Ridiculous Simplicity by Peter Jackson

My comment to Peter Jackson in response to his comment to me on my paper's page on Feb. 24,2018

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the good rating. I got up to 5.3 for about a day. It then went down to 4.4 which is .1 less than it was before you gave me the good rating. The same thing happened last year. Like I have noticed in comments by others, there was no comment associated with the point downgrade. Since I am giving out information that is well beyond the current ability of man in this world to accept, believe, or understand fully, and it would require a lot of work on man's part to confirm that the information I am giving is true and in the process many currently believed concepts would be proven to be in error, I do not expect to win any of the contests, so any who would try to work against me by giving me a low score are wasting their time because I will not win anyway and it is not my goal to win the contests, but just to help people here to advance adequately as is required by the proper time. I notice that whoever is giving out the low points must like you because you are now near the top of the heap. It is very unreasonable for anyone to waste a low score on me since even a 5.3 score would not get me anywhere in the contest anyway. It would seem like it could have been better used on someone higher up near the top. There could, however, be some other agenda at work, such as to try to minimize the number of people who see my work by making it appear to be of little value, to the scientific community because of the low score. It should make you wonder why anyone would go to such extremes to discredit the information that I am giving. It must make someone afraid for it to get out and possibly be believed. My job is just to get it out. I let the others play their games. It provides good structural social monitoring for those who look at such things and trace them back to their sources to provide future control information, etc. If I were to hazard a guess it would be that there are those in the secret scientific community who would like to receive the information, but would like to prevent it from acceptance by the public scientific community. It might be looked at as a form of damage control while at the same time getting what they want. All of these things are continually observed and evaluated by the one who gives me the information to give out and appropriate actions will be taken at the proper times. Luckily I don't have to worry about all of that since I am only the messenger. I would wish you good luck, but it seems like you may not need it. Again, thanks for your attempt to help me.

Sincerely,

Paul

Posting here and at my essay. Rated your essay a few weeks ago. Did not get to everyone I wanted to read and rate. But we can continue to study and comment. About CMB patterns that more than hint at the structure of the vacuum: Keep in mind that a politically correct notion of a "big bang" is a defining element of the "standard model" of the Physics of the Universe and its origin. A string of questionable adjustments are continually made to both the "standard model" and "big bang" theory in order to accommodate new observations. Look to CMB data before all the corrections are made for unseen dark matter and any adjustments made for mysterious symmetrical equipment errors.

Corrections for the motion of receivers, the Earth, the Sun etc. are needed unless one is a member of the "Earth centered universe club." And dark matter is a factor but it is not appropriate to define an artificial distribution of dark matter based on a desire to smooth out the CMB data.

As polarization data accumulates for CMB, I believe the structure of the vacuum will be more and more apparent.

Dear Peter Jackson ,

Thank you very much for the very nice and elaborate reply. Thank you for for complementing words...................

That was an impressive paper, good work and I agree most of it. However it didn't contain the derivation of the underlying large scale CMB anisotropic patterns I referred to. Those are the background 'Helicity' in the 'whole sky' distribution, the 'dark' holes, and the overall 'linear' anisotropy; ie. analogously we seem to be towards one side of a 'river' of energy, so each side of us is different.

These are important indicators of the inadequacy of our cosmological models (as well as all the smaller ones!) so must be fully explained in any proposed replacement model.or it'll just be ignored & dismissed. ................................. My reply...............

Yes , I also study them with you....

...................Your observations....................

I have to say I also suggest no theory is complete without some indication of pre- 'BBT' conditions. (Not that I subscribe to a BB OR static universe). ................................. My reply...............

Is that necessary? I also study them with you....

...................Your observations....................

The anisotropies are complex and have confounded most all. There is only one model I know of which derives them, which I was involved with in 2012-13. It may be worth collaborating on an update. It starts with a method familiar at multiple smaller scales from nuclear tokamaks up, at stellar and most familiar at galactic scales. Please do study it carefully and revert if you see a flaw;

................................. My reply...............

Yes , I will collaborate with you no problems, study them with you....

...................Your observations....................

Jackson, P.A. Minkowski, J.S. A Cyclic Model.. HJ/VOL36/HJ-36-6.pdf

................................. My reply...............

I could not down load paper, but definitely like to work and study them with you....

Best Wishes

=snp

PS I copying this to your mail also

pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

Peter--

Sorry this has taken a while to get to (intrusions of life), I hope you are still reading comments.... I enjoyed your essay and found the ideas stimulating, but I must admit that I don't find it persuasive. In that respect, as well as some others, this essay reminds me a bit of Alan Kadin's (which I also liked). My critical feedback to you is similar to what I gave him. You spend a great deal of effort devising a clever way to explain one particular result using a different model (i.e. different from the orthodox explanations), and then conclude that you have overthrown the reigning paradigm. But how does your approach explain the other many thousands of extraordinarily well-established results? For example, can you derive band structure in periodic potentials, superfluidity in liquid helium, neutron capture cross sections, the energy level diagram of a multi-electron atom, and so on? Because QM, in its presently understood form, can explain all of these phenomena. A rival that would seek to displace it must do so as well. I am very interested to see your response to this point, and I anticipate that it will be as stimulating as the essay itself. I hope you find the constructive criticism stimulating and not off-putting.

