• [deleted]

Hi Jonathan,

Nice essay. Regarding your relativity comments, I will say this: I don't think Einstein or Minkowski got it right. If you are interested in what the evidence says about relativity and time, please read:

http://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/timemech1a.pdf

Take care,

Chris

Hi Jonathan. The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

Jonathan, how would your essay account for/counter/address/or dismiss the following:

Reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, and experience. Consider this carefully in relation to both astronomical/telescopic observations and dream experience. Consider that dreams and telescopic/astronomical observations are both interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. (Importantly, my essay talks more about this.) Now consider all of this post in keeping with the fact that waking experience (including that of the stars at night) is significantly different in comparison with BOTH dream experience and astronomical/telescopic observations. Dreams have SIGNIFICANT AND VERY IMPORTANT similarities with astronomical/telescopic observations.

IMPORTANTLY, this relates to the following:

The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

  • [deleted]

Hi Jonathan, the following should help with your reply to/understanding of my two prior posts.

The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

Also, the theoretical/actual basis of the unification [that is, what is the known mathematical union] of Maxwell and Einstein's theories (with the addition of a fourth spatial dimension to Einstein's theory) IS dream experience.

I have simply, clearly, and thoroughly demonstrated this.

Admit the clear facts/truth.

Since dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, thought, and experience at the [gravitational] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense, dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general. Indeed, how space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy is a central and very valuable concept in relation to physics (and experience) in general. Dream experience offers an expanded (yet relatively unified) perspective in relation to experience (and physics) in general.

The significance of the following sentence -- in relation to the above, to physics, experience, being, thought, and to a better understanding of genius as well -- is not to be underestimated:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

The integrated extensiveness of thought/thinking is improved in the truly superior mind (and in the highest/ideal form of genius).

  • [deleted]

Hi Chris Kennedy,

Having problems to look again at your pdf file, I am not sure whether or not I got it correctly at the first glance. If I recall correctly, you pointed to a discrepancy between measured and predicted GPS data. Did you take into consideration that acceleration up to c is impossible, and that the velocity is already different to a gradually changing extent during positive as well as negative acceleration? If I recall correctly, you did not even formulate a belonging integration. Right?

I also recall, you criticize that special as well as general theory of relativity do consider something. Then you argues that both together do consider it twice. Right?

Did you check my argument that worldlines for future time are uncertain predictions?

Eckard Blumschein

Hello to All,

I just got back from FFP10 (where I had limited opportunity to access the internet) this morning, and probably will need to adjust my internal clock before I can really process the new comments. I appreciate the input, however, Chris, Frank Martin, and Eckard - and I will try to comment or answer as soon as the jet-lag is diminished.

I have lots of fresh insights after the conference. It brought to light an amazing amount of info on new developments in fundamental Physics. As it turns out, I think some of what I learned actually pertains to the new comments. But I'd like to answer when I'm a bit more clear headed, and my stomach is fully settled. The plane was buffeted with heavy and erratic winds from Greenland all down the East coast.

But I do value the attention given, and I will return the favor as soon as I reasonably can.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hello again,

I'm still decompressing, but wanted to share that the 10th Frontiers of Fundamental and Computational Physics was an outstanding event - and a wonderful experience for me. If I wanted to put myself in a place where I could experience exponential growth, and take a quantum leap, I went to the right place. And Perth is beautiful this time of year. I am thinking it might be a great place to further my studies, but I certainly accomplished that goal last week. And several people were presenting work that pushes the envelope, or shows how that envelope is being seriously stretched. There was a fair variety of Theoretical and Experimental, of more Mathematical or Empirical and more conceptual or philosophical work, and most everything in between. It was one of those conferences where it's hard not to find something you like.

Next year's conference, FFP11, will be in Paris - in July. But FFP10 was definitely a winner for me, both for all the educational content and for the gorgeous garden-like UWA campus and Summer-like weather of late Spring. It was fairly well planned out too, but with split sessions and fascinating people who wanted to talk there were several occasions I missed a part of someone's talk that greatly interested me. However there were promises to keep in touch and send papers later, so I'll likely get most of that content. But the parts I did catch opened up the top of my head in serious ways.

I will get to responding to comments soon, but I wanted to share this enthusiasm before mundane concerns set in. It's not just getting to meet and speak with Nobel Prize winners, but the infectious enthusiasm of some presenters to learn, to share what they have learned, and to extend the boundaries of Science. I found it heartwarming to be among people who strongly valued learning for its own sake - as that is how I feel too - and I'm grateful I got to be there for the entire event. I hope all of you will consider attending next year's event. If FFP10 is any indicator, FFP11 will be extraordinary.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

Hi all ,

Dear Jonathan,

Hope your father is better .It is important to have a father ,I lost mine at the age of 19 .It was very difficult and the year after I have had a coma .The life is difficut sometimes ,very difficult but I think strongly what behind the darkest mountain ,there is a ray of light .....fortunally .

About the event ,you speak about it with a so beautiful perception .That gives the envy to go for the next event in july .The fact to unite interesting scientists is essential to arrive to some interestings exponentials of the human development .

Thanks to share it with us .

Best Regards

Steve

Thanks Steve,

I appreciate the warm remarks. Yes I am privileged that I got to go to Perth, and that I still have a father. Of course, that means things that must be taken care of, but so let it be. As to plans for Paris, and FFP11; yes I would urge you to come. FFP10 was wonderful, so the series has some good momentum, and being in Europe may have it draw a fair number of talented people (like yourself).

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

Thanks to you dear Jonathan ,

I am honored by your words .You know ,I am very touched because here in Belgium ,I am not taken seriously .I Have contacted the FNRS ,but I have no answer to create this sciences center and to have a team to improve and publish my theory .

I am frustrated and inutile .At the age of 23 ,I have created an enterprize in horticulture ,and it was a catastrophic result .I say me ,it is incredible here in Belgium ,very bizare .Even a stock of multiplicated plants have been destroyed with the winter ,I was probably a problem for the imports of plants .If my country doen't move a little ,I will be in the reason of go in an other place .

I thank you still ,I need indeed a little of recongnition(I say that in transparence and humility ,I am not understood everywhere you know ,even it is rare ,even I am crazzy for others,I am not better than an other ,I just want simply put into practice my models and applications with the others ).I d like share ,learn ,improve .....I will come to this event in July ,thanks for your invitation.

Take care

Steve

  • [deleted]

Hi Jonathan. Think of how genius, dreams, memory, and art are possible. Now think of this in keeping with this enormously important fact:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense.

Emotion, thought, feeling, and sensory experience are all fundamentally interactive. Dreams add to (or improve upon) what is the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought. Dreams conceptually/actually unify gravity and electromagnetism/light. It is that simple.

Note the transparent space/sky around the larger and red [setting] sun.

(Telescopic/astronomical observations make the objects larger, or they could not be seen at all.) Importantly, isn't the increased transparency/invisibility of space, in relation to the blackness of night/outer space, the requirement of seeing farther?

LARGER OBJECTS, IN A RELATIVELY SMALLER SPACE -- COMPARABLE TO THE EARTH -- WOULD HAVE HIGHER GRAVITY, WOULD THEY NOT -- CONSIDERING THAT THE INVISIBILITY/TRANSPARENCY OF [THE SPACE] IS INCREASED?

Of huge importance, isn't the increasing transparency/invisibility of space the reason for the redshift?

Hi Jonathan. Greetings. Kindly consider the following in keeping with my prior post.

Do you not agree that telescopic/astronomical observations are "activating" -- similar to dreams -- what would otherwise be the waking/ordinary visual experience of the stars?

See my essay please. Thanks.

Can you leave your final comments/assessment of my essay at my essay page please?

To Frank Martin,

I want you to know that I do grasp some of what you are saying but it is a stretch to relate it back to Physics. One thing you seem to be pointing out indirectly is that beliefs are feelings of certainty about something we postulate is real. In dreams (and in trance-like states) our sense of disbelief, or our belief in the impossibility of certain things, is diminished or absent. Therefore dreams do present us with a way to advance what is possible for us to create or realize, because of this delimiting effect.

I will read again if I have time, but there are other folks who want me to review their papers too, so I cannot guarantee more than an extra glance.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

Sensory experience (including visual sensory experience) is physics Jonathan. I think that you know that. Dreams unify and balance gravity and electromagnetism/light. That is physics Jonathan.

I have offered a true theory of everything on here. None of you even come close to this. Did you know that I proved that the Common Chimpanzee is in between (in the middle of) our dream and waking experiences (in and with time as well) with regard to what is the integrated extensiveness of their being and experience (again, including life expectancy). See my prior posts at FQXi. Again, I deserve to win this contest. You clearly do not grasp how important my essay and ideas are. I am basically and fundamentally (to a significant extent) offering a new theory of everything.

Jonathan, I will make it very easy for you. The following is EXTREMELY important.

Do you understand the GIGANTIC significance of the following three statements taken together?:

1) The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

2) Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, experience, and thought at the [gravitational and electromagnetic] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense.

3) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL (including gravity and electromagnetism).

Now, also consider the following:

These are the essential parameters/requirements regarding the demonstration/proof of what is ultimately possible in physics.

1) Making thought more like sensory experience in general.

2) Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

3) Balancing/uniting scale.

4) Exhibiting/demonstrating particle/wave.

5) Repulsive/attractive.

What is ultimately possible in physics cannot (and should not) be properly/fully understood apart from this great truth:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Jonathan, admit the clear facts/truth. Admit that I deserve to win this contest.

Jonathan. My essay is a new understanding of physics as it applies to experience (including the understanding) in general. In follow-up to my prior post, do you know that I have explained why the Common Chimpanzees live two-thirds as long as we do (in captivity, of course)? Please see my prior posts at FQXi.

My ideas are so far in advance of anything that has ever been seen that they are not getting the attention that they rightfully deserve.

6 days later

Hi Jonathan. After I finished writing this, I thought that you would like it.

See what I wrote about time?

