The Chip in the Brain by Michael Thomas Deans

I'm a discretist, not a continuist or infinitist ("Analog or Digital?" sucks, frankly) but one thing bothers me. Genetic coding works because the bases are inert. But folding is manifestly dynamic and has never been algorithmized, indeed may well never be. How can we be confident it's not analog?

(You may have covered this and it simply went over my head.)

Dear Michael,

just to let you know I have read your essay.

I had high hopes for it having read the abstract. However you do seem to have amalgamated a lot of "everything" into it without really answering the question.I am not saying that to be derogatory but to show that I have failed to grasp how this is relevant to this particular physics competition. It is perhaps included to demonstrate the unbiased nature of the competition.It may have more appeal to other readers.Best wishes and thank you for sharing it with us.

My 'minion' chip in the brain model poses some mathematical conundrums. In the attached file are 4 puzzles to solve: 1 Re-inventing the periodic table using perfect solids. 2 A 3-D version of the 4-colour mapping theorem. 3 Scaling down CERN to molecular size. and 4 Trying out an alternative to Einstein's General Relativity. Publishable proofs would strengthen the case for the model and your standing as a mathematician.Attachment #1: Math.pdf

Michael, your essay was very creative and reminded me of Roger Penrose's speculations about tubulin and quantum effects in the brain, etc. Your illustrations could use some more resolution as I could just barely make out some details and labels, etc. Some things I question, like "pools of liquid nitrogen" - are you aware, that requires -320 °F at sea level and would be at low reactivity. Also, if cold fusion happens at all (let's be open minded), it still seems to require special conditions like properly prepared Pd, extreme discontinuities/environments etc. and I don't see it clear that that exists inside the human body. But an ambitious attempt to relate various features and symbolism, reminiscent of some "spiritual alchemy" and other interdisciplinary/syncretist efforts, certainly stimulates free associating and looking for unexpected connections. Best wishes, I do suggest rechecking some notions and carefully separating serious description, poetic analogy, etc.

BTW, my own essay states that the quantum measurement problem is not solved by decoherence. If so, then quantum effects can have more role in brain function, DNA etc since recently decoherence has been considered a block to quantum effects being important in those systems. Check it out, please.

Neil, your essay reminded me of fruitless attempts to align slits and light beams as an undergraduate. More legible versions of my diagrams appear on my web site. As to whether liquid nitrogen would occur on Earth, my reading certainly suggests the possibility - take it as axiomatic; without that starting condition, we wouldn't be around. Cold fusion does require 'special' Pd to work, but plenty of reports support the possibility. If you email me, I'll forward a set of 4 mathematical 'theorems' which, if proved, would support my thesis. Since I argue that quantum mechanics arises from the way the 'chip in the brain' functions, any consequences for science are 'circular arguments'. One of my PhD examiners was known to his peers as an alchemist, my forbears were poets. Thank you for your comments, best of luck in the competition.

Dear Michael

We have printed out your essay and read it. The charts, tables and formulae were beyond our technical competence. But much of the script we could understand, and we found your observations most interesting and enlightening.

It is certainly a formidable piece of work and we wish you success with it.

Michael

Brilliant essay, and an area I believe far more research funds should go to. Not my area, but I've always studied progress on it avidly, and often find parallels, which I certainly do with yours. I understand your falsification/peer review problem as I've had the same and only now a first one accepted for review. I suspect you're only low in the community rankings due to your free thinking and non 'central' (to here) subject matter. You've certainly got a top mark from me.

I liked your root M as a fundamental. It needs some thought. I didn't absorb whether or not you had a view on the big bang, and suspected it may have been more just a touchstone, but I've recently explored some logical conclusions of my own model (which is also falsifiable), and they point to a recycled universe. I'm interested in more details of the basis of you 11Bn year figure as mine tends more towards 15. (These derivations are not in my essay, but there are links in the strings to an 'implications' paper).

Your reference to octaves also struck a chord (relevant jest!). Indeed Christian Corda is currently considering a paper rejected by mainstream focussing on just that, but ref em waves, harmonics and diffraction, related to my discrete field model (DFM).

I do hope you can read my essay (2020 vision means neither of our theories will probably be recognised before 2020!). http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 It takes high conceptual visualisation skills to see the simple solution to resolving the paradoxes of relativity. Our brains are just not developed enough to readily handle the number of dynamic variables required. I suspect you may see it (present rate about 1 in 5), but you'd need to read it slowly not skim it. I hope you like it I need all the high scores I can get! Do ask any questions.

Very best of luck, with the essay and your future research.

Peter

Michael's essay is a very good synthesis of ideas from many different fields.

Science sometimes gets into a 'cul de sac' e.g. lack of recent progress in theoretical physics and the way forward is to utilise such a synthesis.