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

Peter,

you did not take into account the most important finding in my work. It is quite easy. E=hf is wrong and to correct that the definition of time must be changed to

1 meter = distance a photon travels in x seconds

1 second = duration a photon need to travel 1/x meter

With this, 100% (all = every single bit of "Data" you are talking about is wrong.

Every of your observation then is wrong.

I am explaining that sincs a year and i am sure some people in the world did understand that.

There is no stange thing about that, because the definition of time with a caesium atom is strange. Well they do it since 2000 years now, as no one listened to Jesus and they nailed him on a cross because they don't wanted to see reality. But someday realitiy will come to catch us (actually reality now arrived)

Take care

Manfred

Dear Peter Jackson, with your comment you have lifted my mood. I had a hope that our path in science would leave at least some trace and that scientists would pay attention to the fact that space is matter, and matter is space that moves, since it is matter. It is motion that turns space into observable matter - substance. The rotational motion of space is the most energetically favorable motion in comparison with a rectilinear motion. In order to force a space, for example, a body, to move rectilinearly, it is necessary to expend infinitely large energy, i.e. inertial systems do not exist. Their existence can only be talked about in infinitesimal dimensions, which are realized in quantum mechanics.

Peter, I wish you success in your scientific research and become one of the winners of this competition.

Regards, Boris Dzhechko

My thoughts are that eventually we might conclude that everything and everyone is a parallel universe and the mathematics that might connect all these multiverses probability might be quantum mechanical. Our sociology, biology and many such endeavors might benefit if the society transitions to these higher dimensional information processes. With digitalization these transitioned cultures might successfully eliminate frictions in interactions to make humanity closer to divinity than ever in the past.

Dear Peter

Nice essay you have written, quite illuminating. I must confess that I have never entertained the idea that statements are provisional and metaphysical. I think you are right about this. We put these idealizations on a top level, in a level of perfection and take them as reference. We talk about the infinite but in reality we do not measure infinities, similarly, we talk about identity although things are not identical. So, the logical laws are mere metaphysical statements living in the realm of perfection. To be more realistic, it would be more correct to say that something is similar or approximately equal to something else. I am still digesting all of this. Good contribution to the contest!

Good luck!

Israel

Hi Peter,

Thank you are reading my essay. I appreciate your comments.

It took me a while to read yours. There is a lot there. Clearly you are challenged by uniting QM and classical physics. This is a very worthwhile endeavor and at the heart of the un-decidability essay. I didn't know there was a logic discussion connected to the excluded middle. As you point out things are not black and white. Probabilities and distributions are important in any system that interacts and shares properties. Thermodynamics and fluid dynamics are examples you use. QM has been different especially when it comes to electromagnetic states that occur in jumps. If, as you do, believe that there is a ubiquitous Higgs Condensate consisting of virtual particles, it seems logical that there would be distributions across all classical and QM states. I was a little skeptical about how this fluid would produce the gravitational potential. Gravity is known to be very long range. I could understand how it might surround bodies, perhaps similar to SR curved space, but the LIGO results show that the pulse travels at C. This might challenge a theory based on fluids (my thought here is that fluids interact locally at the speed of sound). Overall a well thought out on point essay.

I noted that many essays are saying that no Unified Theory is possible. But yours, mine, Dr. Kadin's and a couple of others haven't given up. After reading several essays I was concerned that we are working on different problems. Do we really agree on what the requirements are? I spent a couple of days proposing a set of requirements. It is posted under my essay and I reviewed some my own work. If you have time, I would appreciate your thoughts.

Hi Peter...

I have read your paper, and the comments to it.

Perhaps the turning of the tide can be attributed to NASA's posting photos of Black Holes emitting "stuff"... REF: https://gadgets.ndtv.com/science/news/nasa-ophiuchus-supermassive-black-hole-explosion-spotted-chandra-2187385 ... but I like to think FQXi as an open channel for thoughtful critical analysis, by you and a growing number of others, has provided impetus for a temporally critical paradigm shift, and I am delighted to see that the turning tide, has focused your thoughtful analysis on the potential for compliance to a visual structural/geometry, to resolve dysfunctional standard model Energy emergence mathematics.

Your ability to do so, in language/semantics relevant to eliminating obvious flaws in the standard model, will alleviate the academic communities' fears that a paradigm shift could "shatter our entire world-view."~ Robert Wilson Essay~ is greatly appreciated... i.e. better you than me.

Language/semantics is one of the major transitional issues that must be addressed to advance the "world-view"... REF: - "Energy Terminology Dysfunction" www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSETermDys.php ... if application is going to overcome dysfunctionality of current "world view", in a timely manner.

REF: s. Lingo Essay Topic: "Modeling Universal Intelligence"

One must define PHYSICAL in order to differentiate it from OTHER THAN PHYSICAL... i.e. Meta-PHYSICAL.

PHYSICAL entities defined in terms of what?... spatial occupancy??

In that the Discrete Field Model (DFM) "suggests an initial physical architecture on which to base modified mathematics", is spatial occupancy a PHYSICAL entity, or a Meta-PHYSICAL concept?

If one can graphically illustrate a theoretical concept... e.g. a spatial unit of occupancy... one can formulate conceptual emergence in terms of multiple copies of symbolic visual representations... i.e. icons... of the PHYSICAL entity, without necessity for interpretive language/semantics ... i.e. Meta-Symbolic representations of the unseen.

Does DFM facilitate multiple minimum/indivisible PHYSICAL entities defined by a single spatial uniform unit of occupancy?... i.e. the "ether" as a unified unit spatial field quantization model of minimum/indivisible spatial occupancy (QI)??

Resolve of a geometry/architecture that facilitates a pulsed point source emission and subsequent distribution of minimum/indivisible Quanta of Energy (QE), inherently generates a unified unit spatial field quantization model.

Is motion a Meta-PHYSICAL concept?

The concept of "3D physical bounded Spaces in motion" is not equivalent to the concept of minimum/indivisible PHYSICAL entities (QE) in motion within 3D PHYSICAL bounded Spaces.

Digital symbolic visual representations of a PHYSICAL entity within a valid 3D Space-Time structural/geometry... i.e. CAD/SIM Environment... facilitates emergent formulation... i.e. applied coded intelligence... of spatially defined minimum/indivisible units of Energy (QE), and can enhance "intelligence and in particular physical dynamic visualization skills.".

Emergence of Space-Time Energy, as Causal Intent, and Q-Tick pulsed QE distribution mechanix/mathematics, based on the geometry/architecture of a valid unified unit spatial field quantization model... i.e. point source geometry resolve... facilitates definition of substance... i.e. a PHYSICAL entity...in terms of its spatial occupancy.. which can be anywhere, but not necessarily "everywhere"... i.e. dark matter as unoccupied QI.

Thanks Peter!!!... a hard job well done... I will rate accordingly.

Sue Lingo

UQS Author/Logician

www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

Hi Peter...

Just scored you a 10.

Want to read and comment on as many essays as I have time.. will get back to this discussion after the poll closes.

sl

Dear Peter. Thanks for your comment on my comment on your essay. It made me think a lot and change my response "style". Before I was just offering my work as something people should look at to see if it could help them in their work. Now my approach it is to go into their work more deeply and see how I can help them in their work. Thanks! In my essay I say "The SSC model can be useful to scientists in their work". So I reread your essay in more detail to see where I might be able to help. In your essay you question the "fundamentals of logic that is the fundamentals of math". - As well as the fundamentals of physics and thought. My "revised essay" on April 6th emphasizes a new fundamental C*s to SSCU transformation - discussed in the essay appendix -. The transformation converts chaos to order and that order scales up to become "all ordered existence". All ordered existence includes all intelligence - logic, reason, human thought, math, - all physicality, chemistry, etc.. So this one fundamental transformation (foundation) can be the solution to many of the foundational problems that the mathematicians, philosophers, physicists, theologians are having. One solution to many problems would be nice. I believe this transformation is the "hidden middle" that disputes the first law of logic in your essay. It is the cardinality between the integers in the mathematical self replicating/self organizing scale up that becomes the visible universe and its contents. It is the "grade of membership between 0 and 1 in your "space of objects". It also puts " substance" into all ordered existence -including intelligence and consciousness-. It agrees with your end note in your endnotes - "Yet we agree with Minowski; "everywhere there is substance". As you also mentioned a new model has to be "startling at first sight...a radical conceptual renewal...look wrong before becoming simpler... Those comments describe the SSC model. A lot of our two essays are in agreement if one can translate what the other is saying into our different " languages". I will discuss what I see as the major agreements, differences and conceivable resolutions in the next posting on this thread. Talk to you soon thanks again John

Peter,

Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, duality and its cyclic nature is a fundamental property聽which I feel yields a much simpler, more tangible and geometric picture of reality. Although I am not at all qualified to weigh in on the increasingly complex physics聽theories聽I see today, their very mathematical complexity seems to obscure what they are trying to describe. My perhaps idealized view is that Nature should be inherently simple and efficient in principle and in form.聽

I did explore octonians聽but find that quaternions are sufficient to fully describe the double-helix dynamic as 3D rotations in 4D space. Again, less is more!

