Russel,

thank you so much. I am so glad to hear the words "I agree".It is a rare treat.

Re keeping it going, a few thoughts. The expanding universe, and its cold death are ideas that have come from observation of the manifestation of reality (image reality) rather than being the object-universe at unitemporal Now. So it is a giant conceptual error imo.

In nature the rotation of the earth, affect of the sun and moon lead to currents of air and water that give heat flows that would not be predicted for an isolated system without those inputs. Likewise in nature small changes can build into much larger ones as seen in weather systems, which might seem to be working against increase in entropy. This sort of thing makes me think that the whole object-universe may be a giant feedback loop and to abuse Newtons first law -A universe in motion continues in motion (unless acted upon by universe stopping force!)I don't think anyone is turning the handle.

I am also interested in hearing where your wondering may have taken you.

Dear Georgina,

We need more agreement on the good points don't we!

Your Potential, Actualisation, Manifestation, Records sequence makes good sense and makes a nice framework. In particular the Potential and Actualisation aspects are where my wondering has taken me. Roger Penrose is suggesting we look at existing data from new angles to see if new results natuarally fall out. It seems like that is what you are doing as well. Very interesting stuff!

Kind regards, Russell

Dear Russel,

I see that your whole essay is about a preliminary theory of what "keeps it going." I am sorry I have not read it earlier. There were just too many essays to read all of them. Now that the community voting stage of the competition is over I have lost the motivation to keep on reading essays, though I know there are lots of good ideas in them.

I will comment on your essay, on your thread, when I have had time to read it thoroughly. For now, I liked the fan analogy and the diagrams make it very clear. I have talked about a 4th dimension on this web site quite a bit, so I understand exactly why you are talking about it and why you have considered it necessary. Though my opinion has changed slightly over time. I now think it has to do with relative perspective and the 3 dimensional framework not allowing for continuous spatial change that is not directly observed. So it is quite probably a representational problem rather than an actual extra spatial dimension,imo. Anyway give me some time to carefully read and think and I will get back to you.

Kind regards, Georgina.

5 days later

Thanks Georgina again for your words

....I am reminded of very ancient fairy tales where there is a competition for the golden apple and the winner competes with three different horses; a red one, black one and white one. The champion also gets wounded during the competition.

Well, anyway, I look heartily towards another contest riding a horse of another color.....

I'll leave the mince and take the mittens. Feel free to email me directly if you wish to correspond further or please suggest good essays to read etc.

John Barrow has a very good lecture on his new book of universes, a book of hours for our times at Gresham's website. I never knew that Hubble was such a snob......and his meagre technician assistant was such a talented individual. Barrow is so interesting in that he looks into the people this way.

Michael

mjeub@visi.com

I am going to try to attach a diagram which sets out the explanatory model of reality under discussion in my essay and shows how QM and relativity are related to it.It is a useful summary and helps to clarify the relationship of the ideas.

I hope this demonstrates more clearly that this is not at all woolly or unclear thinking, or entirely abstract and irrelevant to QM or relativity.It clearly shows how the two physics models are looking at different aspects of reality and therefore can co-exist without being contradictory.

Please excuse the homemade quality of the diagram. I could have spent longer on making a beautiful professional quality graphic but it would not convey any more information.Attachment #1: diagram002.jpg

Dear Georgina,

This is in response to your comments on the "Standard Model Begger" blog.

I had posted the following statements:

1. In a complete theory there is an element corresponding to each element of reality.

2. QM has ONE element of reality, the wavefunction.

3. QM addresses 'particle/wave' physics, which has ONE element of reality.

4. 'Particle plus wave' physics has TWO elements of reality.

5. QM cannot address BOTH elements, 'particle plus wave', with the wavefunction.

6. If reality consists of 'particle plus wave', then QM is incomplete.

7. If reality is 'particle plus wave', then QM arguments against it are irrelevant.

Notes:

a. Florin has rejected the logic of step 1, but step 1 is not a statement of logic, it is a definition.

b. Florin claims 'particle plus wave' means Bohm's theory, but my essay describes a theory of particle plus wave and it is *not* Bohm's theory.

c. I am sincerely interested in the above logic, which I believe to be correct. Can anyone argue these points without descending into irrelevant history or polemics. Each statement seems to stand alone. Which statement, if any, is incorrect?

You then commented:

Dear Edwin,

I don't disagree with any of those statements.I have added a diagram to explain how I see QM and relativity being related to the entirety of reality, on my essay competition thread. It is easy to follow so might be accessible to the mathematically minded who dislike long verbal descriptive ramblings.

It shows how QM relates to one facet of reality and relativity the other. The particle idea belonging with the structure of the relativity model, which is a model of the observed manifestation of reality and the wave function belonging to QM , which is a model of the unobserved reality becoming manifest. It shows how wave function collapse is related to observation. The diagram shows that both models are part of a fuller description of reality and neither is sufficient on its own.

I think it is relevant to the discussion you are having with Florin, and would also appreciate any feedback on its structure.

