Yes. I've done so before, and all are in one or other paper some in more than one. Indeed the even more tricky 'quantum eraser' and counterfactualitu nonsense was logically re-defined in last years essay (just study the figure carefully')
Blondes, Brunettes & the Flaw of the Excluded Middle by Peter Jackson
Hi Peter, good to meet again in this contest.
Congratulations with your qubit approach of expressions that were only validated with yes or no. Indeed there is as I said before in one of my writings an infinity of colours between black and white.
The comment of Edwin Klingman covers most of my remarks on your essay.
I hope you will also find some time to read and comment on my essay.
Of course again the best of luck in this contest, you were able to receive the highest score several times so it must be no problem (but still no member of FQXi, maybe this time...)
best regards
Wilhelmus de Wilde
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3411
Hi Branko,
Glad you agree. No of COURSE it shouldn't "discourage us from seeking the truth", indeed I hope I show it can represent a REVOLUTION and finally help REVEAL the truth in wide previously poorly related areas! You don't comment on any of those key consequences. Did you read it all? It seems perhaps not.
I get the impression you 'fundamental particle' is a metaphysical concept so I'll be interested to see how it related back the the physical universe.
I will read it all.
Best,
Peter
Peter
You are right. Your article is long and I have read it just once.
Regards from _________________ John-Erik
Peter
I have had a second look at your long paper. I notice that we agree on an important question that we must regard natural laws as absolute consistent internally, but nevertheless approximations in relation to nature.
I will read your article again, but I am not qualified in philosophy although I regard the subject very important for physics.
I am an engineer, and not a scientist. So, I have deep knowledge only in very small region around SRT. Science is more like a hobby to me. So this time you cannot expect much respons on your article although I regard your article as very important.
With best regards from _______________________ John-Erik
Hi Peter,
Nice essay. Thanks.
Revised laws can release a flood of new coherent & unified physical interpretations across all Physics and Cosmology and inform Logic & Philosophy.
A new understanding will be about the limit of limits, and our own, and thus how fine we can understand something. First we have a gross view and more and more details come next. It takes a long time for general understanding to come from strict matter to ?????? an ever increasing unknown map of details and so also of possible interpretations and possibilities for application. And with it will come more and more the question: 'What do I understand anyway and how?'
The included middle gives way to crossing borders and the joy of connection but also to infinite tiny islands of specific viewpoints each with an own interpretation. And all will be true.
We´re on the brink of a new time. AI and biotech will shovel all old paradigms into the waste bin.
We will make some leaps. In quantum and quality.
Exciting
Bests,
Jos
Hi Peter,
A very interesting essay with a lot of things discussed and extrapolated. I d like to have some explainations how you see really these foundamental objects first of all ? and why in deeper explainations you consider superluminal velocities ? and about this quantum gravitation, could you develop a Little bit please ?
I d like to know also if you can your general philosophy correlated with these foundamental objects, why they are and why they create our physicality.What is the source, the main field or the main cause. And also do you consider that we are an accident due to probabilities and maths or that we come from a kind of infinite eternal consciousness beyond this physicality transforming this energy with codes, informations or fields , this eternal infinite consciousness for me is a thing that we cannot define. What are also your ideas about this DM and DE, I am curious lol , regards
ps like I liked your essay, I have shared it on facebook
Dear Professor Peter Jackson,
thanks for remembering me once again.
you nicely described about equality in your essay.....A 'Heap' is a vague predicate, yet we can have 2 or more separable heaps. One grain of sand is not a 'heap', but adding one at a time makes it so. But when?! Taking grains away does the inverse. For maths we assume 2 heaps of sand can be equal, which is our first approximation.But can't we weigh them? or even count the grains to be sure? Of course, but just more approximations. It would take an infinite supply of 'final grain' sizes to ensure weight equality. The irony then is that of course each grain is different, so abstraction to equalnumbers also won't give us equal heaps!........ Mathematically and philosophically correct.
When we weigh in grams or measure in liters.... they are not equal....
