Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Joe Fisher: on 8/29/16 at 17:47pm UTC, wrote At 9:00 PM EST, on August 29, 1966, I stepped off a Pan American 707...

Anonymous: on 8/27/16 at 12:58pm UTC, wrote 1 day ago ...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/27/16 at 12:10pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr Simpson, You are welcome.It is indeed relevant.I asked me why the...

Anonymous: on 8/26/16 at 16:06pm UTC, wrote Oh Dear! Joe. You are entirely mistaken, I was only allowing for your...

Joe Fisher: on 8/26/16 at 14:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Anonymous, Thank you for agreeing that I am right and all of the...

Gary Simpson: on 8/26/16 at 1:49am UTC, wrote Steve, Thank you for taking the time to read the work. I believe that the...

Anonymous: on 8/25/16 at 19:09pm UTC, wrote Any proprietary server, that is the physical data operating system of an...

Steve Dufourny: on 8/25/16 at 18:35pm UTC, wrote Hello Mr Simpson, It is A beautiful work of analytic...



FQXi FORUM
June 27, 2017

ARTICLE: Untangling Quantum Causation [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Robert H McEachern wrote on Jul. 26, 2016 @ 10:39 GMT
The problem with determining causation,is that mathematical identities are not the same as physical identities. Hence, comparing results produced by mathematical theories, with experimental observations, can only verify that the computations agree with the observations, but not the reason or cause for the agreement.

Rob McEachern

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2016 @ 08:20 GMT
I didn't know about Berkson's paradox, but have now read a little bit about it. I don't quite understand why, if it is result of a kind of selection bias, they are looking for it in the quantum experiment and then taking it to be saying something about quantum causation. Or maybe I just haven't really understood the article. Can anyone explain?

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 27, 2016 @ 15:04 GMT
Yet another ridiculous article about how easy it is for the clever physicists to manipulate invisible quanta in finite controlled experiments that reveal absolutely nothing about observable reality. The real Universe is sublimely simple. The real Universe consists only of a single, unified, unique visible surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Ming the Merciless wrote on Aug. 12, 2016 @ 11:20 GMT
Robert Spekkens says: "’Correlation does not imply causation’ is a mantra of all statisticians to which Rob Spekkens and his colleagues added a quantum twist," says Artur Ekert, director of the Centre for Quantum Technologies in Singapore. "It turns out that in the quantum world certain types of correlation do imply causation. This is a nice surprise."

You probably know this, but certain scenarios of correlation imply causation also, and the suite of tools in statistics was designed to handle that in a formalized and precise methodology with repeatability and reproducibility.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 12, 2016 @ 15:30 GMT
Dear Ming,

The National Science Foundation shelled out $1.32 million to researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara to validate Einstein’s Theory of (invisible) Relativity: Special and General. I am a researcher in good standing. Einstein, and all of the theoretical physicists have been utterly wrong about the Universe. The real Universe is sublimely simple. The real Universe consists only of a single, unified, unique visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 13, 2016 @ 02:08 GMT
Would Joe Fisher please disambiguate 'a member in good standing' of what accredited scientific organization?

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Aug. 13, 2016 @ 15:45 GMT
Joe,

In science, the burden of proof rests with the challenger ... that would be you.

Good Luck. You have a long road ahead.

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 14, 2016 @ 15:00 GMT
Dear Gary,

Fortunately, reality does not have to be proven, it is self evident. The real observable Universe is utterly simple to understand. The real observable Universe consists only of infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Observable infinite surface is the one and only macroscopic entity one real observable Universe could acquire. The real Universe does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in invisible space. Real infinite visible surface does not have any invisible entanglements lurking anywhere in its interior.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Aug. 15, 2016 @ 15:36 GMT
Joe,

I will ask you several simple questions. I have asked you these before and your response was unsatisfactory.

1. What predictions do your ideas allow you to make?

2. What calculations do your ideas allow you to make?

3. How do the answers to the above differ from what physics already is? Stated differently, what do your ideas add to physics as it currently exists?

Good luck with your journey. Your first steps must be answers to the above.

Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 13, 2016 @ 17:04 GMT
Entanglement and quantum causation are subjects that are near and dear to me, but this article is entangled with both Berkson's paradox, which is simply that there exists a hidden bias in a statistical set due to selection, and the notion of a common cause or quantum source for more than one entangled quantum observer.

This mix of classical bias in statistics that confuses causality and the quantum superposition that binds a source to an observer and also confuses causality seems to obfuscate rather than clarify quantum causality.

In the referenced paper, a single photon exists in a superposition of polarizations in a Sagnac interferometer. Ring interferometers like Sagnac work with polarization as opposed to spatial decoherence, so that means even more complex physics to argue about.

The bonding between atoms in a molecule as well as the bonding between a source and an observer results from the exchanges of a single photons. Both time and space emerge from these actions and putting a Sagnac interferometer in between a source and an observer is just a really good way to complexify the simple quantum bond that actually is what holds all matter together.

Even quantum gravity is due to the exchange of a single biphoton pair between a source and observer, which are also an observer and source. Beamsplitters and dual slit measurements usually do not include the source in their quantum logic, only the photon and observer, and so these experiments are prone to the selective statistics of the Berkson paradox.

Once the quantum superposition includes both source and observer as well as photon exchange, space and time naturally emerge and these various complexifications become just crossword puzzles of science. Fun to solve, but hardly useful for understanding the simplicity of the quantum bonding that holds the universe together.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 14, 2016 @ 15:11 GMT
Dear Steve,

The real observable Universe is utterly simple to understand. The real observable Universe consists only of infinite surface illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Observable infinite surface is the one and only macroscopic entity one real observable Universe could acquire. The real Universe does not consist of invisible atoms swirling round in invisible space. Real infinite visible surface does not have any invisible finite entanglements lurking anywhere in its interior. Invisible finite quantum causation has nothing to do with infinite unified visible surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 14, 2016 @ 18:11 GMT
I agree that the real observable universe is easy to understand: the real observable universe is made up of discrete matter and discrete action. You describe objects as infinite surfaces that shine infinite non-surface light onto other surfaces. Since a finite surface actually shines discrete photons of light even without any non-surface light, what you say makes no sense. Moreover, a surface can also be transparent and pass the shine of other atoms that lie behind it.

Since light is made up of discrete photons as particles and surfaces are made up of discrete atoms that absorb and shine discrete photons, there is no sense to either surfaces of infinite divisbility or infinite extent. Once again, what you say makes no sense since we live in a discrete and finite universe.

Entanglement is quantum property of the phase of light and matter and of the spin of that phase. It is from the discrete property of quantum spin that our notions of surface and infinity and the infinitesimal emerge. Although the approach of continuous space and time represents reality fairly well, that approach is a patchwork that is not much different from that of spacetime and therefore not a very simple way to describe all of the universe at all.

Since all that you seem to do is repeat the same mantra that makes no sense to me or any one else on the planet, all I can do is inform others about how little sense your mantra seems to make. I like to think of the finite universe in the very simple terms of discrete matter and discrete action and that makes perfect sense to me...

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 15, 2016 @ 15:10 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for responding. Please read exactly what I wrote. I did not describe any objects. There are no objects in the real Universe. The real Universe is utterly simple. The real Universe consists of only one unified observable infinite surface that is always illuminated by one infinite non-surface light. Infinite surface could not possibly be made of finite discrete invisible particles of matter. Infinite non-surface light could not possibly consist of discrete finite invisible photons.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 14, 2016 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Ming,

I am thankfully not affiliated with any accredited academic institution. I have notified over forty physics professors that Einstein’s Theory of (invisible) Relativity: Special and General is incorrect, and not a one of them has disputed my contention. Perhaps you would care to prove that I am wrong and Einstein was right.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 16, 2016 @ 17:02 GMT
A secure socket link (SSL) does not mean its 'safe', quite the contrary. It means 'fastened'. An open socket is an open set. They were called 'cookies' in ancient Geek because any other link could fasten to them and people wanted carte blanc connectivity. To call oneself a 'researcher in good standing' in a cookie jar that requires no qualification, is rather like pointing out the tallest building in Witchita.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2016 @ 07:04 GMT
Thanks for explaining -now I understand what you meant by a cookie jar, I thought it just meant something inviting before you elaborated.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 17, 2016 @ 17:09 GMT
"All the physicists are wrong and I am right."

Well, then Mr. Phisher, there is no reason for any to provide you a link to their own mathematics for you to dribble your cookie crumbs on.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 18, 2016 @ 03:41 GMT
In reply to Rob, Jul. 26, 2016 @ 10:39: I agree with this statement because I consider reality the most reasonable conjecture. Accordingly, the philosophy by Parmenides, Zeno, and Einstein is falsidical.

