On the Fundamentality of Meaning by Brian D. Josephson

there was an error in uploading Towler's paper.

second attempt to upload Towler's "Return of the Pilot Waves' first two attempts failed - clearly Bohrian algorithm ;-)

Since I have been unable to upload Towler's paper here is the link

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/towler_pilot_waves.pdf

see also slides 25 and 31 here

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT/lectures/bohm8.pdf

It is appropriate because I clam that my paper is needed to complete and make more precise what you are claiming in too vague a fashion. You are trying to connect physics to biology in a fundamental way are you not?

Try harder Brian. I have given equations in that paper for

1) the action-reaction self-organizing mind-matter strange loop (Doug Hofstader sense) from Sutherland's paper.

2) How the effective temperature of many-particle systems pumped with EM at resonant frequencies and wave vectors is lowered to give Frohlich "laser-like" coherence in a wide variety of systems.

3) How that same Frohlich pump mechanism causes the post-quantum action-reaction between waves and particles in the Bohm-Sutherland model.

What is the link to the Beckwith comment?

"Jack, if you are quite clear that your work can complete mine, then excellent! But you will I think need to do quite a bit more work before you will be in a position to demonstrate just how the two approaches fit together, what you've said so far being insufficient to achieve this. In other words, since you insist upon equations, you will need to formulate your extension in terms of equations, stating precisely what the relationships between the two descriptions are. Go for it, Jack! "

I have already made a good first step in the Shimansky paper, which you have not yet understood properly.

Of course more work is required.

OK I see more activity re; Beckwith etc. below.

"All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light."

I have no need of that hypothesis. ;-)

"I'm afraid I don't find the paper that you link to to be a very coherent explanation for your claim that: Alternative post-Bohmian mathematical formulation of the essential features of Josephson's program i.e. signals in the sense of transmitting useful messages between node of the complex entanglement networks and the self-organizing regulation of the organism from the wave action particle reaction Frohlich coherence pumping. Maybe it could benefit from redrafting. "

The wave action particle reaction makes the time evolution of the waves non-unitary and nonlinear. Entanglement messaging between the nodes of an entangled tensor network then happens. It is the linearity and unitarity assumptions that forbid entanglement messaging. In Antony Valentini's terms, the Born rule is violated. God no longer plays dice with the universe in living matter to paraphrase Einstein.

1) Sutherland shows in the case of particle quantum mechanics of point classical particles (COM of extended particles) that the wave action-particle reaction Lagrangian contains the factor

(particle 4-velocity - weak value of wave 4-current density/invariant weak wave density).

This factor vanishes in the quantum limit of the more general theory just like GR limits to SR when the curvature tensor vanishes. Vanishing action reaction corresponds to de Broglie's guidance equation in which the particle worldliness are same as the weak wave streamlines as in Aephraim Steinberg's beautiful experiments.

2) 1/T' = 1/T - (resonant cross-section)external pump power

in relevant units for discrete quibit spin energy levels, otherwise sign on RHS for continuous energy levels in the point particle case.

T' = effective local temperature of the non-equilibrium pumped system,

T = thermal equilibrium temperature

Therefore, it's obvious how Frohlich coherence occurs at a critical power threshold in all cases.

This is a generalized BEC effect.

3) Sutherland's action reaction Lagrangian ~ (resonant cross-section)(external pump power - critical pump)

So, in your opinion these comments

"All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light."

" New Cartesian Physics, which I discovered, claims that the cause of quantum phenomena in the existence of the pressure of the universe, which overcomes the space, to begin oscillations. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, serves as the foundation for the birth of life."

Are relevant to your paper, but my comments are not? Brian, your emotions here are clouding your judgment.

"I'm getting a sense that people are having a hard time figuring out 'what's the great idea?',"

Jack: Exactly

" which since probably very few of you have ever heard of semiotics, let alone semiotics, may not be surprising. I'll start with the assumption that most people's background is in physics, so you will be familiar with quantum mechanics and the question of 'what does it all mean?', with problematic issues such as the fact that we seem to be able to talk only in terms of averages rather in terms of individual events, what is really happening when an observation is made, and the paradox of Schrödinger's cat, and all that. You will also know that 'hidden variable' theories exist that claim to resolve such issues but are really rather a fudge. It would be nice if we had something better, more intuitive."

Jack: Bohm's picture is not a fudge. Indeed, that's what Michael Towler's Cambridge Lectures are all about. So what you have just claimed is very misleading far from the truth. Also you seem to not understand Yakir Aharonov's weak measurements and how they relate to the Von Neumann strong measurements. In fact, we now see individual events in a new kind of statistical sense very different from the old eigenvalue idea you are citing above.

"In this connection, what has happened to me is that in recent years I have been exposed a number of ideas that look like something better, the interesting thing being that they seem to be able to fit together nicely: it is a bit like the old tale where people see different parts of an elephant and think they are seeing completely different things but they all fit with the idea that they are seeing different parts of a single thing, the elephant.

The commonality is basically the idea that this obscure region that, according to orthodoxy, we really can't do anything about is one characterised by a kind of life, and by complexity, and it is the complexity that makes 'business as usual' impossible in dealing with it. But if this is the case, then instead of just giving up we should do the best that we can. One approach is that of 'complexity biology', basically that of treating biology from the perspective of complex systems. This is the approach of my colleague Alex Hankey, who has entered an essay into this competition, but his 2015 paper goes into much more detail and I hope he will upload it to an archive, as I have suggested, so everyone can read it without having to pay the journal to do so (as is allowed under certain circumstances).

Alex and I have compared notes on this, but I have developed more a different side, based on so-called biosemiotics. I came by this through being invited to talk at a conference on semiotics, and more recently I became aware of its application to biology, biosemiotics. This is the study of the role that meaning plays in biology, and it has some very neat ideas. As an introduction to this, you might want to look at the slides for a lecture I gave at a recent conference on Fundamental Physics, starting perhaps at slide 6, and then Hoffmeyer's paper on semiotic scaffolding. These ideas address subtleties in regard to what makes life possible.

Question: why should these esoteric ideas matter as far as physics goes? The answer I think is this: let's suppose that people are right to say that this mystery realm is essentially biological. In that case we need to use biological tools to make sense of what is happening there, and not just blindly hope that the methods currently in use in fundamental physics will in the end do the job. I have addressed the question of how this new direction can proceed theoretically above so will not repeat them, just look at my response to Andrew Beckwith for details. This approach, combined with that addressed in Hankey's essay, may not in the end lead anywhere, but I believe it will, and it is certainly well worth seeing where it can lead.

So to summarise: biology involves a different kind of ordering to regular physical systems -- just consider how different what happens in biological systems is from the case of physical systems. We can use tools developed in that context to probe deeper into nature, if it is the case that mysterious nature departs from the pictures presumed in physics and instead adopts this alternative kind of order at this hypothesised deeper level."

Good luck with that, but I have not been able to understand Hankey and I doubt any other theoretical physicists will even take the time to look at it.

"Question: why should these esoteric ideas matter as far as physics goes? The answer I think is this: let's suppose that people are right to say that this mystery realm is essentially biological. In that case we need to use biological tools to make sense of what is happening there, and not just blindly hope that the methods currently in use in fundamental physics will in the end do the job."

The essential physical difference between living matter and dead matter is simple. You have made it more complex than it really is.

Dead matter obeys orthodox quantum theory with zero action-reaction in the sense of Sutherland.

Living matter obeys post-quantum theory with non-zero action-reaction etc.