More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss. by Gordon Watson

Peter, thanks for the ESP and/or happy coincidence: I've just left this [below] on your essay-thread. I'll return here (maybe tomorrow) when I've had a chance to read and digest yours above. It will now make VERY interesting reading; hopefully absent any silly boo-boos on my part. My thanks again, more soonly; G [nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted].

...................................

Dear Michaele and Peter,

I've just discovered that a 2-hr blackout has wiped a long enthusiastic WIP response to your essay -- probably via a valid log-out at FQXi -- and I'm not good at rewritings! So this is short-&-sweet as I look forward to many more ongoing discussions!

Thanking you for a (for me) beautifully presented and breath-taking essay, I regret (just a little; as you'll see) that it follows the mould of Philip Gibbs' lovely essay on "a universe of stories" as against my fondness for "a universe of dialogue" based on stories, poems, observations, dreams, etc. + MATHEMATICS -- such dialogue itself based on a universe of spacetime (a beable), full of beables and interactions -- the more especially when I see our shared fondness for GA, wavefunctions, interactions, observables (7x on p.1), ++++; plus a healthy avoidance of matrices, etc; ps, though I find avoidance of Bell's lovely term "beables" (nb: in spacetime) not good for digestion; neither of food nor ideas; nb: I also like inferables. [Breathing has now forcibly resumed; and with it the truth that much of your essay is currently beyond me.]

Re wavefunctions [WFs] -- and reminding you that (imho, if you like) math is the best logic -- please see Fröhner (1988:639), hyperlinked at Reference [12] in my essay; or via direct link to the PDF Missing link between probability theory and quantum mechanics: the Riesz-Fejér theorem.

Fröhner's work is part of my theory [see essay at ¶11]; so re WFs, see particularly in the vicinity of this on his p.639: " ... Historically, the superposition principle had been established first as a puzzling empirical feature of the quantum world, before M. Born recognised that the absolute square of the wave function can be interpreted as a probability density. ..."

Re this from you: "The resulting geometric wavefunction model permits one to examine the interface between fundamental and emergent." I see that "emergentia" is a favourite theme (at least on p.1): me being here forced -- similar to my distinctive use of "premiss" -- to return to the much more sensible Latin [subject to latin-experts] since the right word here -- emergency -- is misleading in plain English. Though (please NB) maybe it does apply as a primary-concept that we should first sort out: me trusting that we agree with that fundamental and elementary premiss: TLR (true local realism)?

PS: Regretting, with apologies, many other wiped comments (though they can be reconstructed in ongoing dialogues), I'll drop a copy of this onto my essay-thread; hoping you'll do likewise if/when you respond.

With my thanks again, and with best regards; Gordon

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Peter, to be clearer re my last above: "[nb: the temptation to re-edit resisted]" should more clearly say: [nb: the temptation to NOW read AND THEN re-edit BEFORE SENDING HAS BEEN resisted]. This next is quick and dirty to get things moving: I'm time-poor on many fronts at the moment.

Now, having begun to read [but needing much more time]: please [in future] number your paragraphs and sub-points as I do in my essay. For there are many points that we hold in common but a few that raise questions.

Re this from you above, with -- [CAPS] -- by me: "I like your logic approach to the problem, in principle should be clear of inadequacies of particle theory models (renormalization comes to mind) -- [YES + AAD, NL AND WFC (WF-COLLAPSE); SO FAR SO GOOD] --, but lacks the intuitive advantage of simple geometric electromagnetic wavefunction model in 3D space -- [GEWM-3D: THIS I MUST SEE] --" for I'm seeking intuitive advances at every step. So please see Fröhner re WFs and superpositions: and tell me about [point me to] the GEWM-3D!

PS: We build a bridge via dialogue! I need to learn about your use of "mechanical-impedance" -- in baby steps please + references to the related online literature (if any): hoping to see the end of "the impedance matrix". TKS; G: I'll put this on your essay-thread.

This thought-provoking essay -- Brian Josephson's essay: On the fundamentality of meaning -- provoked the following favourable reponse from me:

Dear Brian,

Many thanks for your thought-provoking essay and my introduction to biosemiotics.* In return, there follows one of the just-mentioned thoughts: offered at the risk of my being scheduled as biosemiidiotic (if not wholly so).

Seeking to understand (and give meaning to) your symbols, it seemed that you were in fact talking (somewhat in code) about me [well, certainly about some of my friends; but they can speak for themselves]. For, like them, I believe myself to be an element of the set X = {biological | spacetime}: renown for my agency, as in my doings, performances, actions; AKA getting things done.

Further, in accord with your thesis, I like to think that I do now take (from p.1) "proper account of the phenomenon of meaning." For example: Having learnt to read at early age, I could give meaning to the symbols at the local bus-stop. It read: "BUS STOP. SIGNAL DRIVER." And though I only ever saw one driver per bus, yet I knew it was not a typo. For I also knew that "signal" had two meanings: and it could not be the common one, for it already said bus STOP. Thus did I see that they were reassuringly advertising the outstanding safety of each driver. [Only later did I learn, standing there, that the driver did not stop unless you waved (action); accompanied by great future insecurity (he might miss your action): whereas the one consistent message -- to my small mind -- lead to inaction by me, certain stopping by the bus, and an assured long-term security.]

