Mind before matter: reversing the arrow of fundamentality by Markus P Mueller

Dear Markus,

thanks for the link, I'll check it out!

BTW, I'm not good at this whole self-promotion thing, but I'd be very interested if you had some time to read/comment on my essay...

Dr. Mueller,

I am reminded of George Fitzgerald's astute observation that the speed of light is "astonishingly slow". And it is compared to instantaneous. The Glider has a flight path. The orthodox view misses Fitzgerald's profound humor, it always seems that velocity is viewed as going from zero UP to light speed. Rather, the non-commutative approach would be that instantaneous in every direction would also be in opposite directions of any direction, and light velocity emerges as the averaged constant of a root exponential mean DOWN from instantaneous at infinity. The 'occluded middle' so to speak.

Analysis, it seems to me, always needs contain an instantaneous component as expressed in some correlation to be the benchmark necessary for our mind's comprehension of experience. And in common practice, that generally prevails as an assumption of physical absolute simultaneity, which is convenience. Even information of what the parameters are that physically differentiate a zero boundary of a quantum gravitational domain distinct amid equal valued parameters of a local spacetime field, would needs be time dependent in exchange and perhaps the only valid argument for instantaneous information exchange would be ON that zero boundary.

Pardon me, I'm an old guy, and its a struggle for me to get with the ideas of information being something real. I think you illustrate in your essay something that I have always sensed. That I am distinctly me. What I attempt, I may win, and the world responds to my footstep as if summer's dust but comes to my shin. Best Wishes, jrc

Dear Markus,

well, many skeptics as well as believers take the opposite view by claiming these phenomena can be objectivized sufficiently to explain them. Indeed there is much literature of investigations from both sides of the fence.

Therefore I would not consider exchanges of arguments and viewpoints from both sides of the fence as being beyond any scientific discourse. In fact, the whole essay contest is an example of scientific discourse about ideas that mutually exclude each other and moreover - as this contest shows - is the whole lot the quest of "anybody's personal decision what to make of it".

The example with the current contest should merely illustrate that questions like "what is 'fundamental'?" can reasonably be considered as being suitable for a scientific discourse. Since science is also about null-results, we should not wonder that the very essay question hasn't been answered yet by any essay in a manner that could be unequivocally accepted by the whole scientific community. But what would science be without exchange of arguments? The latter is the sole purpose of every publication (usually).

I would therefore distinguish between the goals of convincing someone and exchanging arguments for the purpose of seeing whether or not there are inconsistencies in one or the other's explanatory framework.

Anyways, thank you for your reply.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Markus, Thanks, (as posted in reply to your comment on mine)

The main finding, yes is an "astonishing"! classical QM. Despite beliefs John Bell did NOT show "a local realist model of a singlet state" is impossible! He showed some assumption was wrong, which I identify as JUST 'up/down spin'. Let's listen more carefully to him;

"..in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong.. ..quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds" p171.

"We would have to devise a new way of specifying a joint probability distribution. We fall back then on a second choice - fermion number density." P.175.

"..a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal." p.172.

"...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded." p.27 (so first seeming 'idiosynchratic')

"..the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back.." p.194.

" quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete." p.26.

The axioms are all required for the mechanism. It'd take half a page each to fully explain but once the ontology is understood all is clear. Those 'two paragraphs' need very careful reading, maybe twice! to do so and overcome normal cognitive dissonance.

Declan Traill's short essay with code and plot, with my experiment, confirm the mechanism works (at CHSH >1) and the 'detection loophole' is (CHSH >1) closed.

This has vast implications (beyond the wide areas you refer to) so I'm quite aghast so many accredited physicists seem to dismiss it so readily. Bell did also say; "..conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better." p.173.

(Editors are the same). But I'd expected some could! I hope you might try that 2nd read of those 2 para's using logic not expectations?

Very best

Peter

PS I've just discovered the Poincare Sphere, ignored by consistent with Maxwell, quantum optics and my model!! For visuals also see my last yrs essay. You can anyway reproduce my table top experiment for a few Euro's.

Marcus,

I posted a response above in the Feb 3 string.

Peter

Dear Markus

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Hello Markus,

Wow! Mind, physics, emotion. Excellent essay that would get young people interested in the "not boring" world of Physics.

A quote from Wheeler: "We are no longer satisfied with insights into particles, or fields of force, or geometry, or even space and time," he wrote in 1981, "Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." [Reference: "The Voice of Genius: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries"]

Thanks for an essay that pushes the limits,

Don Limuti

(there may still be time to take a look at my entry. I do not think you will sleep through it :)

"Philosophers have long been arguing about how to best define the scientific method", how if they had some idea about it. ;-)

"The question of consciousness is deliberately ignored". Consciousness has been matter of scientific study since decades.

"the idea that "consciousness collapses the wave function" or the proliferation of the anthropic principle" aren't simply "pseudo-scientific" or at least "highly questionable", but the first is plain wrong and the second is fully unscientific.

Noncommutative space cannot represent "the sort of "quantum spacetime" that one expects to find in physics in the realm of quantum gravity." Space and time are different in quantum theory, so they cannot be unified on a "quantum spacetime". Moreover the geometrical model of gravity introduced by GR is only approximate; so the idea that quantum gravity requires a "quantum spacetime" is also incorrect. It is understandable that decades of work on this kind of ideas have proven to be useless.

Eternal inflation is like epicycles or the flying spaghetti monster. And Boltzman apparently never understood statistical mechanics or the second law of thermodynamics.

What is so special about the scientist running different simulations of brains in different computers? One could replace brains by molecules and one could still be asking probabilistic questions about the simulations. There is nothing of relevance here. Nothing questioning the "essence of physics".

Quantum mechanics is an ensemble theory, and the idea that it refutes a realistic picture of the world has been debunked since the very beginning of quantum theory. Stuff as Bell's theorem is often invoked as prohibiting realism; However, not only the theorem doesn't say what some pretend, but Bell himself was supporter of realism. Only people adhering to the old Copenhagen interpretation that still pretends that QM is about "what we see" instead about "what there is".

Bricmont reproduces some of the comedy behind the so-called "ortodox view" of quantum mechanics and the historical distortions

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00294.pdf

So the subsequence reasoning about inverting the arrow and placing "first-person perspective" as fundamental and the physical world as "emergent" isn't valid. Not only this kind reasoning is based in incorrect quantum epistemologies/ontologies, but it is also ridiculous to believe that physical world "emerges" only when there are persons acting as observers. It is so ridiculous like when creationists insist that the fossil evidence was planted by Satan to deceive us. Wheeler's ideas about reality being created by observers are pure nonsense.

Postulate 1 seems to fail when x is a stationary state.