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 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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American


How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/16/17 at 23:41pm UTC, wrote Thanks for responding Peter.. Agreed they are looking for funding, and...

Peter Jackson: on 4/13/17 at 9:54am UTC, wrote Jonathan, Thanks. Yes, it does. I'd actually tried to make contact with...

Jonathan Dickau: on 4/12/17 at 16:03pm UTC, wrote Hi Peter, After seeing your comments to George, and noting that the...

Peter Jackson: on 4/10/17 at 12:54pm UTC, wrote James, Thanks. I agree. Secret judging, like peer reviewing, is reasonable...

Peter Jackson: on 4/10/17 at 12:41pm UTC, wrote Conrad, Thanks. What I've identified is that a classical explanation of...

Peter Jackson: on 4/10/17 at 12:33pm UTC, wrote Peter, I mean that from Maxwells equations and in standard electrodynamics...

Peter Jackson: on 4/10/17 at 12:20pm UTC, wrote Stefan, Sorry about the delay, busy reading & responding, then a weekend...

Peter Leifer: on 4/8/17 at 8:04am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, thanks again! I cannot understand what literally means...



Anthony Aguirre: "Our mission at FQXi has always been to push boundaries, and to try to focus..." in FQXi's New Large Grant...

John Cox: "Victor, I have reread your post and still find agreement. Realism vs...." in What Is...

Victor Usack: "RE John R Cox. You are quite right. Without the math we’ve got..." in What Is...

Anonymous: "hello Bob" in The Complexity Conundrum

shery williams: "Office Setup is the full suite of Microsoft productivity software that..." in Are We Merging With Our...

thuy lien: "The faction in Bannerlord: Battania King: ‘Caladog’ -partially..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. hell let loose metal gear survive far..." in Blurring Causal Lines

click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

December 16, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Classical Quantum Conciousness by Peter Jackson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 16:20 GMT
Essay Abstract

Artificial intelligence can already learn. Algorithmic foundations and structure to describe how interactions produce 'aims and 'intentions' is identified by exposing an unused momenta hiding before our eyes in a spinning sphere (OAM). Modelling this simplest of mechanisms as a fermion gives a classic derivation of the Dirac twin stacked inverse complementary pairs in quantum mechanics, exactly as anticipated by John Bell. The recursion of neural theories is reduced to fractals, however a computer the size of a brain may be needed to run the algorithm to get good approximations. Ironically limited primeval evolution of neural mechanisms can explain why it's own workings remain a mystery. Judgements using 'default' pattern matching rather than more complex rational analysis will tend to constantly re-embed older doctrine and reject anything new so hamper advancement of understanding. We identify that conscious 'self evolution' is required, using a non-linear 'layered' architecture already proven in logic, some human brains and in 'deep thinking' photonic AI. How such evolution may be achieved is informed by the new classic quantum mechanism, allowing a small probability of any DNA key switching on replication. No decision on existence of any cosmic architect can be reached.

Author Bio

Born 1951. Studied multiple Sciences then paralleled research with Philosophy and Architecture degrees. UKC, UCA and Westminster. Perpetual student! Royal Astronomical Society Fellow in Observational Cosmology. Worked in Energy, Renewables & Lead Consultant on major Pharmaceutical, Petrochemical, Energy and Defence projects. Visiting student Mentor at Kent University and UCA. U.K. representative yachtsman, Royal Y.C. Flag Officer. Rugby player & club chairman. Now semi retired but continuing full time research, mainly on unification and TOE's.

Download Essay PDF File

Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 16:50 GMT
Dear Dr. Jackson.

Your essay is quite brilliant and I do hope that it fairs as well as it reads, in the competition.

I have but one quibble about it, You wrote in the abstract, “Modelling this simplest of mechanisms as a fermion gives a classic derivation of the Dirac twin stacked inverse complementary pairs in quantum mechanics, exactly as anticipated by John Bell. “

Simplicity is not gradable. Nature had to have produced the simplest of physical realities.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 17:55 GMT

Thank you kindly.

But.. A 'surface' (which I agree) can only be be made of 'matter' or not 'exist', so should involve the particulate state of energy. The simplest particulate form is a rotating sphere. Ergo I invoke the simplest dynamic, or at least the most 'familiar'.