Representations of thought as sensory experience are basically beautiful, powerful, and/or captivating -- this is the connection with art, TV, truth, physics, and power. To the extent that the truth mirrors the integrated extensiveness of nature/the natural, these ideas are held to be more beautiful/desirable -- although they can be shocking. The deepest truths require the greatest/deepest strength. Dreams represent thought as sensory experience IN GENERAL -- so this may be held to be an experience of excessive or extreme genius, thereby (in this meaniningful sense) making dream experience generally less desirable than waking experience.

The highest thoughts of genius and the best theory of physics necessarily involve/pertain to past/present/future extensiveness of experience.

This is a fact of great significance.

Since astronomical/telescopic observations are already, to a significant extent, an interactive creation of thought, the ability to comprehend them is necessarily diminished; for it is in the description of what is the integrated and natural extensiveness of experience (past, present, and future) that our greatest, most beautiful, and daring theories are found.

Television may be seen as an accelerated experience of art. TV is a creation of generalized thought. TV is even more similar to thought than in the case of dream vision/experience. This is why the visual images in TV become even more shifting and variable than those of the dream. (Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable).

5 days later
  • [deleted]

Hi Jonathan. The following is relevant to an improved/unified understanding of reality/experience. I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Frank

The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general. The world requires and involves man. Each and every one of us has entirely different experiences. It is not a matter of "consciousness". It is a matter of understanding the fundamentally interactive nature of being and experience (including thought) in and with time -- as this all relates to, and is inseparable from, physics/sensory experience.

The integrated extensiveness of thought is inseparable from the integrated [and natural] extensiveness of experience IN GENERAL. The limits of physics will never be properly understood apart from this fact:

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Ironically, those who think that thinking is detached from what you erroneously deem to be "exterior experience" are more detached from reality (that is, from the integrated extensiveness of thought, experience, and feeling).

And there is nothing to the following, huh?: "a sense of oneness, being one with the music, a dry light (Francis Bacon), etc., etc.? Clearly, true superiority of thought is linked/attributed to our ability to model/describe/reconfigure sensory experience FROM WITHIN. How do you think that memory and genius are possible?

Greetings,

Apologies to Chris as I began to read, but did not finish the linked paper he suggested. I shall take that up when there is more time.

For Frank Martin; I have time for only a brief comment now, but your last comments were sufficiently lucid to leave me with something coherent to respond to. Some of your other comments will remain unaddressed.

When you say "the fundamentally interactive nature of being and experience (including thought) in and with time" this relates to the quantum-mechanical measurement problem in Physics. But your usage seems also to imply you advocate a process-oriented view of reality, where experience and time have the nature of an evolving process. And your earlier statement suggests you feel time is non-linear, where are individual timelines of experience are threads in the larger fabric. Your insights offer some pretty cool possibilities to explore or examine.

Have you heard about the research by Paul Kwiat and colleagues, on 'Interaction-Free Measurement'? They found that even the possibility for measurement was enough to change the outcome of some experiments, but were able to 'stretch the envelope' somewhat by obtaining useful information a percentage of the time, without interrupting quantum coherency.

When you say "The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience." this addresses an issue more germane to Cognitive Science, but certainly a factor in how humans practice Physics. The ability to integrate input from various senses, in order to form an impression of the world, is indeed important in cultivating a transformational capability in our quality of thought - in any field of endeavor. In many ways, the kind of abstract thinking demanded by theoretical Physics is an extension of the cross-linking of sensory information in the associative cortex, to create an integrated experience of life.

The sad part of this story is that young people growing up in developed nations are showing less of this kind of neurological development. Rather than more shades of grey, green, and blue, studies show that today's young people distinguish fewer - which some researchers attribute to the barrage of intense stimuli they receive. Likewise; there seems to be a trend toward less integration of thought from different senses, in modern children growing up in a technological society, as compared to those from more 'primitive' cultures. Joseph Chilton Pearce believes that this may be because engaging the natural world encourages the integration of sensory data in ways that engaging with technology does not.

We have to reverse this trend, if the 'integrated extensiveness of being and experience' is our key to advancing progress in Physics. My essay does assert that there needs to be more integration of thoughts from different kinds of exploration and observation, rather than less. So; in that regard, we are of like mind. I think we may differ on the cognitive state of chimpanzees (which you referenced in earlier comments), so there is some disagreement to speak of, but I won't go there.

Oh well; perhaps this is a longer thought, after all. But hopefully one that addresses your last comment.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

Hi Jonathan. Thanks for your reply. I am a little pressed for time, but I will be back to you with more soon.

The following points are consistent with the fact that dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL:

1) The quantum-mechanical nature of thought/experience is evident in dreams.

2) Particle/wave is evident in dreams.

3) How space manifests as gravitational/electromagnetic energy is evident in dream experience. (This is why you like the application of this idea to experience IN GENERAL.)

I would like you to carefully consider that astrononomical/telescopic observations are "activating" what is seen/observed -- this bears an important similarity to dream experience, which is also constantly active. (As you know, the stars are basically unmoving relative to the unaided eye.)