You have misunderstood my text. Perhaps I was not clear enough. I reject the wave-only interpretations of QM including Bohr. I am using Rod Sutherland's mathematical extension of David Bohm's 1952 pilot wave theory to relativity using local retrocausality entanglement with action-reaction between waves and beablles in a Lagrangian framework. Everything waves and particles etc. are real.

Bell liked Bohm's idea. Bell was mistaken to reject local retrocausality in favor of nonlocality. Bell confused the latter with superdeterminism needing a fatalistic rejection of free will. Huw Price has explained all this in detail.

    Jack

    OK, I understand. No, that didn't come across. It makes a little more sense now, though while 'real' waves going both ways is one thing (or even 2!) and fine, going back in time is quite something else of course. But I have a question on your response; "Bell was mistaken to reject local retrocausality in favor of nonlocality."

    Can you direct me to where John Bell 'accepted' non-locality? I agree that's a wide (mis!)understanding of his conclusions, and he certainly used QM's own assumptions in 'testing' it. Having studied him and his work for some time it seems clear to me he REJECTED those assumptions (is the word "wrong' not a hint?!).

    I do agree what I think you really meant, that he didn't consider retrocausality as such seriously so didn't even suggest it was being tested.

    But Jack, please focus on this; I know you're deeply embedded in your own solution, but, however unlikely, I assure you what I'm showing you is that "astonishing" way to derive the WHOLE of QM', predictions, findings, apparent weirdness and all, from the very simplest classical mechanism. Shockingly it produces (and reproduces each time) the orthogonal complementary Cos2 curves. It's so simple it'd take you minutes to follow it through and reproduce them yourself. It is then simple to falsify - yet nobody has!

    Why do so many theoretical physicists dive for the nearest sand pile to put their heads in rather than look!?? (I note you didn't suggest you'd read it!) Is it that once you write something you feel wedded to it forever?

    As Bell said, " Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better."

    The question is Jack, can you? or are you just another 'head in the sand' theorist?

    Best

    Peter

    My laptop keyboard is being replaced so this will be short on small iPad.

    The references in the essay to Huw Price and Rod Sutherland should answer your questions. I am using the Bohm picture. QM is not adequate. It's incomplete as Einstein thought. PQM is to QM as GR is to SR. Your idea does not pertain to the topic of my essay.

    Dear Jack Sarfatti,

    Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

    I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

    Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

    The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

    A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

    Joe Fisher, Realist

      That Einstein quote is one of my favorites and I repeat it many times.

      But what is your point and how does it pertain to what I'm trying to explain in my essay, which is the physical nature of our non-algorithmic retrocausal post-quantum consciousness as well as other forms of consciousness that would also include nano/machine consciousness indeed perhaps consciousness of the universe it self once we understand it's universal purely natural physical mechanics. Freeman Dyson in his wonderful essay "time without end" has posed this issue.

      Please excuse some of the typos and missing words because I have been sending these messages on a very small keyboard into my laptop is fixed also I'm talking to Siri

      Got laptop back. I meant to add to the essay

      "Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action." Roger Penrose, "The Emperor's New Mind" pp 442-445 (1989)

      "It seems to me that biological systems are able in some way to utilize the opposite time-sense in which radiation propagates from future to past. Bizarre as this may appear, they must somehow be working backwards in time." Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Intelligent Universe", p. 213 (1986)

      On Mar 1, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Puthoff@aol.com wrote:

      "Demonstration that such can occur is provided by experiments in so-called ARV (Associational Remote Viewing) in which an object that will be shown to an individual tomorrow (depending on the outcome of the stock market) is described today. The attached is my publication of such an experiment in which our backer made $260,000 in silver futures in 30 days, and we received our cut of 10% ($26,000)."

      Hal Puthoff

      Director, Inst. for Adv. Studies at Austin

      The key paper is by Richard Feynman:

      "Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics", Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 20, p. 267 (1948), Feynman

      "The quantity ψ depends only on the region R' previous to t...It does not depend, in any way, upon what is done to the system after time t. This latter information is contained in χ. Thus with ψ and χ we have separated the past history from the future experiences of the system."

      Feynman's Lagrangian method is precisely "a journey you need both the start point and the end point". The key idea I present below is inherent in Feynman's Section 5 "Definition of the Wave Function" and it is the basis for Yakir Aharonov's "Destiny" χ and "History" ψ two-state vector "multiple time" version of quantum physics in which teleology (AKA "telos" and "local retrocausality) is implicit. Teleology is explicated when I step beyond Aharonov from quantum to the post-quantum covering theory. This is a violation of "sub-quantum equilibrium" in the sense of Tony Valentini's papers.