If it's not the simplest; then it isn't! It's unimportant. What IS important is the missing spin momenta which has made confusing spooky nonsense of the physics of the quanta. THAT is what's simplified, then also simplifying & uniting with Relativity.

Now everything can be or 'have' a refractive plane surface (near/far field TZ) and in all directions, so localising all physics everywhere.

Of course the 'matter' condenses from the sub-matter continuum condensate energy on perturbation, (or Higgs process if you prefer) but if we discuss that some may think I'm loosing my marbles!



Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 16:37 GMT
Dear Peter,

There am only one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. No part of that unified infinite visible surface am finitely made of finite matter. That is where you have gone wrong. You have tried to establish the smallest amount of mass that requires the least amount of energy. Infinite surface am energized by infinite energy. Light needs no empowerment because infinite light does not have a surface. Infinite non-surface light am a non-entity.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 17:08 GMT

Using proper and understandable definitions (you offer no others); If no part of the surface is made of anything how can it be illuminated'? Do you use different undeclared definitions?

Also, the continuum I invoke (giving rise to 'matter' by condensation where perturbed) is not 'finite', is not itself 'matter' and is everywhere. Perhaps then it's somewhere else I went wrong?

I also agree 'infinite' and have written papers identifying the wide consistencies with a 'recycling' universe. Interestingly in that case all 'matter' (including brain matter) must derive from some (probably rather more) intelligent entity at some time in the past.

Now I think your descriptions may indeed relate to some more 'fundamental' truth. So is there anything else you might remember from back then?



Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 17:13 GMT
Hello Peter,

Happy to see your essay.I recognise your virtuosity in creativity.Thanks for sharing your thoughts.I liked indeed the spinning sphères.Congratulations and Good luck in this contest.

report post as inappropriate

John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 17:52 GMT
Peter Jackson:

Thanks for an essay that begins to address a scientific model of the brain's function. The other essays seem to get lost in vague terms such as consciousness, free-will, intention, etc. Note LaMuth's essay may add the layering of brain structure to your essay. This is certainly a 10.

We communicated is another FQXi contest years ago and through messages on Since then, the model has advanced to include a simulation of photon diffraction. The YouTube site photon

shows the simulation and the new experiment that falsifies the Huygens Principle and all wave models of light. The experiment is easy to do. Although Huygens is falsified, the simulation model corresponds to ht Huygens diffraction equation. The model also suggests the speed of gravity (plenum, space wave) is much greater than c as T. van Flandern suggested. Thus, "spooky action at a distance" is really just a high wave velocity. Other QM weirdness observations can be modeled with classical (intuitive) math. This the fractal principle.

The model also suggeste a model of spin (also a video and papers).

I'd appreciate your comments on the simulation either through, here, or my email (found in the video).


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 20:06 GMT

Thank you kindly.

You'll have seen a coherent model of duality emerges, but I always study suggested falsifications so will look with an open (if sharply analytical) mind.

I found learning speed reading essential for the ~30 papers a week needed to accumulate adequate coherent 'data points' to consistently describe the proverbial elephant. I'm therefore speed reading all essays and note those to re-read more carefully. Yours is one, but I'll read those of all who read and comment on mine anyway.

One first question. Why does a single universe have to exist? Thinking conventionally for now, if our visible 'matter' based universe has bounds as observation suggests, yet beyond that entity is eternity to infinity, then can there not be infinitely many separate incidences of matter based universes (perhaps like the galaxies in our own). Do you know any evidence inconsistent with that? and if it were true would it falsify your hypotheses as you seem to suggest but don't seem to say how?

Then there's the temporal recycling model (of each?) of course, but only one iteration at a time. You may have seen my paper identifying the wide tranche of findings consistent with that?



John C Hodge replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 00:02 GMT

We are in a single universe. We are not in 2 or more universes.

If a claim is made that there are multiple universes, the affirmative is what must be shown.

I think my STOE is the only model that suffest other universes with effects showing their existance in our universe. The Sources inject the stuff of our universe into our universe not from our universe. The Sinks eject the stuff of our universe into another space not in our universe. The growth change eqn. (dA/dt = -kA) of the series of 3 universes calculates the temperature of our universe to hunt e K= 2.718 K.