I just read and rated your聽excellent article and found much to ponder. Your distinction between physics and metaphysics is a thought provoking one, particularly the idea that numbers and math fall under the latter category as abstractions which are only approximations for nature. My take is that the fundamental laws from which physical phenomena manifest can still serve as a valid and computable "ancient Greek" blueprint for the identical shared properties of all galaxies, suns or grains of sand, even though chaos/complexity/etc. effects distort the ideal and create uniqueness upon physical emergence.

Your concept of a 180-degree physical analogue for entanglement I found consistent with my thinking too, only I represent it as a 180-degree rotation of the complex plane such that particle/anti-particle聽pairs occur at geometrically identical though polarized positions within the double-helix probability聽waveform. Other ideas we seem to share include electron spin and galactic discs as toroidal rotation, matter arising from motion relative to the Higgs ground state, and all contributing to cyclic spiral fractals of form.

Thanks again and all the best!

Michael聽

Thanks Peter...

In that my essay explicitly request my readers' assessment of my application of Absolute Intelligence, as modeled therein, as the only logic evaluation criteria for my essay, and your assessment of my essay as "lovely", "original", and topical, does not concisely infer your assessment of my logic evaluation criteria, I will interpret a 10 score as encouragement for my obsession to verify a connection with the Cosmic Consciousness Computer (CCC://)... i.e. I am notoriously incorrigible, and yes, a flip of a coin was utilized as the only logic evaluation criteria for the content herein.

In that your essay establishes concepts that can alleviates constrained perception, may FQXi's next essay contest topic, facilitate opportunity for application of those concepts.

sl

Dear Peter. As I mentioned I am posting to discuss the similarities and differences in our essays. First the similarities: 1.Same goals (for this essay). 2. concurrence about the laws of thought 3. Both obey conservation law 4. Both eliminate singularities 5. Matter comes from motion 6. Both have dynamic motion, vortices, "condensate to condensed matter" 7. Both have action at a distance--8.circular gradients 9. Boundary transition zones 10. Constant c in transition zones ( with a twist) 11. "Everywhere is substance" 12. Need physical entities 12. Can physics be this easy? 13. A new theory needs to be: "... startling at first sight...first look wrong before turning out simpler...radical conceptual renewal... an imaginative leap that will astonish us". 14. Recommend a new field of study. Next posting on this thread will introduce the differences. John

Hello Peter. In our postings we agree our theories have commonalities and differences. I do not believe our differences on the science are necessarily opposing views. I think they are representing different aspects of the processing. In fact I believe the theories could work in tandem - both supporting the other to provide a complete(more complete) theory. The SSC theory provides an "overall framework" of the entire processing. It provides a specific beginning, ending and a mathematical description of the overall processing. The overall description consists of two sets of equivalent and opposite processes. One set is the self creating progression and it's equivalent and opposite self dissipating progression. The other set is two equivalent and opposite process transformations. These transformations are separate in space, synchronized in time and maintain the speed of SSC (equivalent to the speed of light). These transformations connect the beginnings and endings of the self creation- self dissipating processes. The result is a repeating, circulating self creating- self dissipating processing that circulates back through a repeating beginning. This is the process that overcomes entropy, survives and self replicates. The process contains two countercurrent sc/sd processes with TZs in every pulsing activity of its circulating journey. I believe your axial/helictity Quasar like TZ zones in combination with my central core pulsing (Pulsar like) TZ zones could be combined to show how the SSC system propagates through the counter current flows of the universe and creates H atoms, solar systems, galaxies and universes as it progresses. It is an idea that interests me. More work needs to be done but it could be an interesting study. What do you think? One more question before I go. How could I interest FQXi with its foundational basis to investigate a fundamental process that could be the solution to a variety of fundamental problems in different disciplines? Thanks again. John