sphere. Your classical observer forms quantum bonds with the rotating sphere by exchanging photons and after some period of observation, reports a velocity of rotation as well as a momentum or mass for that rotation.

The fact that the classical observer needed to form quantum bonds with the rotating sphere does not really change the report of velocity and momentum. You further argue that the relative orientation of the observer and rotating sphere will affect the measurement and this is certainly true. However, there does not appear to be any hidden truth in this classical description.

The hidden truth is that the classical observer used quantum bonding with photon exchange to measure the properties of the rotating sphere. That means that it is possible that some of the phase information of one rotating sphere would be entangled with another rotating sphere. In this case, two rotating spheres might show quantum correlation, but it would not be possible for the observer to know this without some other knowledge.

Moreover, the observer phase will affect the phase of the rotating sphere in ways that the observer cannot ever know. Thus the measurement of the sphere velocity first, and then momentum will never agree with measuring the momentum first and then velocity. That uncertainty in these measurements is quite small but inherent. Moreover, an entangle rotating sphere across the universe will show correlated properties to some observer over there as well.

Since the classical observer does not measure quantum phase, it will never make sense. Once a classical observer uses a phase sensitive spectrometer, they become a quantum observer and now can make better sense out of the way the universe is. However, a quantum observer believes in the existence of a fundamental uncertainty for reality because there is simply no way to know the exact quantum causes of some quantum effects.

It is very interesting that many people get wound up in the logic of identity recursion, even very smart people. Even very smart people discourse endlessly about the mysteries of quantum decay. Why do wavefunctions decay from one state to another? Wavefunctions decay because wavefunctions decay. This is an identity that describes an axiom in which one must simply believe: It is how the universe works.

A classical observer uses a spectrometer that does not measure phase and so a classical observer chooses to not believe in quantum phase. This works fine for many predictions of action, but a quantum observer measures phase. This means a quantum observer will naturally predict many more possible futures than a classical observer. So what? The classical observer can still argue endlessly about explaining the definition of quantum phase since they do not believe in it and so do not even bother to measure it.

Peter,

Good to see you here again.

Your description of present-day elements that hamper clear thinking descriptively represents a kind of stream-of-consciousness approach that will keep us "wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to "self evolve" to allow more complex rational thinking." Your quantum computing seems to describe a fractal-type processing that avoids the recursive and linear default modes we have developed.

You make a lot of good points about out-of-the-box mental "self-evolution" and fresh thinking built into our subconscious.

I touch on some of the same concepts but lack the PDL approach you have fashioned.

Jim Hoover

Dear Peter,

Since you asked me to read your paper in your comment on my paper's page, I was not sure if you wanted me to respond on my paper's page or yours, so I am doing it on both to cover both possibilities.

I am doing this partly because of a problem that I have noticed with the email notifications that tell when someone has made a new comment. If I press the link in the email it always takes me to my paper's page even if the comment was made to me on some other page. If several comments come in quickly it is easy for me to miss one on someone else's page that was made to me.

Thank you for your agreement with the understanding that the concept that the complex structure of the universe demonstrates a pattern of design and not just what would be expected from random natural occurrences. I have found that as people in this world proceed down a path of search for understanding they tend to gain beliefs some of which are likely to be true and some are also likely to be false because of lack of information or other causes. These beliefs tend to channel their further search patterns into narrower more localized searches that exclude concepts that do not agree with their current beliefs. There is also a pattern of disconnection from real observational information and the buildup of abstract concepts that when all are put together tend to separate people from reality especially in areas where they are in error because irrational abstractions can often be used to justify those beliefs when rational arguments would not work, thus allowing them to continue to believe the false information to be true. It is, therefore, always an uphill battle to get new concepts accepted, especially if they show that previously established beliefs are in some way lacking or false. You are probably right about the numbers because I try to stick to reality in discussions and this may offend those who are willing to just give what they perceive as being expected of them to get high scores or may not like it if reality is contrary to their theory in some way, but to me it is better to find out if your theory is in error so you can work on correcting it than to just have everyone agreeing to overlook each other's errors because that just adds to the confusion. Luckily for me, I am not concerned about the scores, partly because I don't have man's credentials to get more than a $1000 prize and partly because I currently can get by with what I have and don't have any delusions of grandeur to think that what I am giving out will be understood adequately in my time in this world to give me any gain from it while I am here and once I am gone it doesn't matter anyway. My goal or purpose is just to do what I can to make life better for those in the future in this world and to help prepare as many as I can for a positive result in what comes after this world.