++++

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 18, 2016 @ 15:24 GMT
Dear People

Obviously, you all cannot see how my idea of the real Universe consisting only of a single visible unified infinite surface that is always illuminated by singular infinite non-surface light could possibly have anything to do with the finite manipulation of symbolic invisible phenomena that physicists use. Utterly simple reality of infinite surface is not my idea. The Holy Roman Catholic Church scoffef at Galileo for daring to suggest that the earth orbited the sun. At least they bored a hole in the roof of a Basilica that enabled the church to prove that Galileo was correct. The utterly simple reality that I expound is utterly shocking to everyone who wants to believe in finite science. Please do not lose patience with me. Please join me. Physics Revolution Now.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 18, 2016 @ 16:33 GMT
"Utterly simple reality of infinite surface is not my idea." - Joe Fisher - 8/18/16

That part is true enough. It was the idea formalized by Wm. Rowan Hamilton in 1843. Which none-the-less lacks what you seek, quite transparently. Which is also conspicuously absent in Relativity, Quantum and Newtonian Mechanics.

It is physics and physicists, and mathematicians, whom recognize the virtual reality which has impressed itself on the mind of the cybergen, imprinting the imagery formed by the math of simply connected measurement space to which their eyes have been transfixed since their precognitive childhood introduction to computer graphics on some screen. That should humble ones assumption of perception, and warn against blind faith acceptance from personal experience, unchecked by critical examination of deductive logic. A little humility goes a long way in progressing along a learning curve. If you cannot accept that it is you whom has yet to learn something, you'll never know. So we are back to the matter of whether you know enough to recognize what cyber risk of assuming an aggregator issued number to you, can pose to a potential correspondent. Or don't you care to know that, and others must simply sit at your feet.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 19, 2016 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

William Rowan Hamilton was best known for his conception of the quatermion. When I wrote : "Utterly simple reality of infinite surface is not my idea." - Joe Fisher - 8/18/16 I was trying to emphasize the fact that, obviously, I had nothing to do with the appearance of the real Universe. The only thing physicists and philosophers have done is create a massive amount of misinformation about abstract invisible conditions. They care only about the complexity of virtual reality. I humbly offer you the exquisite simplicity of the real Universe that only consists of one unified visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by one infinite amount of non-surface light. You need experts to explain virtual reality. You need only open your eyes to prove to yourself that you will only ever see some of the infinite surface that is always illuminated by non-surface light of which I write.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Aug. 19, 2016 @ 18:20 GMT
Still waiting for a testable prediction or a calculation. Perhaps an explanation of gravity or electro-magnetism? Or perhaps expansion of the universe? Radioactive decay? No?

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 19, 2016 @ 23:10 GMT
Joe, you seem to be talking of experience of the visible universe. Where is Joe the see-er in that? Do you regard Joe as fabricator of the "virtual reality " or passive recipient? In either way to comprehend what is seen there must be more to Joe than just his part of the surface others see, something more inside that is not see-able. Might I suggest the idea that Joe and all observers are beables, having existence independent of measurement or information processing by another organism or device. How do you feel about a whole other category of universe that also exists; as the source of the information for the 'virtual universe', and including (not just surface) observers of it?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 19, 2016 @ 18:17 GMT
So you're dazzled. Tell us something we don't know.

>

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 20, 2016 @ 23:42 GMT
If you hold a square box up in front of your face so you only see the single square face of the box, the rest of the box does not cease to exist in reality. Also in reality if you construct an image of that box so that you can tumble it around on your viewer so that only a single square face is displayed, the rest of the box still exists in the mathematical relationship of the geometric algebra of quaternion architecture. That is what virtual reality is, the whole box virtually exists in the math that defines just the box, simply. There are no arbitrary vanishing points within or beyond the borders of the screen that the coordinates of the box relate to, the coordinates are simply of that box. And the only vanishing point is in the eye of the beholder, you the viewer.