The STOE suggests the universe is flat and bounded. Th ere is an outer galaxy. The spiral galaxies inject stuff and elliptical galaxies eject stuff. In a galaxy cluster, all the matter from a group of spiral galaxies flows out to local elliptical galaxies. Like water sprayed in a parking lt with sinks. There is a limit the water will go and there will be parking lot beyond.

I am uncomfortable with answers of an infinite physical parameter - it's unreal , therefore, false. Because our universe is covered with the plenum, there is no "Beyond" the plenum.

Which paper? Is on the


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 10:53 GMT

I agree with much, i.e. that we're in one 'mass/energy' universe at a time, it's finite or 'bounded', there's an 'ether' with density distribution around matter, that energy is quantized whenever it interacts (i.e. measured etc.), that much current theory is seriously flawed, and that we must rationalise first then derive the maths.

However realistically the chances of your model being adopted as the new paradigm seem infinitely small (which I'm sure you know) and I'm afraid I think mainly for good reasons i.e. (despite your claims) lack of conclusive evidence. There are also apparent inconsistencies in your videos (re single slit diffraction, and aether waves I recall). As an example; you dismiss 'infinity' and insist a 'plenum with nothing behind it 'solves' the problem. It's just another 'idea' John, an interesting one but again NOT a solution or 'proof'! my view is 'infinity' may show only the limits of our brains.

I've never seen a problem with postulating different theories and don't like to 'criticise' but, to be realistic, it's way beyond what you've done to suggest you've 'falsified' Huygens, particularly as a more widely consistent model exists consistent with the effects you invoke AND Huygens principle. In general I get the impression wider reading in leading edge optics and photonics may be helpful.

I know that's not what you want to hear but I hope you agree we must all be self critical and honest if understanding and doctrine are to actually progress.



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 10:27 GMT
Dear Peter,

I read with great interest your deep analytical essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and poets filled with the meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

Yours faithfully,


report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 11:20 GMT
«With the same anguish my days flash past,

Monotonous as they were,

As if roses are dropping their petals,

And nightingales are dying.

And she is also sorrowful,

The Love that has guided me

And envenomed blood

Runs under her satin-like skin.

And if I am in this world,

It is for the only dream I have,

That we both, like blind children,

Will go to the mountain ridge

There, where there are only reveries,

In the world of the whitest clouds,

To seek for faded roses,

And listen to the dead nightingales.» (Romance N. Gumilev, Music A. Balchev)

Physicists and mathematicians have become poets today to paint a picture of the world, filled with the ultimate meaning of existence.

"We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself." (John A.Wheeler)

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 21:31 GMT
Dear Jackson,

Very good essay, you have gone into depths of quantum mechanics very nicely….

I am just quoting few of your words just for further discussion sake ….

1. ….. “No conclusion is possible as to whether or not a cosmic architect created our or any universe”…

……………. Why we should think this way sir? Just have a look at my essay, where I have discussed about birth and death of individual galaxies, independent any other galaxies. Why should we think of some creator……?

2.……. “It is possible to model mechanisms producing aims and intent algorithmically and give similar architecture to AI, but a computer as complex as a brain may be required for useful predictions.”………

……. More complex computer structures like super computers , single bit computers which work like individual neurons which can simulate Neural networks of brain are available…… The main problems faced are, how to use them and software development and programming. Another problem is they are very expensive. Some of the programming developed on them can be done very easily on your PC, and many times more accurately ………

Best wishes for your essay


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 10:58 GMT

Thank you.

I agree galaxies are evolving and also published a paper on an evolutionary sequence and recycling by quasar some time ago. I'll read your paper with interest. However nobody can prove how anything 'started'. I didn't want anybody to interpret or assume my essay suggested a god, or not, as many do.

I agree we're progressing, but still a very long way off nature as our doctrinal theoretical foundations remain badly flawed.

I look forward to reading your essay again in more detail and commenting.