None of my papers are TALL claims, all are correct, you can see all these individual papers from my blog. we can discuss.......
They were nice interactions in earlier contests, please check mail
Best wishes for your paper
=snp.gupta
Thanks Wilhelmus, I'm glad we agree on some clear & critical truths. But top scoring among free thinkers seems quite different to ANY recognition by narrow thinking doctrinal physics. Now not even admitting peer scores reveals the poor attitude causing the standstill in theoretical advancement!
I've now read & commented on yours.
Very best
Peter
Thanks for your appreciation and good understanding Jos.
I hope you're right about the 'leaps ahead'. They're long overdue, but the problems in Academia I've seen from both sides are difficult and I fear may become insurmountable if attitudes don't change soon.
10 years ago I wrote it may take 10 years to change old flawed paradigms ("2020 Vision") as our intellectual evolution continues. Unfortunately it seems in much of academia that evolution may have ground to a near halt! We can only keep trying, and essays and comments here may be telling.
Top physics such as Freeman Dyson say; "Our job is to show where old doctrine is wrong and advance it", but it seems all the 'rump' of lesser physicists see their job as the exact opposite!!
I look forward to reading yours.
Very Best
Peter
Peter I enjoyed your essay and I agree that there are flaws in the currently accepted foundations of physics. I set aside the current assumptions, proposed impossibles and limitations of physics and was able to go to a more fundamental level and develop a different mathematical model that includes the creation of "our" multiverse that includes the visible universe. The model has a new beginning, a different process and predicts a different ending. I would appreciate your comments on my essay. John D Crowell
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your comments on my essay, a copy from the answer hereby.
Dear Peter,
I am NOT AT ALL a fan of Everetts MWI, on the contrary, I introduce a NEW Interpretation, the Total Simultaneity Interpretation (TSI).
In TSI there are no more split-ups. ONE line is proceeding and te other from the split is turning back into Total Simultaneity.
Perhaps it was a mistake to say that ALL future and past split-ups are ONE entity TS. It was just comparing Now we don't have any more split-up material realities to explain quantum physics...
I hope you can understand it better now because this is really the essence of my thinking.
There are more authors who don't understand this subject, so I think I will prepare an addendum and sent it to the participants of the contest. On the other side I don't know if they see it as "publicity" for my essay, so...
Thanks for your attention
Wilhelmus.
Thanks Steve.
They're actually spherical rotations!, at all scales, but also as 'twin vortices' (embedded) so with similarities to Earth's 'toroidal' magnetosphere.
There's no superluminal PROPAGATION! but all physics is LOCAL, so a charge doing c in a passing train CAN be seen at APPARENT C+V as nothing propagates at over c.
Consider Bernoulli, or just a low pressure weather system. As we 'stir up' the medium to a vortex ("Matter") it forms a pressure gradient around it all the time it's there. Any matter placed IN that zone has it's own surrounding gradient and gravitates towards the centre, or both gravitate towards EACH OTHER.
Yes philosophy looses it's paradoxes. The atom IS 'divisible', recursive and fractal like a Mandelbrot Set, so we have an INCLUDED but 'REDUCING' MIDDLE between 0 and 1. If you touch a spinning sphere near the equator do you experience clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation? You can't tell of course ('uncertainty') but CAN tell 100% at the poles! The distribution between is non-linear by CosLatitude.
We are then more an 'accident' than anything undefinable, but more a consequence of the process, likely unique but perhaps much similar life has evolved within the many iterations of a cyclic universe, growing with each cycle (so matching the evidence, unlike the BB cosmology!).
DM&DE seem totally misunderstood. The free Majorana fermions (electrons etc) do a perfectly good job as so called dark matter (n=1), and the 'sub-matter' scale rotation which forms the 'HIGGS' CONDENSATE does a very good job as 'dark energy'. (just a smaller rotation, NOT coupling with but FORMING the EM 'waves' that couple with electrons.
Changing the foundations is rather like being shown the picture on that giant jigsaw puzzle - throw away old beliefs and suddenly it all fits together coherently! Of course there will always be things unanswered.