That is what virtual reality is, and why it became called virtual reality. The entirety of the surface of an object is contained in the math even if only part of it is visible, it all virtually exists in reality. The viewing experience has been marketed as if the experience were a virtual reality. It is not, its a real experience, and one in which the math shines through. And if you follow financial news you might have learned very recently that a major investment has been made in the studio/lab of one of the vetern pioneers of VR. And there are a lot of test subjects out there whom do not recognize the math from the experience.

|

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 21, 2016 @ 00:26 GMT
Anonymous, I understand you may not want to use your real name but could you please choose a pen name. There are potentially many Anonymous-es but one you.You have some interesting things to say.

If you hold the box as you have described, only the electromagnetic information from the part of the box facing you is being received by your eyes. The image of the box on the retina and later formed in the visual cortex is formed from processing of information received. So what is formed is a limited view of one aspect of the surface topology. It does not contain the mathematics for the rest of the box unseen, as that information was not received. So it is not a virtual reality as you describe. However I would contend that the source of the information was not limited in the same way.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 21, 2016 @ 00:46 GMT
Anonyous, that is to say the see-ers perception is a new fabrication from received information only. It is not that part of reality has ceased to exist, it has not been included. The information from which the box image was not made does not cease to exist when the see-er 'selects' the information he receives but it remains in the environment unless absorbed by another object.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 21, 2016 @ 01:02 GMT
Georgina,

I am only passing through, there are many open forums. As to your qualifications which are categorical in nature, they are part of the prospectus in the cross discipline research in VR. I won't say more other than you might wish to browse the subject and take part in the real science being done.

:

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 21, 2016 @ 06:47 GMT
Does that mean you have to pass through as Anonymous-what if you come back this way again? Not quite sure what you mean by the last sentence. Take part in what, where?

I think this qualifies as scientific progress- developed here

Reality in the Context of Physics (Ricp): an Explanatory Framework: Bridging the Pitfalls of Category Error, Dispelling Paradox and Excluding Magic from Physics

An Examination of Measurement Relevant to Entanglement and Ontology: Answers to Some Long Standing Questions

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 21, 2016 @ 15:33 GMT
Dear Anonymous and Georgina,

Nobody has ever seen a “box’. It is physically impossible to see a “box”. One only sees a PLETHORA of seeming seamlessly enmeshed, flattish, varied colored surface. If one rests one’s nose on one surface side of a box, one will still only see a PLETHORA of seamlessly enmeshed surface that includes a part of one’s nostril and eye socket. Boxes are manufactured out of wood or metal. When one looks at a tree, one sees a PLETHORA of the flat surface of the tree trunk and leaves seamlessly enmeshed into the surface of other visual items. The size, shape and hue of any particular object can never be isolated. The view is always unified, visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 21, 2016 @ 16:25 GMT
...follow the money...just don't expect anyone to do that research for you.

VR is a wide open field due to its myriad applicability. Gamers and artists tend to more clearly distinguish that it is virtual rather than literal reality, it is geometric analysis that mimics human visual perception.

A good overall intro recently aired on

https://charlierose.com/videos/28609

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 22, 2016 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

I do not expect anyone to do any of my research seeing that Reality does not need to be researched. Virtual Reality is pretentious codswallop about the invisibly impossible only mindlessly speculated upon by ignorant junk science boors.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Nicholas I. Hosein wrote on Aug. 21, 2016 @ 17:36 GMT
This is a 2013 thread I created on sciforums that discusses the pros and cons of Loop Quantum Gravity and a number of insights into it versus a response by a working theoretical Physicist (two actually), where they measure it against String Theory.

BY MARKM125:

"Considering this thread is about LQG, I'll type a quick post about the subject.

What is LQG?

Loop Quantum...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 22, 2016 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear Nicholas,

The real Universe is excruciatingly simple to understand. The real universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface that is always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. No part of the infinite surface am ever affected by finite amounts of invisible quantum gravity.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 22, 2016 @ 16:30 GMT
Let's see. Reality doesn't require being researched, so Joe doesn't really do any, yet says he's a 'researcher in good standing'. Maybe that's why the other guy got $2.8 billion for his research. If that be codswollop, gimme a bucket full.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 23, 2016 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

Although I am not affiliated with any accredited academic institution and I have no academic credentials, I do have ORCID. The Foundational Questions Institute offered a Grant for research into the Physics of the Observer. I applied for a Grant citing that I had observed that the real Universe only consisted of one unified visible infinite surface that was always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Of course my request was denied without a reason being given for the denial. Over forty Physics Professors including Professor Max Tegmark, the Director of Science for FQXi.org are aware of my truthful contention and they have ignored it. You now know the truth and you dare to insult me by sneering about the fact that I have never been paid for writing the truth.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 24, 2016 @ 15:40 GMT
Hey Steve,

pay no mind, you're doing fine. Actually the universe has just again displayed its sense of humor.