Gene H Barbee wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 22:59 GMT
Peter, thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

You taught me quite about bit AI. I had not heard of Propositional Dynamic Logic. Apparently you work in the field and I will definitely look into some of the issues since it relates to what is happening at neural junctions. Also, I enjoyed your presentation of spin. I had to look up Bloch spherical vectors. If I understand your paper, you have found a classical explanation for half spin based on rotation in 3 dimensions. Spin and its associated wave function determine whether a particle is a fermion or boson. I wonder if signals that add in a neural network are boson like until they reach a particular junction that determines the result. Multiplication at nodes may addition of logarithms until a different kind of junction is reached (your neural hub?). I recall your red sock green sock paper and its relationship to EPR. As I mention in my paper, we need to know a lot more about hidden connections. Overall your paper was excellent. I agree that reaching conclusions regarding intent is a stretch for science with our current level of thinking. One thing that continues to bother me is how we all think so differently.

Gene Barbee

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 11:31 GMT

Thank you kindly. I think our work knits together perfectly.

I think the fermion/boson description is flawed as I've now shown the two (Maxwells) momenta within OAM can produce both so called 'states' purely subject to interaction angle with respect to the polar axis.

The problem was that QM never did consider what a particle might 'look like' so blinded itself to the logical derivation.

I think our different ways of thinking is at once our greatest strength and weakness. If we all though identically we'd be clones and not evolve at all! The key then should be to better organise our thinking to rationalise input more consistently, then allowing us to communicate better.

I'm very glad we both rationalise well already so 'are on the same wavelength'. On occasions I wonder if I'm on the right planet!

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 13:24 GMT

Thanks for an interesting read. The three concept rule is new to me. It was also unknown to my college professors. Perhaps they thought it was a minima rather than a maxima:-)

FYI, Milo Wolff presented a visualization similar to what you present to explain QM spin. The key requirement is that there must be rotation about two axes.

Regarding genetic mutations, I had assumed that mutations were somehow related to the decay of carbon 14. Spin alignment is a less destructive alternative.

All in all, a good effort.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 16:30 GMT

Thanks. And a big thanks also for the heads up on Milo Wolff. I've now visited his page, sent an Email and ordered his book! I've had massive self doubts that such a simple but important discovery hadn't been spotted by ANYBODY before, so it's great relief to have it ('pre'!) confirmed.

Wolff doesn't seem to extend to the rest of classic QM yet from what I've seen so I hope our work each informs the others.

I had a first speed read of your own essay this week and found some nice harmonics with my own thoughts, (the harmonics theme is one I've discussed in past papers). But I stumbled over the generous scattering of equations, conventionally frowned on for these essays. It doesn't help that I'm by no means a mathematician (though I did a while ago see and agree the physical analog of quaternions).

I nonetheless earmarked it in the top grouping for a second and deeper read and look forward to discussing any points emerging.

Best wishes


Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 00:15 GMT

Regarding Dr. Wolff ... unfortunately, he has passed away.

You are correct about my use of equations. It is frowned upon in essay formats such as this. However, this is the only venue where I can present these ideas with any hope of reaching a technical audience that my have useful criticism. If it affects my ranking in the contest then that is a price I will gladly pay.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 12:02 GMT
Aaargh! I won't expect a response then. Massive shame.

Do you know if anyone is carrying on his work?

Do you think there may be any math input you could contribute on the ontological foundations I identify? I suggest a 'classical' QM could allow great theoretical advancement.



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 23:02 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

This reply i posted on my essay, I am just reproducing here for your immediate attention please...........

Thank you very much for the supporting reply. You touched many points, very nicely. I want to give a point by point reply. I like the idea to work in collaboration with you, we will definitely do that. You are an multi-talented person with very nice knowledge...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 11:25 GMT
Dear Satyav,

Thank you kindly. I've come across some of your papers before (though among thousands!) and now recall appreciating your 'It from Bit' essay on the CMB etc.

I'll give the links below. I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other...

view entire post

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 01:30 GMT
Dear Peter,

You are very nice something like Peter Pan...!