I am glad that you consider it possible that the world was created by God. I Spent about twenty two years in about the same situation, but as scientific developments progressed and the complexity of the world and the life that is in it became more and more known, It got to a point that the possibility of a natural creation of it all became so improbable that it would have been ridiculous for me to keep going down that dead end path. I am not sure of what you mean by "having identified a mechanism to allow rather more of consciousness (and even an RNA mutation model!) from hierarchical levels of interactions than yours." Please explain. I have seen concepts of random self-assembly of RNA molecules, but man has been attempting to purposely cause such self-assembly for several years now and the last time I looked has not been successful. If intelligent man cannot do it with purpose and intent, it is hard to believe that it could be done by random occurrences in a world in which entropy actually works to break down such complex structures. Even if such an RNA molecule were to be produced randomly, there would still be the great improbability that it would contain the proper coding to build an actual very simple living creature because it would have to contain all of the information on how to construct the 200 or so exact protein machines needed to make that creature out of a possibility of about 2.58 x 10^220 possible different proteins that could be produced. This plus other improbabilities make natural production of the right RNA molecule so vastly improbable that it would only be wishful thinking to believe that it could happen.

In this basic model I am presenting the motion that is called the speed of light as being generated by a specific motion amplitude level above which the threshold is crossed allowing any further increase in motion amplitude to be transferred to the sub-energy particle's fourth dimensional motion that then generates its wave and dynamic mass effects, thus turning it into an energy photon. This threshold level is generated by the structural relationship between the lower three dimensions and the fourth dimension. If the three dimensional motion amplitude of an energy photon is increased the extra motion is transferred to its fourth dimensional motion and its frequency is increased. If it is decreased motion transfers from its fourth dimensional motion back down into its three dimensional motion to maintain it at the speed of light and the decrease in its fourth dimensional motion lowers its frequency. I mention these things because they are important in explaining the mechanisms of blue and red shifts, etc. I looked at rotation to explain the static mass effect in matter particles, but found that basic rotation is just a two dimensional operation, so the mass effect that it would produce would vary depending on the direction of interaction compared to the axis of rotation.

I read over your paper quickly and I find many things that are said using word patterns that are not explained in common terms, so it will take me some time to look up and get familiar with the more expanded meanings of those terms. I am sure that there are some who work in areas that would expose them to all of these terms who would easily understand all of them and their extended meanings, but I must still decipher them and translate them into those that I am familiar with. It does appear to me though that you propose that matter particles are spherical and rotate. I am not sure, but it looks like you may consider a second rotation that occurs in a different direction/angle than the first. Is that the case? What do you consider a matter particle to be composed of? What do you consider energy photons to be composed of? What do you consider fields to be composed of? Since they can all be changed into one another, how do you explain the mechanism(s) that allows or causes those transformations?

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Peter,

I have read with great interest your thoughts about the next step of humanity.

Indeed after about 100 years you can say "classical" quantum theory, and still some cannot accept the consequences.

Your approach of "spin" is new to me, but particle physics is not my strongest knowledge.

As in all your essays this also is a clear explanation of your goal.

You were right with "down marking" of high noted essay's, I received THREE ones after a nine and a six.

I know you have already read my essay thanks for that, but if you still wanted to have some further opinion pls here is the link to it

best regards and good luck

Wilhelmus

Dear Peter

Very interesting essay and a challenging one. It seems that there a cross-point between us. Your claim that :"Ironically limited primeval evolution of neural mechanisms can explain why it's own workings remain a mystery." and that non-causal factors are playing in the occurrence of the phenomena. The late Prof. David Bohm and others saw that causality is not having sufficient explanation to the occurrence of the phenomenon and Quantum and Relativity theories are special cases in the evolvement of phenomena.