My response:

Without reviewing all of the above discussion, I may misinterpret something, but here goes:

It would appear that the QM wave functions in your diagram are the 'outer layer' of reality. There are many who interpret this to be true. But David Berlinski has remarked that "The wavefunction of the universe is designed to represent the behavior of the universe--all of it... Physicists have found it remarkable easy to pass from speculation *about* the wave function of the universe to the conviction that there *is* a wave function of the universe."

He concludes that 'quantum cosmology' is a branch of 'mathematical metaphysics'.

That fairly accurately represents my own thinking.

From my essay you may recall that I begin with the gravitational field and attempt to derive all physics from it. The evolution of this field leads to the circulational aspect (the C-field) condensing into local particles (the particles of the Standard Model). Each particle in motion induces a gravito-magnetic circulation analogous to the way in which electric charge in motion induces an electromagnetic circulation.

This leads to each locally real particle being inescapably accompanied by a local field with wave-like character, hence "particle plus wave". This is essentially different from the dualistic 'particle/wave' of the Copenhagen interpretation.

Because quantum mechanics is based on the 'wavefunction' it does not describe the local particle, and must use a 'superposition' of wave functions in order to model or describe the local particle. This is only partially successful, as this wavepacket does not hold together but disperses. And when the local particle is detected in one place, it is necessary for the wavepacket to 'collapse'. Belief in this 'fictitious particle' then leads to non-locality and other 'weird' ideas. And because QM does not have an element that corresponds to the local particle, QM is incomplete. And the current reigning ideas are those that have been developed based upon this incomplete theory, but are believed by the practitioners of the QM school of faith.

The relevance of this to your diagram, at first glance, is that the local particle plus (C-field) wave are the "Object reality" that exhibits mass, energy, charge and spin and interacts with the gravitic and electromagnetic fields. The QM wave-functions are the incomplete descriptions, interpreted as probabilities, and mistakenly assigned an objective reality by some.

The rest of your diagram, to the extent I have studied it, appears reasonable and realistic. I may have more to say after I've had a chance to study your work in more detail.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Edwin ,

    Thanks for taking a look. I did not want to interfere with the great discussion occurring on that thread but it seemed relevant at that point. I am not sure what each of the different theorists mean by "The Universe." They might be talking about all of the potentially observed universe or all that exists in time and space? They are, it can be seen from the diagram, different things- both with the potential to be regarded as The Universe, in their own right. Which is the real Universe? The one that can be observed or the one that is? Well it is both, so there two versions of The Universe.

    The whole Object-Universe could potentially be described by a universal wavefunction but it does not take account of the other version of The Universe which is formed by the observer from received information. So it has to be incomplete. Down the bottom of the diagram it shows the overlap of QM with observed reality which has been called wave function collapse. The local particle is manifest within the Image- reality formed by the observer. Which is not a part of the Object- reality that exists without observer interaction. Most importantly this allows both QM and relativity to be mathematically correct, as has been found- without contradiction.

    The particles (whatever they are) and medium are within the object reality but undetectable, this, I think, also might be described by your local particle plus c field. Most mainstream physics has come from observation of the manifestation of reality, Image reality. So we know the manifestaion of them but not their origin. I have speculated the fundamental forces are a disturbance or perturbation of the medium of object reality (which you are calling the c field.)

    I have a nasty cold?flu bug and chest infection so haven't felt up to improving the diagram presentation or describing what it shows. I think its pretty straight forward and nothing that I haven't talked about before. If you can just get the time to familiarise yourself with it it might not seem so complicated. I acknowledge that it initially looks complicated but actually it is also fiendishly simple.It is just the combination of sets and flow chart that Ray suggested I produce a very long time ago. Which makes it easy to follow at a glance compared to longer verbal description.

    12 days later

    Georgina,

    Thank you for your kind words on my semi-satirical essay. Your metaphysics are also most interesting. The important thing is to keep the pressure on the mainstream: they never seem to get it right. It's the outliers (Black Swans) that seem to make the differences, even though "There are no loner penguins." I posted one more time about the so-called constant c, because this penguin's intuition is that it's a singular non-homogeneity.

    John M.

      7 days later

      John,

      thank you for your messages here and on your own thread. I am very glad that you have found my ideas interesting.I have tried to pin them down in an understandable, correct and acceptable way. I may still not have succeeded yet. I hope the diagram I have posted on this thread might be a way for the more mathematically minded to easily access ideas and how they fit together. I intend to make a smarter looking diagram that fits the page soon. (Still recovering from a nasty cold.)

      Your remark concerning Black swan theory is relevant. Who knows when the Black swan will appear, or be recognized for what it is? I think Max Tegmark's opinion "it is much better that we bark up many trees rather than all barking up the same tree." is also very relevant. Some will be barking up the wrong trees but there is no shame in that. It is just the nature of the hunt for something very elusive and difficult to capture in adequate words or mathematics.Of course I think there might be something "really real" in mine, but thats only natural!