I am giving my reply as follows

….Your words…. I'm probably principally and Astronomer/Observational Cosmologist but as all nature is connected have been a perpetual student spending intense periods studying a wide range of other specialist areas over 50 years. That's proved highly valuable for 'joined up' thinking...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 17:59 GMT

I'm not sure 'Peter Pan' is appropriate for an ex rugby player! I don't look through telescopes either (most terrestrial telescopes can't see far), and as semi retired and not earning money in astronomy I'm not a 'professional' astronomer, but 'accredited' (still a fellow of the RAS, AAS, MRi, APS etc.), still help in AGN and galaxy classification programmes, but I'm more...

view entire post

Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 06:52 GMT
Many thanks for the praise you gave my essay, Peter. I knew my essay addressed what you call "some important fundamental physics". But because it was getting very little attention, I had almost decided that reading my own page anymore was pointless. And I twice seriously considered unsubscribing from receiving any comments. Everything feels right with the world now, though.


view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 10:34 GMT

Brilliant! Well done. And thanks. But something has stopped universal adoption, and I now think I know what and why.

For me it was Feynman's 'wave going backwards in time' that seemed to need the simpler explanation a barmaid could understand. The TQIM extends Feynman somewhat but the 'reverse time' remains standing out like a sore thumb. If you think about my essay the simple explanation is exactly what I've identified; The second 'phase' (the offset cos^2 curve) is that 2nd 'hidden' momentum in OAM, in Maxwell equations but not identified in QM!! It just takes a little thought for that to dawn.

The Mach-Zender 2 path splitter experiment is then unbelievably simple. Reflecting 90^o simply ROTATES THE POLAR AXIS 90^o so the "2ND MOMENTUM" then interacts, which gives the orthogonal 'out of phase' cosine curve of QM's offset 'probability amplitudes'.

All the confusion and counter intuitive concepts are cleared away. Simply measure the TWO momenta distributed on the surface of a spinning sphere!!!!

I hope you may be one of very few immediately able to see the simplicity and profound implications.?



Rodney Bartlett replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 08:29 GMT
Your scenario is superbly thought out, Peter. It reveals a mind far above average! However, even people who are on much the same wavelength will disagree about details on occasion. That makes for good, intelligent discussion – which is one of FQXI's goals.

I think your video's explanation of quantum mechanics is a bit too complicated (at least for me). It's simpler for me to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT

I agree simple rotation on multiple axes shouldn't satisfy you. That's just the potato part of the full gourmet meal! My problem is in showing the whole meal when it has to be served on separate plates in courses. Indeed that's the main focus of the essay, All will revert to whatever they have embedded as it's far less work!

From your position you'd need to backtrack a lot....

view entire post

sridattadev kancharla wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 23:18 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for your posts in the essay there are no goals as such it's all play[/love]. I concur with your simple spinning sphere hypothesis, just that I propose Reimann sphere as the fundamental mathematical unit of consciousness. I wish you all the best.



report post as inappropriate

Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson ! Your argumentaion on maths as cognitive stimulus, algorithms as models of human behavior, and rational-ethic self-organozation do find my support. It is also very reasonable to state that science cannot decide if human development (as contrasted to animals and machines/automata) follows a random process or an eternal order.In any case, the human physics of consciousness does indeed improve by rational & ethic thought, and not by lower brain impulses for biological survival. Best wishes and success: stephen

report post as inappropriate

Stephen I. Ternyik replied on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 11:01 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Natesh Ganesh wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

I really enjoyed your essay, and being a computer engineer especially the parts on the need for hierarchical layered architectures to achieve learning and use of algorithms to possibly program some form of aims and intentions in machines. I need to read it a few more times to understand the QAM part better.

I would be interested in your thoughts on my submission titled 'Intention is Physical' in which I explore the possibility of learning dynamics and intentional agency as a manifestation of minimal energy dissipation. I too end up requiring an hierarchical predictive model to implement those dynamics, and explain how a little bit of wandering is not bad. Thanks and good luck.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT

Many thanks. I appreciate your comments. It seems either the word 'quantum' or finding 'intent' as a mechanism turns many people off!

I've just read yours. Very good. I'll comment there.

QAM from simple OAM proves very important, giving a classical mechanism for the complex orthogonal 'state pairs' we actually find (in QM), which allows both the infomation levels and 'path options' needed, with the critical regions as actually PAIRS of 'cusps'; (is the equator rotating clockwise or anticlockwise?, and; are the poles moving up or down?).

The 'Cascade' or Avalanche you refer to being a 3D not 2D process is also critical as that completes the full Cos^2 predictions of QM. Of course this is such an enormous 'elephant in the room' most either won't see it or will turn away in fear!

