Dear Lockie

Thank you for your reply,I dont know you are satisfied with my reply. You may please reply here also, no problem.

Hope you also will rate my essay, if you already rated it, dont worry.

I definitely like to discuss anywhere you like

Best Regards

=snp

Dear Lockie

I dont know that. Boney M re-sung this song is it? I did not here Beatles song.

Well thank you....

We hope to continue...

What is your email Id?

Best

=snp

Lockie,

Thanks for an apt reading of my essay. Yours was a "down-under" type adventure. Your crossword puzzle was an interesting "table-of-contents" of an essay that entertains and informs. I feel more colorful as a skuld entity with self-awareness though perhaps my future output is not totally unpredictable, given my past roadmap. When you speak of the "now" and the future, I think of news of the mutation of the coronavirus as in input in an uncertain future.

Liked your essay and consider it one of the best in discussing the 3 "Us".

My ratings is your 8th in this world of raters giving "1" bombs w/o comments.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

    Thanks Jim.

    My essay's first rating was a 1, which I think causes others to avoid reading.

    I'll rate your now as it was most enjoyable to read. I find some essays are too philosophical and some are too mathematical, and others are just hard to read. At the start I was taking a day to read and re-read and digest each essay, but with hundreds of entries that is a lost cause.

    I am glad you like being a skuld entity. In another post to Kwame Bennett I defined intelligence as the ability to build a radiotelescope!

    As for covid19, it is interesting that a virus pattern in the 'now' can wreak so much havoc in the future, as you note. I certainly don't think it was all pre-determined, especially as the US Presidentis such a wild card!

    Cheers

    Lockie

    Thanks, Lockie

    For your comments. I am keen on fields that "wriggle" and the Poynting vector at the moment but that can change, we can thrash it out.

    Good luck with the essay comp.

    Cheers Barry

    Hey Lachlan (and fellow Australian),

    Thanks for the interesting essay. You wrote about Wolfram's ideas from a new kind of science. There is a bit of strange beauty that arises from these simple building block automona models when they make a very complex but strangely simple structure. As you noted right at the very end, the brain must work in a similar fashion. The interesting question is at what point does self-referential consciousness arise? Does the brain reach some critical mass where it suddenly emerges? In any case, if we take our current understanding, it appears the brain is a highly non-linear, dissipative Turing machine (not sure if it is universal).

    In any case, it was a unique set of ideas that you presented in your essay. I hope you can take the time to have a look at essay which considers the dissipative nature of Turing machines and might be of interest to you.

    Michael

      Thanks for your comments Michael.

      I enjoyed your essay and left comments for you on your site.

      Given that I believe in mathematical structures as approximations of the object reality of the Universe, I suppose that would mean I am also an adherent of skuld monism. But I do not believe in determinism! I think that emergent skuld beings such as ourselves are a form of coarse-graining, and it is this coarse graining that prevents determinism.

      In my essay I wrote that instead of considering procedures that can recursively call themselves, what if the procedure/program/brain can modify itself, thus changing and improving, and so on? Surely this type of recursion lies at the heart of the origins of consciousness? Many millions of years of evolution have honed consciousness to fully skuld awareness of an endless variety of things. I guess that is my take on things re consciousness arising.

      Cheers

      lockie

      Interesting essay. One reason I think theoretical physicists tend not to like cell automata-like models is that they are hard to extract insight from. Even if a wizard gave us a cell automata model and told us it was the Theory of Everything, we would still probably like to come up with phenomenological descriptions of it that are easier to understand. Having the rules for such a model doesn't tell us why the consequences are what they are, e.g. why there appear to be four forces and why these rules cause atoms and galaxies to form. For a theory that we don't a priori know is right, these automata theories are also hard to test experimentally.