All of which brings me to this next (p.1): "Meaning fails to show up in the world of physics simply because the kind of situations that physicists prefer to investigate are ones where meaning has no significant influence on the outcome." Yes, indeed! Consider the famous case of Bell's theorem: the meaning one attaches to REALISM significantly influences ones' understanding of REALITY. For me, "true realism" proves to be consistent with locality; for others, "naive realism" leads to dilemmas about AAD and nonlocality.

I could go on about theorising and scaffolding; to the edge of chaos; confusing readers; your [BJ] personal benefits (p.5). But I want to focus on this: "Historians will marvel at the way insistence by the mainstream that at a fundamental level particles are the only things that matter, banishing to the fringe those scientists who think otherwise, will be seen to have drastically interfered with the progress of science" (p.6).

I AGREE: For while I take "existence" to be fundamental, it is "interference; AKA interaction" that provides the doings, performances, actions of our dynamic universe: and particles. Thus do I believe that introductions to biosemiotics should focus on personal/human analogies from set X re scaffolding to the edge of chaos; etc.

* My only acquaintance with C. S. Peirce is that I called upon him to prove a point re the last word in my title: More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

With my thanks again, and with my best regards; Gordon

Steve, thanks for voting openly and providing your reasons; these actions are much appreciated.

I'm hoping that many of us will adopt the same procedure for the next essay. So please have a look at my comments on Terry Bollinger's essay-thread. (I'll also put a copy below.)

Looking forward to further discussions when you are ready, with my thanks again; Gordon

My voting suggestions/comments from Terry Bollinger's thread:

Fundamental as Fewer Bits. Please, at minimum, add your own comments there re Terry's voting ideas! His essay is pretty good and worthy of comment too. GW.

.......................

Terry, some quick short notes as I work my way to your essay:

1. FQXi Essay Contestant Pledge = Suggested FQXi Voting Pledge

Your Pledge is so refreshing that I've hot-linked it above. LHS wording of the title is yours; to me, it reads "official" and is thus too hopeful (for now). RHS is my suggested edit as we work with FQXi to improve things!

2. Under current circumstances, my own position is clear:

(i) As an independent researcher, I'm here to discuss, learn, teach, debate, respond to every question, critique others, etc. Result = Fail; eg, next to no questions, few responses.

(ii) I'm not here for the votes: Result = Just-as-well; eg, given a 0 without explanation: how can I learn, respond, correct, defend, revise, acknowledge, etc?

3. While we await (with many others) for FQXi improvements, why don't we develop an OPEN voting system? Add to your Pledge a (say, for argument's sake) 5-category [each numbered; #1-5] scoring sheet [maximum vote per category = 2] with space for explanations, plus identifier (say, for you, hot-linked Terry Bollinger [or with hot-linked email-addresses also allowed] so that we ALWAYS get an alert with easy-return access. [You get the idea.]

Recipient can respond to Terry Bollinger#2, for all to see: thus promoting open learning, debate, progress, support for one view or the other, or a middle view, etc. Given the teaching/learning, who then here, as a serious researcher, would focus on "fake-scores"?

The advantage of this OPEN proposal is that you, with your background, could lead us to something truly useful, actionable, within the current rules, a worthwhile experiment, ready for the next "contest" (surely the wrong word here) -- which FQXi can monitor before refining (if need be), and accepting as the new gold-standard in OPEN teaching/learning/essay-exchange; etc: ready for the next 1 "contest"!

4. To your (for me) excellent essay:

(i) I counted 8 important fundamental symbols in Challenge #1.

(ii) Re Challenge #2: in my [hurried] essay, see hot-linked Reference [12], p.639! It's part of my theory.

(iii) NB: Your editorial red-pen will be very welcome there at any time; hopefully after you've read [in the first thread], the Background to my theory (which dates from 1989).

(iv) Maybe, with hard work and insight, you might just become the person who finds a hidden gemstone of simplicity by unravelling the threads of misunderstanding that for decades have kept it hidden.

PS: Terry, if/when you reply to my post (at any time), please copy it to my essay-thread so that I'm alerted to it. I will do likewise.

Enough (for now): With many thanks and much appreciation for your lovely work;

Gordon Watson More realistic fundamentals: quantum theory from one premiss.

Thanks Brian, please take your time; thanks too for not letting another FQXi bug beat you! Gordon

Dear snp, My thanks for your comments and support: I wish you well in this contest, with your research and long into the future. Best regards; Gordon.

Thanks Juan,

Let me rephrase my position in your terms: Locality is confirmed by experiment; it is a consequence of our universe containing independent components which are correlated (eg, in EPRB, paired-particles are correlated by the conservation of angular momentum). Without any reference to (nor use of) nonlocality (nor nonlocal interaction-energy) -- and consistent with SR -- we can therefore calculate the correlation that will be revealed when such particle-pairs are tested by Alice and Bob. Experiments [will/do] confirm our calculations: to thus resolve Bell's AAD dilemma and confirm the "silliness" (of his and his follower's position) that Bell foreshadowed (as late as 1990). QED.

I will welcome you comments on ¶13 in my essay: there you will see Bell's theorem refuted.

HTH; with my thanks again, Gordon

From Ian Durham. Mar. 16, 2018.

Hi Gordon,

I will have to read your essay, but I will say that you can't really "refute" Bell's theorem. It's just a theorem. What you seem to be presenting is an alternate view, i.e. that Bell's derivation of his inequalities used a certain set of conditions that you think does not capture all of reality. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but that doesn't mean Bell was necessarily wrong either.

Anyway, I will try to get to reading your essay soon.

Ian

Thank you Ian, I look forward to your response; Gordon. Jul. 4, 2018.