      Georgina parry.

      5 days later

      Georgina,

      Exactly right regarding the search for the veritas (the right tree) - who knows which one it will be. You have a gift for phrasing and idea density which I find most admirable and interesting. I hope you are or will become a mentor or teacher (professor) of these metaphysics for those younger than us. Well done. John M.

      9 days later

      I have noticed an error on the diagram that I posted. The recall arrow should feed directly into "processing and interpretation" and not into "data intercepted by the observer" because "data intercepted by observer" has been drawn as a sub set of the EM data pool, which is the pool of all sensory data in the external environment.

      Alternatively the data intercepted pool could be drawn so that it intersects the EM pool but also has a portion outside of that representing data that has not been acquired from external reality, but has been internally recalled. That is my preference. I will produce an updated corrected version soon.

      17 days later

      This is an updated pdf of the diagram. Now can be viewed easily on a single page.I have used letters, numbers arrows and key to make it less cluttered.I have made some changes to the labeling which I think makes it easier to understand. I have made some slight changes to it in terms of structure which I think makes it a more accurate representation. It shows that recall is a part of observer intercepted data but not via the data pool of external reality. It also includes self generated data input which was not present on the previous diagram. I have also put potential and probability on the boundary between the open future and actualized reality. It has to exist within the actualised reality being that part of the arrangement of actualised reality that permits further change.Would be interested in any thoughts positive or negative on that alteration. I am sorry it is just a rough "handmade" version but at least it is now here.Attachment #1: reality_in_physics.pdf

        No.5. Self generated data: need not just apply to biological observers but might include artifacts appearing in the output reality as a result of the function of a technology or the particular device used. Such as lens effects of cameras, film graininess, pixelation due to limitations of sensors resolution of an image, or internal amplification of interference or distortion.

        Another change is that there is now an arrow from records back into the data pool, which shows records being accessed and converted back into sensory input or data that is available to an artificial device. Important because the records (past) are not a dead end but allow us to know about what was, though only when the records are accessed.It is the same as the recall arrow from memories, in that the memories only allow knowledge about the past when they are recalled, making the information available for interpretation and processing.

        I think I am quite happy with that structure for now. It seems to sum up what is happening and I can not see anything else obviously missing or out of place. Still answers all of the questions that it did before but is just more precise.

        I am in the process of making a quick version of the same diagram but with labels all in situ. Although it will be cluttered it will be self explanatory rather than requiring the key and notes.Which may be helpful if people would like to just look at it briefly or share it with others and are not yet familiarized with the structure and how it fits together and works to give solutions.

        One thing that comes to mind is that this does have some connection with various virtual reality conjectures that have been raised in the contest. Though it is not the foundational level of reality that is virtual. That reality is more akin to the hardware necessary to run a program. The sensory data pool is more akin to the software or data input to the hardware and the space-time experienced reality is the virtual representation created by the organism or device.

        There are different levels of reality here. The foundational level is the most complex, the data pool is a sub set of it, and the data available to the human observer will be a sub set of the complete data pool. The reality formed from the data following processing and interpretation will be a simplification and interpretation of the external reality. So it is at the end of the line but not a "higher" level of reality, as in superior. Rather it is the the lesser derived reality.

        Imagine the bat using echoes from the surroundings to create a virtual representation of its location. In order to navigate and catch prey to survive. That representation must be functional but does not require more detail than is necessary for the survival of the organism. Likewise all of the senses will be selected by survival advantage rather than accuracy and detail for its own sake. Colour vision can be useful for determining the ripeness and edibility of fruits and so is useful to birds and apes. The accuracy of the actual colours seen is not as important as the ability to differentiate different colours. A recent news article on the BBC talked of the ability of reindeer to see into the ultraviolet range making them better able to locate lichens in the snow and see predator wolves in the snow. No survival benefit to the human so we have most likely lost this common animal ability. The colours seen are formed by the internal processing of the data and do not exist as those colours in external reality. The colour, and all sensory experience, is an output reality not an input from the external reality.

        This is the revised diagram with the descriptions written on it. Not as tidy and clear as the previous one (pdf and description in the last thread), but may be more useful for immediate comprehension and sharing.I can't justify the time it would take me to produce really nice graphics but hopefully I will later on, especially if there is any indication of interest in this by anyone other than myself.

        I have marked past, present and future onto the diagram to indicate how these "everyday" terms relate to this model. That is outside of the mathematical space-time/block time model of reality.I have tried to indicate how different physics models are related to this structure. (Perhaps the diagram could be called physics in the context of reality.) To reiterate for those who may not have previously read about the model shown here: It has an open future allowing partial non determinism. It has sequential actualization of reality allowing unidirectional causality. Accounting for one way time. The time dimension only exists within the manifestation of reality or Image reality, not within the object reality so overcoming the grandfather paradox.The entirety of reality is both that which is observed and that which exists unobserved.Attachment #1: Reality_in_physics_W002.jpg