      The thermodynamic arrow of time is, in some sense, pretty much understood. It doesn't have anything to do with wave/particle duality, since it happens in the classical mechanics to classical statistical mechanics transition also. It's an emergent consequence of having lots of chaotically moving particles. Formally, you get time irreversibility when you take the particle number N to infinity, a singular limit. There's a good chapter discussing all this in Chibbaro et al's "Reductionism, emergence, and levels of reality".

      Not sure I understand your positions on presentism and free will. Maybe I did not read carefully enough.

      John

        Since you wrote on my blog, though addressed to someone else, I wrote the following:

        The quantum numbers such as spin I think are independent. An elementary particle is I think an entanglement of states for each of these quantum numbers. In solid state physics these are called quasi-particles, such as phonons, plasmons, spinons etc. Experiments done recently have shown that an electron can be placed in a state where the spin is in one location and the charge at another. I actually think elementary particles are these entanglements of quantum states corresponding to these quantum numbers.

        LC

          Dear Lawrence,

          I hope I didn't seem rude, posting to PJ on your blog, but I wanted to comment on spin. I am still reading your essay and may comment in the future, but as I am rather poor at math I am finding it difficult. Still I regard my logic as being fine, so I can comment on ideas that are within my grasp.

          I have successfully reduced elementary particle quantum numbers to just 3, and can show that that is all required to analyse any particle interaction. With respect to the QM/classical divide I have been pidgeon-holed into the 'classical' camp and I do not ascribe to entanglement, except to say that fundamental particles are entangled with their fields. But in the spirit of QM, I do not think that is what you mean. I have no problems with quasi-particles or with the assigning of quantum numbers to them, to help with quantum field theories associated with them. Maybe ultimately it is semantics and our chosen ontologies that divide us, and in the end we do believe in the same stuff. You state: "I actually think elementary particles are these entanglements of quantum states corresponding to these quantum numbers." In my theory all elementary particles obey the symmetry of just 3 quantum numbers, so three simple arithmetic equations suffice to describe any particle interaction. If arithmetic=entanglement then I agree with your statement. As I said it may just come down to semantics.

          Regards,

          Lockie Cresswell

          4 days later

          Dear John,

          Thanks for your comments. I agree with your statement"Even if a wizard gave us a cell automata model and told us it was the Theory of Everything, we would still probably like to come up with phenomenological descriptions of it that are easier to understand." but wouldn't it be nice (to borrow from the Beachboys). I think the wizard's rules are based on the force laws we have, but how they are to be explained well... (you will have to ask his demon).

          I do believe the thermodynamic arrow of time is very tied up with Maxwellian waves and the ultimate 'heat death'. I only covered the duality issue as an aside, since I do not believe in the quantum photon interpretation.

          In my ontology, it is only because of free will that we can break the chains of determinism, not some quantum belief in HUP.

          All the best,

          Lockie

          You wrote: "And so, in summing up, we can have logical and mathematical propositions that are undecidable; we can have structures in physics and mathematics that are uncomputable and we can have complex nonlinear systems whose output is seemingly unpredictable from the point of view of computability and we can have complex skuld organisms whose output is completely unpredictable due to free will.

          I wrote (in my essay): "...predication is typically interpreted and defined within the context of other equally nebulous concepts such as determinism, free will and randomness."

          Although those quotes may seem to conflict they actually do not. They simply reflect the fact that I probably did not go far enough and you may have went too far. But it was certainly an interesting excursion. And I really liked your crossword at the beginning of the essay. That was a nice touch.

            Thanks for your comments, Jason.

            I'm not sure where to start in replying. I met a philosopher in my dog walking park a couple of days ago and he was trying to convince me that subjective reality is all there is, that everything I see and touch and do is all a projection of my mind. Well I must have a very complicated mind, inventing this essay competition and a huge variety of essays to comment on.

            When I say object reality I am of course framing it in my mind in the context of my theories, so it is biased of course. Yet in my mind object reality is a collection of aether particles and matter particles doing their dance according to the force laws that bind them. Other's objective realities will depend on the ontology they subscribe to. But of course, if we call ourselves scientists then we are trying to remove subjectivity and superstition and magic by means of the scientific method. I do not think we have completed the mission because some of the adherents of quantum field theories believe that QT is object reality!

