What is Beyond Reckoning? by Jonathan J. Dickau

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.

Thanks, for taking another look. Your comments are always incisive. Hard crowd this year. Your score, so far, doesn't accurately represent a superior effort. From personal experience, Much more ambushing this year.

Jim

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

Jonathan,

Here is the Mandelbrot update we talked about via email.

Get canvas for node.js from GitHub or node, be sure to download to a new folder. Move content of download to the node_module subfolder your scripting files go into downloaded from my fqxi essay last year blog.

Replace node_moduleNUMBERS.js with new NUMBERS.js from attached.

A script that will generate a jpeg for the Mandelbrot set is also in the attached, move mpixlog.js to your executable script file folder. If you run this script it will regenerate mpixlog.jpeg. You might want to look at it and/or rename it prior to running script

RickAttachment #1: mandelbrot_updates.zip

I guess the windows file folder separator gets dropped. NUMBERS.js in subfolder node_module

Dear Jonathan

I thank you for your comments on my page.

You are right, I said everything in the presentation of my essay, the rest is just an application.

This kind of "information indigestion" will probably be useful and there will be something left in head of everyone's to think about.

I could arrange the same "information indigestion" with elementary particles, but I chose the solar system so that I could visualize what each spectral line of an atom is in reality, where their analogues exist, instead of abstractions of quantum mechanics. And then it will be clear that the whole Universe functions according to unified quantum laws.

Gerard't Hooft

is a man of genius person, so he himself admits that he does not understand what people tell him about their theories and why they say it.

But he has keywords that can change the whole of science, how Maxwell changed science by creating his own equations, presenting his rotors in the form of simple cogwheel models.

Gerard't Hooft says:

"We conclude that the most general model will be described as a set of simple periodic cogwheel models with varying periodicities."

We need to ask him a question about the number of teeth in his gears. It is possible that he himself will think of the fact that there should be 137 pieces.

This will be a "shot from a cannon to top of a mountain to turn the potential energy of snow into an avalanche."

All the Best,

Vladimir

Jonathan,

attachments: 1_Plateau.jpg

Great picture, I need to try to describe it in my leisure time according to my fractal structure formulas.

Vladimir