My claim is that it is all in the attributes of movements, and maybe String theory will prove it. The motivational selection of the self-organization is subject to its Optimal STATE, intrinsically and locally. And the "existent" chooses the most optimal potential action (or non action).

Yes, this is a real challenge to prove it, but realty is being ratified again and again in the relationships of 2 waves or particles relating to each other.

All the best. interesting view and approach.

yehuda atai

Peter,

Your paper involves a hypothesis concerning a classical underpinning to quantum mechanics. You have written a number of papers on FQXi on this topic. I will say these papers do quite well on both the popular and community votes. However, this and related ideas contradict a number of theorems on quantum mechanics, such as the Bell inequality violation, the Kochen-Specker theorem, no-signaling and Tsirelson's bound. I will not go into these, though I published a paper last year on the categorical equivalency between the Tsirelson bound and aspects of spacetime geometry. What these theorems tell us is that if there is a classical underpinning to quantum mechanics they must be nonlocal and have no observable consequence, and if they do have observable consequences and are local then QM is wrong. So for the experimental implications of these theorems have been consistently positive.

While your papers do well on the voting, as do others that express similar ideas, they never win any of the prizes. The FQXi judges are the ultimate gatekeepers, and even if a paper has top spot on the voting, if it contradicts known physics it will not win. Of course to be somewhat jaded about it all the FQXi judges end up picking largely essays by FQXi members, with maybe one or two winners that are not.

I will say right off that I am pretty much in line with the basic understanding of quantum mechanics without hidden variables and the rest. There are of course issues with us trying to understand QM in a macroscopic or intuitive way, because QM has these odd consequences that seem too bizarre to believe. However, maybe the problem is not so much QM, but the human brain. If you own dogs you know they simply can't figure out how to unwind their leash if they get caught up. Their brains can't process deep geometric relationship. When it comes to QM we are a bit similar in our mental deficiencies with regards to intuiting it.

Of course this does not mean I would judge your paper badly. It is pretty well written, even if it simply does appear to be incorrect. I will have to wait to think before I score. I will probably give it around a 7.

Cheers LC

Hi dear Peter

It is nice to see you again in this contest.

I have very good impression on your works, in a whole! That is why now I start to study your attractive essay with pleasure. I hope we can tell each to other some ours favorable opinions, if there will be not some hard contradictions in ours approaches, of course.

My best wishes!

It is the case here that I am a bit in the minority on this here on the FQXi contest. I will say there was a parallel development from the late 19th century that was popular through the 1920s and still has some popularity today. When Maxwell, Boltzmann and Gibbs laid down the foundations of statistical mechanics it solidified the no-go theorem for perpetual motion machines. There arose a sort of cottage industry to show this physics was wrong and to demonstrate a perpetual motion machine. This waned in the 1930s and 40s, largely because humanity was up to its eyebrows with other problems, which unfortunately seem to be returning. Since the 1970s there has been also a sort of cottage industry that is strikingly similar with respect to quantum mechanics.

The two trends have some analogous features as well. Thermodynamics has the generating e^{-硫E} = e^{-E/kT} in the partition function, while quantum mechanics has e^{-iEt/徴} in a path integral or as the evolutionary development of a state. The quantum mechanical path integral under a Wick rotation is a partition function in statistical mechanics. The equation or replacement 1/kT = it/徴 with the reciprocal of temperature as Euclidean time. This is a route towards quantum critical points and phase transitions induced by quantum fluctuations.

The idea of the perpetual motion machine had a bit of motivation with Maxwell's demon, who could open and close a valve between two regions to separate fast and slow moving molecules, However, as Szillard demonstrated this can't be done for free. The demon is a sort of computer who if restricted to resources of the system will not be able to perform this activity. The demon must appeal to outside resources. In doing so entropy over all still increases. Much the same happens in a quantum measurement. A measurement is a quantum decoherent event where superposition or entanglement phase is coupled to an outside system or open world. By this means the density matrix of a quantum system is reduced to diagonal form. However, the actual outcome is not predicted.

Now enter hidden variables, beables or classical-like descriptions. This would seems to be a way in which the actual outcome is obtained. However, this would imply that a quantum observable has some prior existence or objective outcome independent of the Born rule of quantum mechanics. This is that the spectrum of an observable has a one to one correspondence with probability amplitudes or probabilities. This is really where the fly in the ointment occurs with these ideas. It is a quantum version of the Maxwell demon that can obtain prior information about a system independent of the information = entropy constraints of the system.

This has connections to other areas of physics, such as black hole quantum mechanics and thermodynamics. Of course in science we do not have proof of things, but only go on the basis of evidence that supports known foundations and models. I have no assurance the future will not have anti-gravity warp drive space travel with sub-quantal instantaneous communications and so forth. On the other hand I have some pretty serious suspicions these will not happen. Since you mentioned Sarfatti, I do not take his ideas about UFOs as real alien spaceships at all seriously along with his claim these demonstrate his various claims.

Cheers LC

Dear Peter,

If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C? Generally pair production creates a matter particle and its antimatter particle. These particles would normally either have enough kinetic energy to travel away from their creation point with the antiparticle usually interacting with another matter particle in a very short time resulting in their destruction by conversion into photon energy or if their kinetic energy is low enough they would attract each other and convert to photon energy. How would this develop the complex molecular structure of RNA? Moreover, pair production needs a source of high level motion amplitude such as a gamma ray that has a high enough frequency so that it contains enough motion to make the two particles. What is the source in your concept? It must also come in contact with an angular motion component such as the field structure of an atom near its nucleus. Where would it get that in your example? In nature most pair production in an area where life could exist would just be production of electrons and positrons. Where would the protons and neutrons needed to form atoms come from? RNA molecules are not composed directly of basic matter particles, but are composed of complex molecular components that are linked together by chemical bonds to form the complete RNA molecule. How would you get from the basic matter particles to that much more complex hierarchical structure?