            The 3 un's seem to have arisen out of the creations of skuld organisms, and once created become part of object reality, hence using the subjective/objective dichotomy is wrong, as you suggest.

            Block Universe eternalists do not regard the future as open, and in a narrower sense, those believing in determinism also have a closed future in the sense of although it is not yet written it is determinable (by LaPlace's demon). I am suggesting free will maintains a truly open future. TOO FAR? Well maybe but that the luxury we have been provided with this forum.

            I do not like collapsing wavefunctions, nor many worlds peeling off at vast rates. Maybe Bohm is the nearest to my quantum perspective, although there are many chapters still to be written on this topic.

            In responding to another post I came across the "Andromeda Paradox" of Penrose. I applied my concept of time to it and nicely resolved/removed the paradox. I guess that is what we want from a theory - to get rid of paradoxes (and meet all the criteria of the scientific method).

            I suspect I will be long dead before any of my theories are accepted. (I think someone famous proposed a law about that)

            Cheers

            Lockie

            I appreciated your essay, with a less formal style, which can be much more effective in arguments which are not intended as informal proofs, and adaptation of Norse concepts. Interesting that you are firmly convinced of free will, given the fatalistic strain in Norse literature, which is what helps make works like Njil's saga so magnificent. I view counterpredictive operations, whether in algorithms such as are used to show that the halting problem hasn't a universal solution, or in analogous linguistic and mental processes, as a means to a rigorous understanding of free will. If you're interested, you might be enjoy the article by Jen Ismael I reference. It gives a good introduction.

              Thanks for your comments Steven. You mention Njal's Saga - it is my favourite! Yes, the Norse were fatalistic. Personally i'm drawn to some aspects, but the intellectual me wants an open future, and sees free will as the way forward. I think formal proofs are for papers and essays can concentrate on ideas, of which I am blessed to have many. This competition has been a good training ground for philosophy and logic for me - which hopefully I can apply to my many theories.

              Thanks for the reference, which I will look up. I think I have read as many refs. as I have read essays. Pity it is all coming to a close today!

              Cheers,

              Lockie

              Dear Lachlan,

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

              "With the help of two demons I examine determinism and wave/particle duality, and decide that Maxwell rules!"

              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

              Dear Lockie,

              I thought your essay was engaging, beautifully written and easy to read. You made the concepts of undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability understandable.

              I would have liked more detail about biological systems, brains, free will, and "artificial intelligence" because conclusions can't be made about them by looking at surface appearances: the devil is in the detail about how these things actually work.

              Regards,

              Lorraine

              Lockie,

              Pleased I made it by the deadline. Lovely essay, no time for more discussion right now! But enough to score it, well.

              Very Best

              Peter

                9 days later

                Dear Lockie Cresswell,

                Thanks for reading my paper.

                Your theory sure is an antithesis of my thinking. I guess I am backwoods practical thinker. What I see and experience is what I know and assume throughout. . Your ideas are just difficult for me to follow. The philosophy of life is separate from the activities 'now'. The ideas of Le Place, and Maxwell are too philosophical. Wave duality is wrong due to mis-defining waves rather than an invalid determinism.

                Perhaps the philosophical theme of your paper limit the interest in your theories, but you did get high ratings. I also have no peers in the journals and little connection within FQXi. My challenge is that physicists have to give up too much to contemplate the pieces of my model. For your paper, Philosophy allows speculating in too many directions.

                I don't accept nor care about determinism , nor any total effect of the past or future causes. The hard topic you cover is 'time' including as the arrow of time and your extension to consciousness. For me the topic of time is just for speed analyses.

                I did contemplate a bit about your lost memories topic.

                Best wishes to you,

                .

                Paul Schroeder