Very best
peter
Hi Peter, thanks for developping your ideas, I thought about this generally , I have posted and answered on the essay of Philip Gibbs, I like his reasoning,
Here is the answer about a general point of vue on these informations.
Hello Ulla, happy to see you here, hello Professor Gibbs, here is general thought about these informations.
Entropical spherical informations and general universal communications , the sortings, superimposings, synchronisations and the link with quantum 3D spheres and the general spherisation of the universe .Why and how ? sources, signals and encodings .....
The complexity appears with the quantities of informations and can be ranked between the minimal and maximal of informations . For this let s consider a main universal emission from the central cosmological sphere, it is there that this infinite energy codes and transform thsi energy in matters, 3D finite series of spheres for me in a gravitational coded aether where this space disappears playing between the cold and heat generally.The source is from there and the aether is the source but it encodes also and recepts in function of evolutive codes and properties disered to create the diversity and communications of evolution in logic.
The works of Shannon can converge and the uncertainty can be better understood at my humble opinion seeing the complexity and number of these finite series having probably the same number than our cosmological finite series of spheres, there is like an universal link between this finite number,
the redondance and the equiprobability can be better understood if we know the real universal meaning of this general thought
The thermodynamics can converge considering two main constants for this gravitational aether, like codes playing between this zero absolute and this planck temperature, it is an assumption but when we consider all the properties of these series, we can understand better the synchronisations, the sortings, the superimposings with all the motions, rotations , oscillations of these 3D spheres.
The second principle in thermodynamics become relevant , Q/T correlated with this entropy and we can converge with the entropy of Shannon and the topological entropy in considering several mathematical Tools of ranking, like the lie derivatives, the topological and euclidian spaces, the Ricci flow and an assymetric Ricci flow, the poincare conjecture , the lie groups and others mathematical Tools. See that the motions, rotations , oscillations, volumes, densities, mass, angles, senses of rotations, moments, and other physical properties can help for the rankings and for a better understanding of communications ,uncertainties and probabilities.
The potential of these series so become the key and the distribution also of informations in function of codes of evolution and properties of matters. It is a question of internal energy and distribution of this energy in function of internal codes and informations. The relevance becomes the infinity of combinations.
Regards
Do you think that it was OK when Euclid defined parallelism by a point that does not exist?
The word 'point' here is interchangeable with 'position' which (like 'speed') is an entirely relative concept, so in the context of 2D geometry is valid. Of course nature is NOT 2D! so geometry is already only an abstracted and incomplete 'representation' of reality, so steps into the 'metaphysics' bracket with Boolean (binary) logic to create the 'mathematical approximations of nature' they spawn there.
Here the 'position' can be defined and may be in many possible places. The concept of a 'point' 'not existing' is similar to a 'line' having no thickness, so more about zero dimensions having NO PHYSICAL existence. Again emphasizing the important physical / METAphysical divide I identify.
Does that make sense, and is that the point' you meant (lol).
p
Peter
Changing to position means an infinite distance. So, is it possible to use infinite concepts in a definition?
John-Erik
JE
I'm not sure what "Changing to position means an infinite distance." means, but yes, I think we should loose our hatred and fear of infinities and accept them as inevitable but at ever less consequential higher orders, or "turtles all the way down".
I wrote that we should face them and simply always define what order of accuracy we're discussing. At the 'tiny' end the fractals can go well below the Planck scale valid for 'matter'. Wheels within wheels within wheels...
At the BIG end our universe will be cyclic and growing each time, as galaxies do, so we can trace it back to 'something moved'. But it still may be just one of countless similar bodies in a greater cosmos, itself cyclic! We can't know, but don't need to to far better understand our own universe.
Is that reasonable?
P
Dear Peter Jackson
FQXi.org has allowed me to upload an updated version of my essay Why Can't Y'all See The ONE Thing I See? because of the change in the competition submission date. I would appreciate it if you could find the time to read my updated version and perhaps leave a comment about it.
Joe Fisher
Many thanks, always nice to find agreement, also noted on your own string.
Peter