I have a number of questions on yours so look forward to discussing further. I also saw your responses to George Ellis and tend to agree with you.

Very best


Rodney Bartlett wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 02:02 GMT
Sorry for the delay in replying, Peter. We all get a bit busy sometimes. It was a real pleasure looking at your ideas! You're correct that all any of us can do is follow our intuition and do the best we can. Then we have to wait and see what happens. It'd be nice if a paradigm shift could happen by 2020 (or even 2017). But from the way human nature appears to me, I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait ... and wait ... and wait. It might be 2120 before people can accept a better paradigm. Best wishes, Rodney.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 17:07 GMT
Your essay seems to be about two very different things; neural networks and the angular momentum of a rotating sphere. My focus is on the rotating sphere.

You argue that a classical rotating sphere of charge, which of course radiates at its precession frequency in a magnetic field, describes the spin of an electron. While a classical charge sphere has a continuum of states as it slowly...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 18:13 GMT

Seems you didn't get far enough into the spin hypothesis to find the path to neuron interaction. Studying new fundamental theory first needs 5 steps back 'out' of present doctrine & understandings. You wrote about 20 lines on the latter so missed the whole new overview (I admit it did take me a decade to do that unguided!)

Now lets forget 'electron emissions' and all you've...

view entire post

Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 18:50 GMT
You have a very good intuitive approach and that intuition tells you that something strange goes on with physical reality. When you try to articulate your intuitions, your words seem to get in your way.

Orbital angular momentum is a well known classical and also quantum notions. However, those classical and quantum notions are not compatible because quantum phase and amplitude have no...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 22:39 GMT

Good to see you here again.

Your description of present-day elements that hamper clear thinking descriptively represents a kind of stream-of-consciousness approach that will keep us "wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to "self evolve" to allow more complex rational thinking." Your quantum computing seems to describe a fractal-type processing that avoids the recursive and linear default modes we have developed.

You make a lot of good points about out-of-the-box mental "self-evolution" and fresh thinking built into our subconscious.

I touch on some of the same concepts but lack the PDL approach you have fashioned.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Paul N Butler wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Peter,

Since you asked me to read your paper in your comment on my paper’s page, I was not sure if you wanted me to respond on my paper’s page or yours, so I am doing it on both to cover both possibilities.

I am doing this partly because of a problem that I have noticed with the email notifications that tell when someone has made a new comment. If I press the link in the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 10:25 GMT

Thanks for your thorough response. On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case. There IS a mechanism for forming RNA (see below) but I don't discuss it, and it can't rule out a...

view entire post

Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT
Dear Peter,

If a Schrodinger sphere actually exists in nature, and not just as a mathematical construction, what is it composed of and how does it actually function to produce that helical path? How can it be observed? In your theory what limits the speed of light to C? Generally pair production creates a matter particle and its antimatter particle. These particles would normally either...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear Peter,

In your previous comment to me you say “On RNA, I identify a 'mutation' (evolution) not creation mechanism, equivalent to people having to decide if they're spinning clockwise or anti clockwise with Earth when standing exactly on the equator. Both answers may result in that case.”

This is a very good example of something that I have found concerning most people in...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Peter,

I have read with great interest your thoughts about the next step of humanity.

Indeed after about 100 years you can say "classical" quantum theory, and still some cannot accept the consequences.

Your approach of "spin" is new to me, but particle physics is not my strongest knowledge.

As in all your essays this also is a clear explanation of your goal.

You were right with "down marking" of high noted essay's, I received THREE ones after a nine and a six.

I know you have already read my essay thanks for that, but if you still wanted to have some further opinion pls here is the link to it

best regards and good luck


report post as inappropriate

Yehuda Atai wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Peter

Very interesting essay and a challenging one. It seems that there a cross-point between us. Your claim that :"Ironically limited primeval evolution of neural mechanisms can explain why it's own workings remain a mystery." and that non-causal factors are playing in the occurrence of the phenomena. The late Prof. David Bohm and others saw that causality is not having sufficient explanation to the occurrence of the phenomenon and Quantum and Relativity theories are special cases in the evolvement of phenomena.

My claim is that it is all in the attributes of movements, and maybe String theory will prove it. The motivational selection of the self-organization is subject to its Optimal STATE, intrinsically and locally. And the "existent" chooses the most optimal potential action (or non action).