And don't let that venom cause you distress, your worries about Linked-In are not at all groundless. There is a global political reluctance to regulate the www and nothing to prevent the wholesale utility of open set bit sequencing in conducting connectivity. Consequently if you click a link embedded with such there is little to stop intrusions. The best defense on your own computer is to go into your settings and 'disable wi-fi' then 'disable cookies' any place you find switches to do so. Hard wire is still the best countermeasure.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2016 @ 15:54 GMT
Hi,you know my net is totaly crazy,linkedin, Facebook,my mails.I have been menaced of death also and many others things.I don't fear to die.You know I have lost all in belgium due to bad people.I don't understand this human nature.It is sad.I just want the well of this planet me.My theory of spherisation is all my life,I have worked hard to find this universal link in all humility,I have not a job, I am isolated at home with problems,I cannot accept that people wants to plagiate or discriminate or this or that,I must assume my theory.Others hackers said me that I was a conspiracy theorist ??? They are totaly crazy in fact.Others want toplagiate my works ,others this, others that.It is totaly crazy in fact and all this story just because my theory is general and logic.It is irritating, since 9years ,since this discovery,at the begining the probelms have begun.It is logic a lot of persons have seen the potential, economical of my discovery.They are like squales simply.It is probably the reason why thisplanet is in this state also.Always these persons without consciousness and universality.It is sad.They are going todestroy our planet in fact simply in implying chaos and disorders instead of harmony.A friend of LinkedIn,Mr Duplij has given me avast.It is better but they hack still my pc.What a world ???Regards

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 24, 2016 @ 15:47 GMT
Oh! and Steve,

once you have disabled cookies, there will be a number of webpages that will not function due to the length of script that requires cookies. Don't let that mislead you in thinking something's wrong. Its simply that you're better protected and generally the screen will lock up. Its a nuisance but better than bullets, and a lot of time you have to close out and manually clear browser cache on restart.

report post as inappropriate


Gary D. Simpson wrote on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 00:08 GMT
Hello Steve D.,

I recently posted something to viXra.org that might be of interest to you. The title of the paper is "Quaternion Dynamics, Part 2 ...". The url is as follows:

http://vixra.org/abs/1608.0096

Pay no attention to certain individuals. The universe simply has a sense of humor.

I'm still practicing. I am getting to the point that I play scales on the guitar pretty fast and in time with the metronome, and of course Hanon on the piano.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 09:57 GMT
Hello Mr Simpson,

Thanks for the advices, it is nice.I am going to read your work about quaternion.Thanks also for sharing it.

About piano and guitar, :) Continue,don't stop.The spherical waves dance and turn and vibe around the sphère and its sphères....

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 18:35 GMT
Hello Mr Simpson,

It is A beautiful work of analytic geometry.Congratultion.I see that you thank Dr Edwin Eugenene Klingman, tell himhello.I am remembering 5 or 6 years ago when he was on this Platform,I liked to read his posts.Hope he is well.Best Regards

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Aug. 26, 2016 @ 01:49 GMT
Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to read the work. I believe that the concept of a quaternion cross product is new.

I applied both normal commutation and anti-commutation to the complex i in different parts of the text and doing so produced interesting results.

In one section there is an 8x8 coefficient matrix that is easy to invert.

In another section, it is possible to produce a Hamilton style quaternion based upon the complex plane.

I think the next effort will focus upon Pentuples. What is interesting to me about them is that the mathematics seems to demand that complex conjugates be used. I am thinking it might be possible to define one conjugate as the observed universe and the other conjugate as the observer. Their sum is then the entire universe with no complex terms remaining .... only real terms.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 13:43 GMT
Deleting posts is like changing history. It doesn't erase the indelible memory your conduct created in the minds of others at the time.