--Greg

Hi Peter...

Congratulations on taking qualified reductionism to the finals!!

I did not get a chance to read or rate the #1 community rated "Demolishing prejudices to get to the foundations by Flavio Del Santo and Chiara Cardelli", before the poll closed, but I read it yesterday.

In that the paper advocates anti-reductionism without making a clear distinction between logic reduction... e.g. initial state analysis... and accelerated particle annihilation, I was motivated to write a review, and if you get a chance to read my post to their page, it may illicit your addendum to my thread.

I do not know how long FQXi graciously maintains the contestants individual essay pages, facilitating commo exchange between the contestants, but I posted my promised detailed/lengthy/hard to read response to your inquiry as to whether a "falsified Cartesian" "boxes within boxes" configuration would resolve the issue I have with the Cartesian coordinate system's inability to resolve closure of a point Source Volumetric Singularity in a manner that inherently defines the unified/uniform geometry of a minimum unit of Space (QI), in our thread on my essay page, and it will be there for you, assuming you get there before the essay contestant pages are closed.

REF: Knowledge Base (KB) Access as Fundamental to Info Processor Intelligence https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3000

Peter, may you rise to the top, on the tide of "change in a ruling paradigm".

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Peter,

I am always astonished about what researchers call fundamental. They usually take a rather complicated subject that bases its structure and behavior on other much deeper concepts. A fundament must be very simple and easily comprehensible. In mathematics, a set is a very fundamental concept but mathematics contains a complete theory about this simple concept. In physics, anything that must be expressed or measured in numbers is already a high-level concept. Thus time and space are certainly no fundamental concepts. Anything that is observable is necessarily a high-level concept. In contrast, a relation can be fundamental and a relational structure can be a well-defined construct. Again mathematics defines a complete theory around lattices, which are relational structures. Classical logic is a special kind of lattice. About 25 axioms define classical logic and make it a self-consistent theory. This might be the argument that caused Birkhoff and von Neumann to name their discovery that the set of closed subspaces of a separable Hilbert space is a particular lattice, to call that lattice quantum logic. They hoped to have discovered a self-consistent theory. And that it IS. Mathematicians call it an orthomodular lattice. At that time nobody interpreted the discovery as a seed from which much more can be derived, such as a plant evolves from a seed. However, the orthomodular lattice is a true fundament of a huge and very powerful theory.

The orthomodular lattice contains no numbers and no fields. It only contains relations and it defines precisely, which relations are tolerated. That is also what classical logic does.

So, the orthomodular lattice is not ridiculous simple. It is just simple enough to be able to figure as a foundation of physical reality.

Hans

Peter,

A complete webpage of my Wikiversity project: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Hilbert_Book_Model_Project#Relational_structures is devoted to the lattices of classical logic and quantum logic. The set of modules in the HBM form another lattice. As far as I know, it has not yet a name. In connection with the orthomodular lattice the paper "Division algebras and quantum theory" by John Baez. http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5690 and the original paper of Birkhoff and von Neumann are interesting.

G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann, The Logic of Quantum Mechanics, Annals of Mathematics, Vol. 37, pp. 823-843

You have covered a lot of ground as usual, but at least now your apparatus shows one lens, and so you are making progress. But as usual, you dance around the hard issues of quantum phase entanglement and decoherence. Do quantum superposition states exist or do they not exist?

You do have good intuition about the nature of physical reality, but classical intuition of space and time is limited. The notions of discrete aether and discrete action seem to be more fundamental than those of space and time and as any barmaid knows, the entanglement of matter and action is a lot easier to explain alone than entangled causal set of space and time and matter and action.

Peter Jackson

If you read this you may be interested in my last blog at:

blog

Best regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

Peter Jackson

Thank you very much for these interesting links. They are of value to me since I do not have the details, although I have heard about these papers.

About my blog:

It is about the conflict between Potier and Michelson regarding the transverse arm in MMX. I have demonstrated that it went wrong. This mistake was important when the Lorentz transform was introduced. We have not regarded the difference between ray and beam. So, take a look at my blog again and write a comment at the blog if you support Potier or Michelson. I support Michelson and this means that we do not need time dilation.

Regards from _________ John-Erik Persson

Your discrete plasma field is a good intuition, but you still seem to conform to continuous space and time. Once you go discrete, space and time are no longer continuous. The causal set approach for a granulated universe has many good barmaid stories...it is just one thing after another...yada, yada, yada...

Peter Jackson

I would like to discuss with you regarding the conflict between Potier and Michelson in 1882 that I describe on my blog. I have given you the blog address above. Write on my blog.

John-Erik