Yes, this is a real challenge to prove it, but realty is being ratified again and again in the relationships of 2 waves or particles relating to each other.

All the best. interesting view and approach.

yehuda atai

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 11:39 GMT

I liked Bohm but he didn't crack the problem. I find close analogies between the original strings and helical path ellipticities. But a more important point on self organisation;

I suggest the REAL start of conscious intelligence is when;


Can anyone think of a better learning 'step point' for the definition?


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 01:17 GMT

Your paper involves a hypothesis concerning a classical underpinning to quantum mechanics. You have written a number of papers on FQXi on this topic. I will say these papers do quite well on both the popular and community votes. However, this and related ideas contradict a number of theorems on quantum mechanics, such as the Bell inequality violation, the Kochen-Specker theorem,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 13:20 GMT

Thanks for the comments. You did what the essay suggests most do; make an assumption the model contravenes the (familiar) Bell inequality (so the others too) without using analysis. It doesn't. There are no 'hidden variables'. It simply uses different starting assumptions, of the type and in the way Bell specifically anticipated would solve the problem; "..lattice fermion...

view entire post

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 15:50 GMT
It is the case here that I am a bit in the minority on this here on the FQXi contest. I will say there was a parallel development from the late 19th century that was popular through the 1920s and still has some popularity today. When Maxwell, Boltzmann and Gibbs laid down the foundations of statistical mechanics it solidified the no-go theorem for perpetual motion machines. There arose a sort of...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:02 GMT

I don't blame anyone for not fully 'understanding' QM. Feynman was right, but there is no comparison with ANY other case. In this case 'interpretations' don't matter as a simple, repeatable and irrefutable experimental proof trumps everything. All illogicality then evaporates.

The challenge is simply to reproduce the orthogonal complementary pairs of Cos[sup2 curves...

view entire post

George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 15:42 GMT
Hi dear Peter

It is nice to see you again in this contest.

I have very good impression on your works, in a whole! That is why now I start to study your attractive essay with pleasure. I hope we can tell each to other some ours favorable opinions, if there will be not some hard contradictions in ours approaches, of course.

My best wishes!

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 19:28 GMT

Good to hear from you. Thanks for your comment.

Yes I 'speed read' you essay once and found it excellent with some heartening agreement so marked down for a more thorough read. I've just pulled it up to the top of the pile!



George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 05:42 GMT
Dear Peter

I cannot to say “I read your essay” because whatever we can do right now, it only can be surface checking the material. I understand that you are in the same situation (that comes from contest conditions). What we can do with this - if not to delay this on the good time? Nevertheless, I think it is not disturbs us to understand each to other as two not so young people (I am 67) who have the same illness (or, maybe it is a happiness!) I know you not only from this work that allows me to say that you are a truly thinking man who try to understand the reality by using own brain and - the own skin!

Of course you are on the right way, but only let me say one practical advice – we must beforehand to count ours time and real opportunities when we put any task; we must see those as realizable, otherwise the sad disappointment waiting to us in the end. A second very important thing is what that we must to start from the one right end to build a somewhat complete - indisputable science. The live forced to us to start our science from what are close to us (i.e. from somewhere of uncertain middle position). Nevertheless, we need go to some strong defined point to be starting everything from there. This however we can do only mentally (as Copernicus has gone to sit on the sun)! Excuse me if I gone on some other side ...

My thanks and best wishes to you!

report post as inappropriate

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 06:43 GMT
hi peter,

i read your essay and found it to be coherent, logical, and well-written. regarding one of the two conclusions:

"Mathematical laws can only give rise to aims and intentions insofar as they may help motivate intelligent beings to resolve to understand more."

how did you arrive at this conclusion? could it be said that you are asserting, by inference, that there is no possibility of aims or intentions *unless* there is a motivated being involved that may be deemed "intelligent"? if so, what constitutes an "intelligent being"?

thanks peter.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 15:27 GMT
Hi Luke,

Good question (best so far).

Let's hypothesize a relatively low threshold for 'intelligence' as creatures who can derive and formulate mathematical laws. I suggest in that case the laws then aid and help motivate the beings aims and intentions (A&I).