Generally in a recycling universe the big crunch destroys everything created in the previous cycle. How does your theory work in that respect and if things in some way survive from one cycle to the next what is the observational evidence of that? I have not seen any evidence that the universe is infinite. If you have such observational evidence that it is; what is it? The 2.58 x 10^220 is actually a very large number when you consider that it is estimated that there are only about 10^80 elementary matter particles in the universe. This would mean that if each RNA molecule only contained one matter particle, you would still only be able to produce as very small percentage of all of them if you used all of the matter in the universe to do it. Of course, in reality an RNA molecule contains a very large number of matter particles, so you would actually get a lot fewer of them. The 2.58 x 10^220 number that I gave came from a simplified example of a hypothetical simple living creature that contained 200 protein machines that each contained amino acid chains of a length of 100 amino acids. In real living creatures the protein chains can vary from about 66 to 1400 amino acids in their chains. And any living creature contains proteins of more than one size. This would likely be the same for the most basic living creature's structure, since each protein machine has a specific job to perform, which would mean that its needed structure would likely vary in size from another protein that did a different job. If you consider that the mechanism to randomly produce RNA molecules would, therefore, need to produce not only the coding of all of the possible protein variations of proteins with a length of 100 positions in their amino acid chains, but would also have to produce the coding of all of the different variations of all possible proteins of all of the possible sizes of chains, you could see that the total number would be beyond comprehension. In addition to that Each RNA molecule would have to contain the exact coding for all of the 200 protein machines that would be needed to make the first living creature. If it contained less than that, it would require more than one RNA molecule that all together contained the exact right codes and then there would be the added complexity of how they would work together. If they contained more than the 200 codes they would not likely work, but random production would likely produce some of both. This would also greatly increase the total number of RNA molecules that would need to be produced to get the valid one. In real life cells, the codes are stored in DNA molecules. When a protein machine needs to be constructed, a messenger RNA molecule connects to the proper place on the DNA molecule where the code for that protein is stored, with the help of several other molecules, and reads and stores that code in its structure. It then connects to a ribosome, which is a very complex molecular machine composed of variously modified RNA molecules and protein molecules, etc. The ribosome connects to the first codon, which is the three letter code that tells it what amino acid to add next to the new protein chain. A transfer RNA molecule picks up an amino acid and if it sees that it is the one needed by the ribosome it connects to the ribosome and transfers its amino acid to the ribosome, which places it in the new protein chain. The ribosome then reads codon for the next required amino acid from the messenger RNA molecule and the cycle continues until it reads a stop code from the messenger RNA when the new protein machine is complete. I left out many details, but that is the general way it works. If you could get an RNA molecule that actually contained all of the codes for all of the necessary protein machines needed to make a living creature and if you could get that very complex RNA molecule to automatically replicate itself, you would still need to either randomly make a ribosome to build the proteins and some kind of molecule to transfer the code from the RNA molecule to the ribosome and other RNA molecules to acquire amino acids and deliver them to the ribosome to allow it to assemble the protein machines necessary to build the first living creature or the RNA molecule would have to be super complex and do it all by itself, which would make it even much more unlikely that it could be produced randomly by nature. Even if there were a large number of universes, the anthropic principle would say the our world is at least a right model that produces a viable functional world compared to the much greater number that would not be so. I think that you may have intended to say the evolution principal instead, since that is the one that deals with the mutation concept in that way. If you don't include God as the necessary more intelligent being than man, why do you believe that any other being(s) that are more intelligent than man must either exist or at least have existed? From the naturalist point of view, if the universe and the life in it was created by just random chance occurrences, then it could be effectively argued that intelligence is not needed in the universe at all because the randomly constructed universe and the life in it are far greater in scope of size, speed, and complexity than anything that intelligent man can do. All life and the intelligence that goes with it could just be some wasteful entropy structure that will ultimately be eliminated as the random universe advances to operate more efficiently. Our existence could in that way be looked at as holding back the natural progression of advancement of the random universe. Isn't that a pleasant thought? I don't expect to see that line of reasoning given by anybody though because from what I have seen the main reason that the naturalist point of view is so popular is that man would like to think of himself as god or at least that he will attain that status at some time in the future through evolution, so it tends to be a very egotistically motivated argument. I believe that is why even now when it is obvious that the universe and the life in it requires an intelligent source (God) to generate it and make it work properly, so many still try to twist reality to make it look like it doesn't. It is always possible to imagine the possibility of anything that one desires to believe in strong enough even without observational evidence.