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 16:00 GMT
I did not request that your post be taken down. I answered your post. My sensible answer was removed as well as your post.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Gary, and Steve, and Anonymous,

You had all better start paying attention to me. All the Professors of Physics have to offer is “DOUBT’ After spending years insisting that there was an invisible black hole in invisible space, Stephen Hawking hinted that perhaps there was not. No physical proof of the invisible big bang has ever been found, and to guess if the ever expanding universe was nine billion light years old, or thirteen and three quarters of a billion light years old is to admit to being preposterously ignorant.

I am CERTAIN that the real Universe must be simply constructed. The real Universe must eternally consist only of one unified visual infinite surface that am always illuminated by perpetual infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 16:02 GMT
The Joe Fisher user profile, very maliciously impuned Steve Duforney out of supposition which displayed his own narcism and being entirely out of touch with the reality of this forum. But then Steve's own posting of legitimate complaint is deleted by the miscreant to escape the embarrassment his own posturing has revealed. The Fisher profile exhibits behavioral patterns of the compulsive 'Gamer', esc being the go-to button in virtual reality online multi-player tight spots.

But this is a scientific endeavor. Nothing is deleted from server storage, and this has become a double blind experiment in which the demands for attention by the subject have succeded. He has gotten attention, but it is on him not open to him. He can call scientific method 'codswollop' and assail the mentality and character of people in science, yet objects to severe language in response?

What happened to:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2677#post_122677

"Jo
e"?

Kids that are good at video games have 'fast' eyes. That is what makes then good. But they don't know that, they assume it to be some other attribute they find appealing and expect those attributes to be equally successful in the real world. But 'fast' eyes are the deal-breaker for jet jockeys in training regardless of all other skill sets. A domesticated cat with conditioned reflexes focused on a slow movement of the evening food bowl offering can become entranced with a virtual mouse on an old fashioned television screen (we are scientists not gamers so we know how those things actually worked) but a ferral cat will ignore the screen. It doesn't see a seamless image, it sees the sequential lines of the programmed electron projection panograph. The ferral cat's eyes are that much 'faster'.

Gamers know that the imagery is built up of layering, like GIS. Joe is describing the seamless appearance of the final product while denying the layering.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 16:37 GMT
My mistake, Joe. See how double blind experimentation works?

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2016 @ 19:09 GMT
Any proprietary server, that is the physical data operating system of an institution with fiduciary responsibility which includes but not limited to intellectual property and such rights of privacy and sequester, will categorically reject transport protocols with an open source identifier. Strictly for security reasons, certain protocols are required that prevent piggy-backing of malware into the system. FQXi is a virtual institute with a legal proxy address in the U.S. but no physical address. And while fqxi is an open source venue, its affiliation with Perimeter makes it a portal into the proprietary data system of Perimeter. Despite ones preference for absolutely open internet and such open source meme generators such as ORCID, security protocols automatically block or segregate alphanumeric sequences that are allocated to an open source identity.

If you lodge textual content in registry with an open source such as ORCID, which itself has no requirement of credential, then zip it into a transport file to offices of Professors and institutions, chances are that it will never be seen. Try Facebook, or some 'publish free!!! with no expectation of reward!' subscribership. Your identity is not well secured in cyberspace as it is, it would be blind faith to open the zip-file. They just don't want to say that on webspots about ORCID, which really benefit publishers not poets.

But back to the aptly named Perimeter, it does have a real physical address. In Canada. Why don't you Yanks have to qualify yourself?

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 26, 2016 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for agreeing that I am right and all of the theoretical physicists were wrong about the real Universe.

Joe Fisher

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 26, 2016 @ 16:06 GMT
Oh Dear! Joe.

You are entirely mistaken, I was only allowing for your contention that it was not you whom deleted posts, the contention itself lacks qualification. As to you wanting free money as a grant from a proprietary source while demanding that all security protocols should be dropped to permit you as an open source identity to gain access to proprietary channels...

When they close the lid on me, Yank.... when they close the lid.

an with that

)|>!

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 27, 2016 @ 12:58 GMT
1 day ago

www.uswitch.com/mobiles/features/iphone_security_breach_h
ow_to_stay_safe/

report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Aug. 29, 2016 @ 17:47 GMT
At 9:00 PM EST, on August 29, 1966, I stepped off a Pan American 707 jetliner that had landed at John F Kennedy Airport in Queens NY, and I started living as a resident alien in the great country of America. I wish to thank all Americans for the way they have treated me for the past fifty years. I especially want to thank all of the Americans who have been kind and patient enough to read my Facebook

and FQXi.org posts.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.