      Feynman on the static block universe that the Lagrangian action-principle dynamical sum over histories demands: "Following the charge rather than the particles corresponds to considering the continuous world line as a whole rather than breaking it up into its pieces. It's as though a bombardier flying low over a road suddenly sees three roads and it is only when two of them come together and disappear again that he realizes that he has simply passed over a long switchback in a single road. This overall spacetime point of view leads to considerable simplification in many problems. One can take into account at the same time processes which ordinarily would have to be considered separately."

      The Theory of Positrons, Phys Rev, 76, 749 (1949)

      Hi Jack,

      "Suppose there is even something vaguely teleological about the effects of consciousness, so that a future impression might affect a past action." Roger Penrose, "The Emperor's New Mind" pp 442-445 (1989)"

      It's trivial that future events affect present events -- Penrose implies an infinity of potential local impressions from one nonlocal set. Those impressions he identifies with consciousness.

      Take a Penrose triangle. Drawn in two dimensions or seen at the proper angle from afar, one gets the impression of unitarity. At near scale, we all get impressions of variety differing by degrees. What does this tell us? I think it tells us that the objective part of consciousness lies in our inter-subjective agreement on the unity of varieties of perception -- agreement that we find in mathematics and science.

      Einstein said all physics is local leaving open the question of nonlocality and the boundary between the two domains. That's the subject of my contribution.

      You wrote a great essay, Jack. I'll vote now and comment later.

      All best,

      Tom

      Dear Jack,

      If you would kindly read my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, you would find out that my point am that only Nature could provide simple visible reality. Reality has nothing to do with complex invisible "physical nature of our non-algorithmic retrocausal post-quantum consciousness as well as other forms of consciousness that would also include nano/machine consciousness indeed perhaps consciousness of the universe it self once we understand it's universal purely natural physical mechanics."

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      I have no idea what your point is here? I never use the words "complex invisible" You admit your idea has nothing to do with my essay. Therefore, I have no interest in spending time on your theory. Best of luck.

      Perhaps this may help?

      I also remember seeing it I think it was by Penrose a whole list of different scenarios for different scales of orch OR but I can't quite remember where I saw it

      I think I can say is that when Roger talks about non-computability that is physically realized by post quantum local retro causal entanglement messaging due to action reaction between waves and particles

      Indeed I think this also relates to Godel's incompleteness theorem because incompleteness in mathematics depends upon all mathematics being an algorithm and which steps occur in only One Direction in "time"

      In terms of graphs Godel only tacitly considered tree graphs without closed loops that correspond to CTCs (Deutsch Lloyd)

      Sent from my iPhone

      On Mar 3, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Hameroff, Stuart R - (hameroff) wrote:

      I'll try and find a copy. For some reason its not on my website at the moment.

      I agree the pathway qubits are topological and resistant to decoherence (or premature OR which replaces decoherence).

      We (me, Tuzsynski et al) described that in our 2002 paper 'Conduction pathways in microtubules'. Bandyopadhyay has experimentally shown quantum states in microtubules for as long as 0.1 msec.

      s

      --

      Nice essay Prof Sarfatti,

      Your ideas and thinking are excellent. You gave nice historical background of Cosmology. The image given by you and bootstrap work is nice....

      Your words... "Our common sense is a psychological illusion in which time only seems in our consciousness to flow from past to present to future. This irreversible "arrow of time" (aka Second Law of Thermodynamics) is seen in the tragic fact that we age and die, eggs do not unscramble themselves, etc. However, quantum entanglement, which is beginning to play the crucial role in practical command-control-communication technology, is becoming increasingly important to Google, Apple, Microsoft et-al in their Artificial Intelligence Big Data business, is telling us that time also flows in reverse from future to present. In fact, all quantum entanglement phenomena in the present come from back-from-the-future "destiny" partial causes in addition to the familiar classical historical past partial causes of those same present effects. In other words what happens to the world now not only depends on our past history, but also on our future destiny!"

      This 'Back from future' of quantum mechanics is a surprise for me. Is it possible to bring it to the level of every day human experience say like cars or trains etc. Can we succeed in making a "Time machine" ?

      I am requesting you to have a look at Dynamic Universe Model also.... For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

      Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

      With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

      Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

      Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

      Best wishes to your essay.

      For your blessings please................