I thought you were talking about a 3 dimensional rotation, but was not sure that I was interpreting your paper properly. That is a great improvement over the concept of a point particle that still seems to be the most accepted concept that I have seen. When I talk about the substance of a matter particle, etc. I am talking about an actual thing that has existence of itself. What I have observed is that matter particles and energy photons can be converted into each other, so neither of them is truly conserved. They can both also be converted into basic motions and vice versa and in all interactions when you add up all of the motions contained in the input entities and also their kinetic motions the total motion content of the input particles is always conserved. This makes motion the one basic material from which all other entities are composed. When we talk about shapes such as a sphere or a toroid they can be changed during interactions between things and are not necessarily conserved either. Motion possesses a built in structural operation of change, but shapes don't. You can put a shape in motion, but it is the motion that causes the changes that you see, not the shape itself. When you say matter is condensed by rotations of a sub-matter scale medium, the things that could actually exist are the medium and the motion with a rotational structure. What do you see as the structure of the medium? When you say 3D vortices from shear perturbations, the shear perturbations are the input motions and the vortices are the pattern or structure of the resulting or output motions. You are saying that the matter particles that are produced are composed of motions with structural patterns of vortices. You probably do not realize that you are saying these things because you are used to looking at the shapes, etc. instead of the motions that work or move in such a way as to produce those shapes. When you talk about a sphere, you are actually talking about the 3d rotation of motions in a spherical pattern that is why when I ask you what the sphere is composed of you can't identify any substance. The true substance is the motions themselves. Your concept of a field is a little more difficult to interpret, however. It starts with a spatial zone (area of space), that contains quanta. How would you define the structure of a quanta? These quanta have orientations in space, which may be changeable. Are they? Bound states seem to also apply to the quanta, such that they can be connected or joined together in some way. How does this joining work? Etc. implies that there are other presently unmentioned properties or variables, etc. Are there and if so what are they? Which interact giving transformations, the bound states interact in some way that causes changes in them. How do these interactions work and how are the changes made? You give one example of such interaction and the change generated by it. (Relative motion of whole fields can produce the Lorentz transformation). The Lorentz transformation is a space time concept. A time dimension does not exist, however. We live in a motion continuum. Time is just a relationship between motions and the spatial distances that they travel through. Motions are not all the same. One motion may contain a greater amount or amplitude of motion than another motion. If two motions are on points on the same line and they both leave those points simultaneously traveling in the same direction that is perpendicular to the line and travel toward another line that is parallel to the first line, so that if they both travel to that line they will both travel the same distance and if one motion reaches that second line when the other motion just reaches the halfway point between the lines, then the motion that reaches the line has a motion amplitude that is twice that of the second motion. Any convenient motion amplitude can be selected to be the motion amplitude standard and all other motions can then be compared to that motion amplitude level. Motion can then be measured by its amount or size just like distance in space can be measured by its size or amount. A condition of all the motions in the universe that existed, but no longer exists because motions have now moved to their present locations, is called the past. The conditions of all the motions in the universe that currently exist, is called the present. A condition of all the motions in the universe that does not yet exist, but will exist when motions have moved from where they are to those positions, is called the future. It is not possible to go back into the past because the motion conditions that existed then no longer exist because the motions have moved from those positions to their current positions. You cannot go into the future because the motion conditions that will exist then have not yet left their current positions and traveled to those future positions. We can only live in the present motion conditions because that is all that exists. If there were a time dimension, a whole complete new copy of the universe would have to be made each time any motion in the universe moved to a different position in order to allow someone to travel back or forward to that point in time with those exact motion conditions. This would certainly not work according to Occam's razor or that the universe will always choose the simplest and most direct or efficient way to do things. This unimaginable amount of needless structural waste would be ridiculous. I can understand the desire of people to believe that they could go back into the past or into the future, but I might desire to have a kangaroo with wings that can fly me to exotic places on distant planets, but that desire doesn't make it exist. The time dimension is the same type of thing. The multiverse concept is also in the same category. The universe is large enough as it is. Why clog up all of the actual valid concepts with all of the unnecessary and unreasonable baggage of these types of things that can never be tested or observed or experienced by us in any way even if they were to actually exist, which they don't. The security on my computer prevents me from looking at videos on it. I will try to look at it when I get a chance to use a different computer.

Sincerely,

Paul

Dear Peter

I cannot to say "I read your essay" because whatever we can do right now, it only can be surface checking the material. I understand that you are in the same situation (that comes from contest conditions). What we can do with this - if not to delay this on the good time? Nevertheless, I think it is not disturbs us to understand each to other as two not so young people (I am 67) who have the same illness (or, maybe it is a happiness!) I know you not only from this work that allows me to say that you are a truly thinking man who try to understand the reality by using own brain and - the own skin!

Of course you are on the right way, but only let me say one practical advice - we must beforehand to count ours time and real opportunities when we put any task; we must see those as realizable, otherwise the sad disappointment waiting to us in the end. A second very important thing is what that we must to start from the one right end to build a somewhat complete - indisputable science. The live forced to us to start our science from what are close to us (i.e. from somewhere of uncertain middle position). Nevertheless, we need go to some strong defined point to be starting everything from there. This however we can do only mentally (as Copernicus has gone to sit on the sun)! Excuse me if I gone on some other side ...

My thanks and best wishes to you!