Dear Juan,

Thank you for commenting.

It is clear that we are going to disagree about many things.

Let me address the one point that I am most familiar with:

> Knuth' work is another rehash of older and debunked ideas introduced in the early times of quantum theory about "observers playing a central role" in Nature, and taken to its extreme by Wheeler's nonsensical "it from bit".

I am Knuth. So it is strange to hear you mention me in the third person in a comment addressed to me. It is true that work was partly inspired by Feynman and Wheeler's absorber theory, which was an attempt at doing away with the electric field. But it is not a rehashing. Fenyman and Wheeler assumed the physics of spacetime and electromagnetism. What I have done, with Newshaw Bahreyni, was to show that the mathematics of relativsitic spacetime is the only possible way of describing a set of causally-related events. We are working to derive (some of) the laws of physics from basic symmetries in the model, which is an entirely different enterprise. We are not naive enough to believe that this could yield anything like a final fundamental theory. The work is aimed to seriously explore what is possible.

I, of course, strongly disagree with your assessment of Jaynes.

and will refocus on your statement:

> There is no central role of information in physics

Wow!!! Really???

Sincerely,

Kevin Knuth

Dear Ken!

Thank you for your kind comments!

I did actually mean 'anthropmorphic' (man-shaped) when was initially talking about the physical laws. The fact that we call them 'Laws' or 'Laws of Nature'. We think of these as rules that things must obey. 'Obeying rules' is a very human-centric perspective. I did not really come back to it because I used it as a means to discuss the idea that even a Creator would be able to create in an unconstrained manner. My mere mentioning of a Creator seems to have ruffled some feathers, but the point was that there are constraints that cannot be broken. 2 3 is not ever going to be 10. Everything would break. And that is meaningful.

I myself don't believe that the constants change. Pi doesn't. What really is important is that we really do not understand why some constants have the values they do. Until we understand that, we cannot know that the values cannot change, and we cannot know whether other universes might have constants with other values. That was really what I was going for.

But the fact that this universe is nicely tuned for life, the anthropic principle (of or relating to humans), is interesting. This is especially true if there are reasons why the constants have the values they do. Then, it seems that things will be difficult to reconcile.

Thank you again!

Kevin

Dear Satyavarapu,

Thank you for your kind words and for pointing me to your essay. I do hope to find the time to read it.

Sincerely,

Kevin Knuth

Dear Flavio,

Thank you for your kind comments. I do hope to find the time to read your essay!

Sincerely,

Kevin Knuth

Dear Don,

Thank you for your kind words.

I am glad that they struck a chord with you!

Thank you for pointing me to your essay. I do hope to find the time to read it!

Sincerely,

Kevin Knuth

Dear Steven,

Thank you for your comments and for pointing me to your essay. It sounds very interesting and I hope to find the time to read it.

Sincerely,

Kevin Knuth

Dear Terry,

Thank you for your kind words and comments.

I didn't intend that the focus of the essay be on patterns per se. I was more interested in pointing out that it is not easy to distinguish or identify a law of physics in the first place, much less deciding on what is fundamental.

The fine-tuning is indeed interesting.

> almost as low as the odds of our President saying just the right words in a multicultural sensitivity training session.

or as low as him attending any sensitivity training in the first place!

This is perhaps evidence that the universe could be even more fine-tuned!

Thank you again!

Kevin Knuth

Dear Adel,

Thank you for your comments, and kind words regarding my earlier essays.

You have certainly captured my attention by referring to my work and Dr. Kastner's work. I do hope to find the time to read your essay.

Thank you again,

Kevin Knuth

Dear Dean,

Thank you for your comments.

Most of my work is indeed focused on how consistency conditions arise from symmetries related to measurement, or more precisely, quantification. It does not appear to resolve the biophilic aspect, which has me in a bit of a quandary.

Regarding the terminological issue. I had correctly used anthropomorphic to refer to the concept of laws. I did not extend that description to the latter part of the essay where I was discussing the anthropic biophilic aspect of the laws of physics. So I hope that this clears up that confusion.

Thank you again!

Kevin

Dear David,

Thank you for your comments.

The 2/3 does not appear to be related to the charge of quarks, and there does not appear to be a 1/3 variant. Instead, the relation appears to be some sort of (geometrical?) relationship among masses across generations.

It is not well-understood, nor is it known if it is an accidental relationship, which is why it remains only a curiosity.

Thank you again,

Kevin

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your kind comments.

Your comments about dogma are interesting and relevant. I mainly wanted to point out that this is dogma, and that science, in this respect, is a belief system. It's not usually how we think about science and perhaps by highlighting that it might help us to view science through different eyes. I cannot say that you were wrong to not find ways to escape this dogma. Is the dogma wrong? I do not know. Reductionism is clearly been fruitful. Yet emergence happens for a reason, so it may be possible to understand those reasons using simple explanations as well... reductionism again.

My previous essays have discussed aspects of my work, which involve specific reductionist approaches. I have tried to avoid that in this essay sticking to ideas that are not necessarily related to my research. I wanted to keep things fresh and to revisit the big picture.

I did avoid QM here mostly because my perspectives on QM are heavily biased by my research involving QM. Was I wrong to not share these perspectives? Or was it better to spare the reader from an essay littered with a summary of my research, and to give myself to step back and think beyond my research area? Either way, this essay is the direction that I went.

I do hope that I get the opportunity to read your essay.

I wish you the best of luck as well!

Sincerely,

Kevin Knuth

Kevin,

Thanks, and for your positive comments on my essay. My response there is here; (I haven't yet seen you 'bias' with QM except around it's edges. Do send a link).

Kevin,

I greatly value your unencumbered (with beliefs) thoughts. To recognise we're all 'heavily biased' goes far to overcome the cognitive dissonance plaguing advancement. Is dogma wrong? Yes! Is doctrine? most likely! All building needs foundations but the moment we forget they're provisional we're in a fatal rut.

So to the model; 3yrs since showing Dr B's Red/Green Sock Trick 'Classic QM' works! It's overly compressed in this 100 second video but at least it's some pictures to help frame a new mental model. You should also go through the 8 point quick mechanism checklist a dozen posts up {on mine}(though missing detail like elliptical polarity at the Pm channels etc).

Did you see Declan Traill's supporting code & plot yet? You also need to refresh on the discrete field dynamics you've liked previously for which classic QM was just a falsification exercise. (It has vague links with your own 'causal sets' approach).

But it needs all the help it can get to penetrate the dogma/doctrine! We have some, and once you've worked it through and overcome the trauma I hope you may collaborate. Are you familiar with Froher by the way? Gordon Watson is also on the right lines and includes a link.

My respect for you was high has just increased, as has my score of your essay I dare say. Is that right? Well just a bit!

Very best. Look forward to your questions and chatting more.

Peter

Hmmm, it seemed to have been hit with 1's (as mine was) & dropped to 6.4! now 6.6 after my 10. I'll put in a good word with Traill & Watson who don't seem to have visited yet.

Hope you get in the finals, and best of luck with the judges. As an academic at least you'd be in the frame! (lol)

Peter

Kevin,

Nice essay, and definitely vote dogma! It seems the further Academics get their feet under the table and carpet slippers on the more they're happy with the dogma. I've just seen the quote from John Bell posted somewhere; "Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better." Darn right.

I think you do. Keep it up. It seems to be a sign of an eminent physicist not to be complacent!

Top marks.

Richard

    Thank you, again, Peter, for your very kind words.

    I will have to take the time to go through all the interesting things you are pointing me to!

    What work of mine was I referring to?

    I will point you to these papers:

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.09725

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1511.07766

    I am working on a more recent paper on influence theory at present, which I hope to have finished by week's end. Next is a more detailed paper on influence theory and QM. We have some insights, and I am working to try to obtain more.

    I have found myself to be quite inspired by these contests, and I am looking forward to what ideas come next!

    Good Luck in the Judging! It looks like several of us were dinged with unit scores, which is really unprofessional. So good luck!

    Cheers

    Kevin

    Dear Richard,

    Thank you for your kind comments!

    I really like Bell's quote:

    "Professional physicists really ought to be able to do better."

    I agree 100%!

    Thank you again!

    Kevin Knuth

    Kevin,

    Thanks for you reply (27th) & links, which I'll look up. I discussed 'Beables' with Ian Durham. He seemed locked into his own ideas but I've given it a last shot - see post below. Actually I really hope YOU may be able to help!?

    P

    .....

    Ian,

    My Feb 24 post outlines the classical mechanism in the essay.

    I'm saying that if we start with the Maxwell/(Poincare Sphere) 4 momenta state for electrons and the pairs (rather than 'no' assumption or superposed 'singlet' states) then with a simple momentum transfer ('measurement') mechanism, the entire tranche of QM predictions and findings can be reproduced with classical mechanics & modern photonics.

    As a good scientist I'm sure you won't let shock or cognitive dissonance make you dismiss the concept or run and hide. The computer plot confirms the result, so the question is, as an expert, can you identify where the mechanism may be 'wrong' or what it 'misses'?

    The key to EPR resolution is that A,B polariser field directions are reversible, and the 'measurement' on interaction is either 'SAME' or 'OPPOSITE' vector (then an amplitude pair subject to y,z axis ellipticity on orthogonal axes).

    So if we have A,B +,-, either can reverse setting angle to get A,B +,+ or -,-. Cos distributions are implicit in the Poincare sphere (as I show), applied a 2nd time at the photomultiplier. In between +1,-1 are then Bayesian distributions, so 'undecidable' at 90o.

    So beyond a local interference range NO 'action at a distance' is required to explain the outcomes!!

    This is such a leap of understanding it needs an acknowledged expert to either falsify or confirm it. Not that difficult a task!

    Very best

    Peter

    PS. Do contact me direct, on; pj.ukc.edu@physics.org

    Write a Reply...