Quantum Dream Time

Dear Georgina,

You wrote: "I agree that there have been surfaces prior to the existence of humans but that realization doesn't provide a very useful physics model by itself." Reality am not an abstract finite physics model. Nature must have eternally produced only one single unified visible infinite surface. I have a surface. You have a surface. All God's chillum done got surface. One does not have to realize surface. One does not have to visualize surface. One does not even have to idolize me for being brave enough to maintain that there must have only ever been one single unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light .

I am baffled by the ease with which the physicists were able to convince scientists of the importance of their being able to supposedly accurately measure and describe the utterly complex finite behavior of invisible finite atoms, compared to the difficulty I am having in my presentation of the obviousness of the simplicity of the common observation of visible infinite surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe, your credo has very limited explanatory power and is therefore of very limited usefulness to people seeking to understand the physics of the universe/ World. Other ideas are more interesting as they are not such short intellectual dead ends. I have considered that you might have been trying in vain to express something more profound and interesting, but it seems not. Why not take a break from it for a while and come back to it refreshed- perhaps with a fresh, more open mindset.

Dear Georgina,

Reality AM NOT MY CREDO. What do you not understand about the fact that no matter in which direction you look, you will only ever see surface? What do you not understand about the indisputable fact that the earth must have had a surface a million years ago, long before any man appeared on its surface? Why do you pretend to understand that the visible construct of the real Universe must have something to do with humanly contrived speculation about finite invisible mathematical calculations?

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Dear FQXi.org Members,

Supposedly educated physicists were the only folk who have asked themselves where and when the real visible universe might have came from. If one does not know something, the last person one ought to be questioning in order to find out am oneself. Insanely, the supposedly educated physicists claim that by the application of finite mathematics, they could prove that the visible universe had a finite invisible commencement. My research has concluded that Nature must have produced one single VISIBLE unified infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light .

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Keep it up 'joe', the taxman cometh.

Don't know if this might help: but Blatner (Joy of Pi, 1997) said that if we understood more about pi, then we would understand more about the math and physics of our universe (including cosmology). So we understand that by using pi in its exterior capacity Cosmology is already exploring the universe from the standpoint of general relativity.

My own experiment recently succeeded in uncovering the mathematical sub-structure of pi, which is not the motionless and infinite, irrational, and transcendental string of digits that the domain of math still describes it as being: it is highly dynamic and approximates very quickly along the length of its body to the level of quanta. So why could we not try to use pi in its interior capacity to try to help resolve the supposed incompatability of quantum mechanics and general relativity?

As regards physics, mind, and mathematics, my experiment is called: Archetype, Pi, and Correspondence in Acausal Orderedness - a cross- disciplinary experiment (AI will be bringing many more) spanning the fields of analytical psychology and physics/math. The precedent for this derives from co-operation/collaboration between Carl Jung (psychologist) and Wolfgang Pauli (physicist) - so no real surprise here... My experiment's finding were empirical. So the numbers in the dream are just the same as the numbers on the paper in front of you when you wake up the next morning. Psychology has been able to assemble the tables from the batch of pi's digits sampled and to apply its own interpretations, but it is of course unable to submit its empirical results to rigorous mathematical analysis. This awaits an interested party from the domain of math. My own reasons for replying here are to see if I can prevent my paper from ending up in the slush pile of unread scientific papers, because no one in the field of psychology really wants to think about a mathematical constant - one which might also act as quantum ruler and most certainly does reveal structures that might be said to approximate to that of a quantum clock - my only concern is that this blog looks like it might have shut down - so will stop here and leave the rest to posterity.

Quantum processes are born in absolute space and follow the absolute theoretical time which Newton prescribed irrespective of any reference frame. Relativity theory is gobbled up in dilated time on a relativistic space to compromise with measured time and trying to qualify from a maximum limiting light speed on a wave of encompassing electromagnetism smeared entity defying a photon from the real time of exit from source by all reference frames to create a magic on Lorentz transform and all experimental interpretations certify Einstein by frying the fish in its own oil. Read my 19 papers published in VIXRA.ORG to understand working of our universe. I WILL DISCUSS MY SUGGESTIONS IF INVITED BY A GROUP FOR FURTHER RESEARCH WITH ALL CALCULATIONS.

Modern physics does not require Newtonian time stretching from eternity to eternity, dwelling place of Newton's eternal and omnipresent God. It does require that all that exists does so at the one and only time, the same everywhere. That being so, each new configuration of all that exists can be regarded as a different time rather than just a different spatial arrangement of existing things. Which is really just the same thing but thought about as a temporal rather than spatial concept. The former configurations do not endure in time but become part of the newest configuration or are recycled into it. Non simultaneity of events is possible because potential sensory stimuli do persist in the environment and can be received and processed into experienced or experience-able product in different configurations of the existing universe.

Newton's argument for absolute time is theological. Having a dimension of time in which material things endure, leaves the way open for temporal paradox. Without it such paradoxes can not occur. A time line over which the configurations of the substance of the universe are spread out can be imagined even though not actual.

Dear Professor Maccone,

That is really a great review on the problem of time and quantum physics. What is your idea about the old concept to reduce all the field regularities to the distortion of time-space. I also recommend comparing your right ideas with the set theory time explanation: "New Ontology, algorithmic laws and the passage of time". Your respected opinion is very precious.

Pavel Poluyan and Dmitry Lichargin,

Siberian Federal University.