What is Beyond Reckoning? by Jonathan J. Dickau

An other Thing at my humble opinion relevant to superimpose is the Lie algebras, derivatives and groups and the works of Dirac and the Ricci flow also and Hamilton Ricci flow in considering intrinsic codes inside the coded particles , the poincare conjecture of course also and the topological and euclidian spaces, in superimposing all these Tools cited above and here, that can become the secret of this universal partition. And furthermore we can consider finally an assymetric Ricci flow for the deformations and to explain the unique things maybe in the smaller spherical volumes of these finite primordial series.

I try to find the good general way for the formalisation of my general theory and these 3D spheres, I search the good mathematical Tools to superimpose ,it could be very relevant to work in complementarity, alone it is not easy, John Baez, Susskind , Witten, Hooft and Connes more Penrose could come on this platform, together with their skillings in maths, we can create a real revolutionary work at my humble opinion, I know the maths but they are better than me. The complementarity is essential it seems.

wordy essay (your usually are). But I gave you a 9 for content. Had it been more succinct you would have gotten a 10

Your points are well taken.

Andrew

Hi Jonathan,

Your paper was quite interesting. I had no idea about the connections between the Mandelbrot set and Physics. There is a lot I don't understand about it, but it just makes me want to read a lot more about it.

There was one thing you said I could use a little clarification on: 'that which converges or condenses into congruent forms.' What do you mean by congruent forms and what is converging to them?

Do you think the lack of focus on non-linear dynamics is because of difficulty, or possibly something else?

You mentioned the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, and it made me wonder if we could ever stumble across a mathematical structure to describe the behavior of waves without the limitations of the uncertainty principle. (A little tangential).

One thing you said in your concluding remark struck a chord in me, even if I don't fully understand the full implications. That " the reality in both Math and Physics is that what is relevant or real arose from a larger spectrum of what is possible". It makes me wonder on the limitations of what is possible.

Best regards,

Ernesto

Hi again Jonathan,

I posted a copy of this to my page, not knowing if you get it there.

Thanks for reading my paper. I don't know why you called it a revised version as it was never revised.

An ideal response for me would be of someone willing to read and discuss the whole model. That type of analysis could be worth some money to me. You mentioned finding misses and flubs, but I don't think you would find them upon really understanding the pieces of the model. A willing analyst could try applying the words to math equations for some of the pieces. My papers aren't that far off especially for geometry. Actually one of my published papers is in AIP JMP - journal of mathematic physics. That was 2013 and I get dozens of organizations per year that reference the work there.

You are wrong about the push being automatic with the universe inside out and vacuum plus expansion. The universe is stable and the push comes from flowing EM radiation throughout. Light for example is created and diminishes via gravity (involved).

I don't understand this sentence which you also used before. 'As Eddington pointed out; the only real accommodation in going from Newtonian gravity to Relativity theory is that lines of force converge at a radius rather than to a point. 'In any case both systems are wrong.

I have some knowledge of Faraday and his feed of ideas to Maxwell. In any case if there is more work to do to make this a complete theory someone has to explain it. Clearly math is limited here, but there are no motion differences (except for c) that need to be compared. The reality is that math connects subsets of a cosmology to its parent. But a completely new cosmology doesn't connect in many actions so math is simply a stumbling block to protect the questionable standard model.

The effort of thought conversion is too complex and difficult so few read and ponder this whole perspective. I realize you are a mathematician but might you have any ongoing interest?

Paul Schroeder

Jonathan,

Hope you have time to recheck my update before the deadline: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396

Jim Hoover.

Dear Jonathan Dickau,

Yesterday you commented my "essay" (Concentration and tessellation in quantized space). At first I couldn't understand your comment (What is "Loll" and "Ambjorn"? And what is "causal dynamical triangulations or energetic causal sets"?).

But an hour ago I tried Google and I am really surprised. I never had heard of the work of Renate Loll and Jan Ambjørn. I suppose I have a lot to read now... ;-))

Anyway, I am really thankful that you wrote that comment. I didn't know that there are other physicists who are involved in the same type of research as I have always done.

With kind regards, Sydney

Jonathan,

I read your essay and gave you a decent score. The Mandelbrot set in principle contains an infinite amount of information. This is even though it is generated by the rather simple iteration of s --> z(z + 1). Points that converge to 0 are marked as black and those points after so many iterations come close or within some distance are color coded. There are some rather spectacular videos of the Mandelbrot set out there.

The Mandelbrot set has these branches on it that have spirals with 3, 5, 8, 13 etc numbers of petals coming off. This is a Fibonacci sequence. The Fibonacci sequence is of course identified with a number П† = (1 + в€љ5)/2 My essay does invoke the idea of fractal geometry in the formation of unital sets. These sets are p-adic. For the Fibonacci sequence we can look at this in a mod(8) system and this gives the primes 2, 3, 5 and we can then reduce this system to these p-adic rings. I choose 8 because that is the sequence for Bott periodicity. Lurking behind this are Cantor sets and fractal geometry.

I attach a picture I took recently of a flower that has Fibonacci structure.

Cheers LCAttachment #1: fibonacci_flowering.jpg

Dear Jonathan Dickau,

I have read your essay with a big smile. Personally I admire explanations about abstract subjects that are supported by a "tangible" concept to transform the arguments like clothes that express the personality of a person. Your essay describes ideas that can easily be extended to a number of articles on FQXi's website. For example, the discussion about the origin of consciousness is futile if we accept that reality is a fractal or has dominant properties that create a fractal-like structure.

I will read your essay again within a couple of days because there is more to rethink than I can grasp if I read it only once.

With kind regards, Sydney

Dear Jonathan,

Glad to read your work again.

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir