Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson

Dear Peter,

As usual, you wrote a provocative but nice Essay. Again, your interpretation of John Bell's ideas is opposite to the standard thinking. At the quantum level, your statement that "The Greeks A=A is wrong" seems consistent with Pauli's Principle for Fermions, but, what about Bosons? In any case, your Essay enjoyed me. Thus, I will give you a high score. Good luck in the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Peter Jackson,

Thank you for your reply. In the 2018 competition, I was so excited when I discovered a sensible alternative explanation for a Natural Universe that did not include finite spatial dimensions, I tried to inform my fellow essayists only to find out just how hostile and unresponsive they were. This year, I swore that I would not post any comments at all on my rival essayists' essays. The new version of my essay gives a more definitive explanation of Natural Visible Reality. You had already favorably commented on my essay and I am thankful that you did so. Your essay is of course extremely well written, except you are trying to give an explanation of finite flaws supposedly in finite physical laws. Natural Visible Reality has no flaws or laws because it is infinite.

Joe Fisher

Dear Peter,

Very strong and deep ideas aimed at overcoming the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of fundamental science. Our views on the basics of knowledge are very close. But the dialectics and ontology of the "Beginning", I believe, must be deepened and presented in a symbol that will be understood not only by scientists and reflect the ontological, epistemological, gnoseological, axiological simplicity of Complexity. We must proceed from the fact that quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity are parametric (phenomenological, operationalist) theories without an ontological basification. When searching for truth, it is always good for physicists and mathematicians to remember the philosophical covenant of John Archibald Wheeler: "To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'

With best regards, Vladimir

Thanks, Peter, for reading my essay. For the first time, I'm updating my essay, considering the virus events and the extension of the deadline. Hope you will read my update. I rated yours nicely on the 20th of March soon after they extended the deadline and I was able to see the rating carnage.

Jim Hoover

Peter,

I found your comments very helpful and incorporated same of your suggestions in my update. Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few minutes ago. Personally I feel that it is greatly improved. I appreciate your candor and would like to see any additional comments you might have.

Please check mine out if you have time. Such honest, No BS, reviews are needed by all of us.

Jim Hoover

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your kind comments and high rating of my essay. I apologise for this a little belated answer; I have been heavily involved in another project and could not follow FQXi entirely; I am sure I must have missed many exciting essays alas.

I will do my best to follow your interesting works and see whether I can help/critise/... .

Meanwhile feel free to contact my email if you like to discuss something. I would be more than happy to discuss exciting ideas!

Keep motivation and following your nice thoughts,

Alireza

Dear Peter,

i promised to read carfully and comment and rate.

I rated a 10.0, because your essay "content" is extraordinary. We all use different languages to model reality, so not everyone can understand everything as it is written. Nevertheless you ring the bells quite well with your Conclusions. We have Flaws in our deepest foundations. I agree so much.

I discussed with a very good friend of mine (a soldier) about the global situation and i came to the conclusion that either we deal with a global false flag scenary upon 9/11 or an asteroid scenario with Covid-19. So i changed my focus and i will proceed to concentrate on the result of the ToE.

My ToE is two side:

1: one can destroy the entire earth with it. (This program is running at US Military Intelligence right now

2: one can heal the world.

With the ToE it is possible to cure complex traumatic stress disorder, so my World War III scenario is to build a Noa Pothoven Funding to offer children up to 16 from sexual rape, military abuse, any traumatic insidence in childhood wether from Jemen, Afgahnistan, Russia, US, Netherland, Egypt, China.. out of society to make a cure to raise them being able to live a healthe life alone at age of 18 latest.

For this i will need sailing ships, as sailing is part of the therapy / education. Basicly the key to save the world is not CO" or Pandemic, but to empower children to build the new world that need to come anyway.

I think i will ask to remove my essay, because i am not so much interested in discussions with "scientist". Most of them will never understand. I just wanted to give some ideas and sketch for future with my essay.

But could you accept that sun is not gravitational center, that "sun" will be destroid if earth is destroid with an Asteroid? Thats stuff most people can't get into their brain easy. Asteroid as "living" extraterrestrical life! You understand?

It is not possible to calcualte Asteroids, as they don't follow "gravity" rules from Newton or Einstein.

Maybe the will tell us in 20 days that there are only 3 days left.. who cares.

Is your 42 still for sale? Please give me a link again and quote a price.

Best wishes, take care and order champagne always.

Manfred

PS.. i tried to explain with simple pictures on my website the idea of sun and earth and the universe as a threesome. Funny is, yes sun is center of solar system somehow, as if we look at sun, we see the surface of earth from the other side.. so if you look in the sky, this is a "mirror" and if earth is destroyed, not only sun will be destroyed with it, but all Galaxies you see in sky. Galaxys are only a "mirror" of planet earth.Attachment #1: excluded_middle.jpgAttachment #2: pythagorean.jpg

Dear Peter,

there is a venerable tradition of trying to cook up new logics to better describe the world. Dialetheism has a rich history, and there are of course the attempts by Reichenbach and von Neumann/Birkhoff to capture quantum weirdness with modifications to the propositional structure of logic---Reichenbach with introducing a many-valued approach, von Neumann/Birkhoff through weakening the Boolean algebra of classical logic to the structure of an orthocomplemented set. As such, your approach fits right in with that sort of strain.

I'm not completely sold on such ideas. Consider Putnam's classical essay 'Is Logic Empirical?': the question always remains---if it is, how would we assert this? It must be the case that empirical evidence should force us to reconsider our basic laws of reasoning---but that is itself something that depends on those laws: we can only conclude that empirical evidence has a certain consequence by making some sort of deduction from it, but if we question the very principles of reasoning, then that deduction itself would be suspect---so the idea that logic is subject to empirical revision seems to be self-undermining in that respect.

I rather think about this by means of the 'principle of tolerance': different logics are, ultimately, different tools, and may be differently well suited to certain areas. As such, there's not really a fact of the matter regarding any one logic to be the 'correct' one. For instance, it's perfectly well possible to describe inferences in quantum mechanics within classical logic, if one e. g. uses a Bohmian ontology. Since the evidence doesn't suffice to choose between Bohmian and Bohrian quantum mechanics, it also doesn't adjudicate between classical and quantum logic.

That's not to say I'm opposed to such ideas. Studying different approaches to logic has intrinsic value; but I fear that wherever one skirts close to asserting that the 'world out there' follows this logic rather than that one, one runs the danger of confusing map and territory.

However, I think you are aware of this danger---you speak of the distinction between the physical and the abstract and, I think, relegate the logical description to this abstract layer. This is something very close to some of my own ideas---I think in terms of the 'structural' and the 'non-structural', with the former essentially conforming to the abstract realm, the map, and the latter being the territory (in fact, I believe there are interesting issues in that distinction for the philosophy of mind---see my recent article in Minds and Machines: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-020-09522-x).

I'm not entirely convinced by some of the arguments you propose. There might be only one Aristotle, but he can be referred to in different ways---the Fregean distinction between 'Sinn' and 'Bedeutung': so, Aristotle is 'the most well known pupil of Plato' and 'the author of the Nikomachean Ethics', and a sentence like 'the most well known pupil of Plato is the author of the Nikomachean Ethics' expresses a perfectly fine equality of the two 'aspects' under which one might refer to Aristotle.

Furthermore, the absolute identity of quantum particles is something upon which the statistical approach to quantum mechanics is founded---and indeed, if we supposed particles were distinguishable, the distributions we calculate for them would differ from what's empirically observed; only the assumption of their identity makes the predictions come out right.

There is more in your article than I have space here to reply to. Furthermore, many of your arguments seem to be only developed in other articles of yours; I think this article would have benefitted from trying to present as much of a self-contained argument as possible, focusing on a single, clear point you wish to make. As is, I felt sort of lost, with no clear sense of direction.

Still, I wish you the best of luck in this contest.

Cheers

Jochen

You don't need evidence or arxiv. You must just build upon your logic. You have earth and sun. No one can be sure if earth is encirceling sun or sun encirceling earth. Therefore you take center of earth (dot) and center of sun (dot) Then you draw a line between those points and make 55/50 = 1/1 = pi

Then you have three dots. To materialize them now you need to make "volumes". for that you use a sphere Volume. Three times : pi / pi = pi is the setup for sun, earth and center of universe. Center of universe is then surface of earth (3-dim surface c^2 : m c^2)

Then universe (earth system) has a fixed center and can drift through space and time.

You don't need to "observe" this, this is logic also a blind use to navigate on earth. Solar system is the only calculated with Electromagnetic force.

You can't find that on arxiv or anywhere else.

It is the pythagorean advanced universe. Takes us back 2000 years into future.

Very best

Manfred

meant 50%/50% = 1/1 = pi