      =snp. gupta

      If it ain't broke don't fix it it's not a good idea to try to reinvent the wheel

      What I'm trying to say is that I will not waste any of my time on new theories when Einstein's theory works perfectly well if it is properly applied, the same for quantum theory

      what I am doing is radically conservative in John Wheeler sense

      I am building upon battle tested well-established theories

        PS I am only interested in this particular form in discussing the details of Roderick Sutherland's important new extension of quantum theory

        I will not spend any time on people's original ideas for fundamental new theories of physics

        Just as sweet the second time around.

        One nit to pick:

        " ... we now know how to make observed quantum entanglement connecting widely separated particles consistent with Einstein's relativity."

        Though I know this is the majority view, no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved.

        Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory.

        A thought on the matter continuum: What if higher orders of consciousness are just higher orders of differentiation? Then Gell-Mann is right--the continuum of consciousness is bounded by an infinitesimal decay rate and an infinite growth rate. That is, from the least constituents of matter to the most rarefied forms of matter, the matter continuum (Einstein & Mach) is a consciousness continuum.

          This paper has just come to my attention

          "Quantum theory from rules on information acquisition

          Philipp Andres Ho ̈hn

          Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology, and Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, 1090 Vienna, Austria

          E-mail: p.hoehn@univie.ac.at

          Abstract. We summarise a recent reconstruction of the quantum theory of qubits from rules constraining an observer's acquisition of information about physical systems. This review is accessible and fairly self-contained, focussing on the main ideas and results and not the technical details. The reconstruction offers an informational explanation for the architecture of the theory and specifically for its correlation structure. In particular, it explains entanglement, monogamy and non-locality compellingly from limited accessible information and complementarity. As a by-product, it also unravels new 'conserved informational charges' from complementarity relations that characterise the unitary group and the set of pure states.'

          My comment: I like this approach. Nonlinear non-unitary non-statistical PQM would also follow from this kind of way of looking by allowing keyless entanglement signaling equivalent to Sutherland's action-reaction weak destiny/history wave-particle Lagrangian and Valentini's "sub-quantum non-equilibrium" ~ CTC non-algorithmic processing NP -> P etc.

          On Mar 6, 2017, at 11:04 AM, art wagner wrote:

          https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.06849.pdf

          "One nit to pick:

          ' ... we now know how to make observed quantum entanglement connecting widely separated particles consistent with Einstein's relativity.'

          Though I know this is the majority view,"

          In fact it's not. Majority view is that there is some kind of "faster than light" nonlocalty and that does contradict Einstein's CLASSICAL assumption that no action at a distance outside the light cone. The advantage of local retrocausality as recently convincingly argued by Huw Price, Rod Sutherland and others is that it explains the completely metric independent nature of quantum entanglement. That is, with the old idea of Costa de Beauregard's "zig-zag" (also found in Aharonov's and Cramer's models) the spacetime separations between the future strong measurements of the parts of the entangled whole are irrelevant - they can be timelike, light like or spacelike.

          "no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved."

          Your remark is unintelligible to me.

          "Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory."

          Very vague, what's your point?

          "no one has ever observed quantum entanglement without first assuming that which was to be proved."

          Your remark is unintelligible to me."

          Quantum entanglement is an illusion, with no physical basis.

          "Relativity suffers no such disadvantage. Better to make quantum theory a subdiscipline of information theory."

          Very vague, what's your point?"

          Relativity is mathematically complete; quantum theory is not.

          You do not understand what I am saying. Quantum theory is not complete as a physical theory in the same way that special relativity is not complete physically. General relativity is to special relativity as post-quantum mechanics is to quantum mechanics. Special relativity and quantum mechanics both fail to obey the action-reaction organizing meta-principle. There is no back reaction of matter on spacetime in special relativity. Similarly, there is no back reaction of matter and spacetime on their respective quantum information pilot waves in quantum theory in the Bohmian picture. The Copenhagen et-al pictures are seriously incomplete because they only have quantum information waves without any matter and any spacetime as classically independent "beables" in the sense of the Bohmian picture.

          As far as formal completeness, Godel "proved" that any formal system of sufficient complexity is incomplete if it is to be consistent.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #22

          I understand that, Jack.

          Special relativity is internally consistent, however. Try tinkering with one of these postulates:

          -- the laws of nature are uniform in all inertial frames.

          -- the speed of light is constant in vacuo.

          Is there not reversibility built into these statements? One can define a superluminal particle from these principles as one which changes trajectory without changing velocity. This is purely physical, and from repeated action of this sort one derives Einstein's (and Descartes') philosophy that no space is empty of field.

          That seem to be your action-reaction organizing meta-principle, and it is all local; i.e., superluminal particles can't be distinguished from their counterparts that we count as real.