That does not exclude the A&I existing in the first place at lower intelligence, in fact I've suggested AI has A&I. However I suggest 'mathematical laws' can only 'give rise to' such aims and intentions via the agency of those able to derive and employ them

So on some planet with lower life forms, though mechanisms exist which may be describable by others with mathematical laws (correctly OR not!) those laws have not causally 'given rise to' any A&I of the lower species.

You may then surmise that I am not a disciple of the 'mathematical universe' hypothesis, though agree that ubiquitously all mechanisms in the universe should be able to be described or more accurately; 'approximated' in various ways including numerically.

Do you think one day we may find a snowflake, grain of sand or molecule absolutely identical to another? I propose not, so have stated a; 'Law of the Reducing Middle' (QM's Bayesian curves) removing the 'excluded middle' paradox of binary maths & integers in logic. (You'll find it in an earlier essay).

I that complete and agreeable?



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 18:10 GMT
Dear Peter,

in your conversation with Lawrence Crowell some posts above you state

“Of course although conclusive and irrefutable (you can reproduce it yourself at home, experimentally and mathematically) it stands zero chance of admittance as a new paradigm in the next decade, if at all! Indeed my essay identifies why. Our brains prefer pre-set patterns and reject new alien concepts as they require the much harder 'rational computation' processes. It also takes a real understanding of QM…“

May i ask why you do not – neither in your comments to Lawrence Crowell nor in your essay – simply describe how one does reproduce your findings (at home) experimentally?


Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 21:58 GMT

Sorry, I've done that so many times I forget how invisible it can be. It was supposed to be implicit in the essay but the work limit cut it to the bone. Now this is representation remember (as you can't absorb and re-emit stuff!);

1. Take one spinning sphere and a dynamometer (dym) or 2 able to record linear momentum AND rotation (or 'curl'). Link its output to a standard...

view entire post

Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 09:11 GMT
Dear Peter,

thanks for your answer.

I like your creativity and that you do not give up with your goal of demystifying QM. So please don't take it personal that i am not convinced.

I thought you present a quantum mechanical experiment (at the microscale). Your experiment may be creative and intelligent form the point of view to build up some analogies between your experiment...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 11:06 GMT

You'd need a deep understanding of QM, which you agree you lack, and to overcome cognitive dissonance to be 'convinced'. I understand & predicted that. But anyway;

1. QM suggests ABSOLUTELY NO classical mechanism can reproduce those orthogonal cos2 curves! ('QM's predictions') My 'surrogate' simplification shows that to be false. How close to the 'actual'...

view entire post

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 22:42 GMT
I can say that in many ways I hope you wrong. I published a paper last year on the categorical equivalency between Tsirelson bound on quantum mechanics and spacetime structure. My goal is to illustrate how divergences in quantum gravity can be absorbed into unobservable nonlocal hidden variables. It is a sort of renormalization procedure.

Your recent drop here is not due to me. I am tabulating plausible future scores on a copy of the FQXi essay page, and have graded rather few so far.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 22:14 GMT

Oh dear. That's the exact inverse of good science! And that may be the greatest problem we have. If I derive a hypothesis I'll go to the ends of the earth to DISprove it! That's the 'gold standard' scientific method, (which I'm sure is why the pure triple filtered science I end up with works!)

At present if a non eminent academic publishes a paper or even just teaches students something he will feel WEDDED TO WHAT HE WROTE! That's the worst way to do science, and, I suggest, the biggest block we have on advancing understanding.

May I suggest you goal should be to find conclusively IF "divergences in quantum gravity can be absorbed into unobservable nonlocal hidden variables" or NOT! the not being as valuable a finding. In fact may I also suggest it'd be useful to re-write that sentence in English (as arXiv now demand!) so it actually means something to your average ('Sci-Am level') reader!

I hold you in higher regard than to downmark essays Lawrence. Unfortunately it seems that doesn't go for all.



Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 23:51 GMT
I am not sure what you see as a problem. The goal is to see if this can be mathematically realized. As for disproving that this is the domain of experiment. You generally do not disprove a theory with a theory.

The idea is that the metric structure is categorically equivalent to the Tsirelson bound, then for Einstein spaces where R_{ij} = Ag_{ij}, for A a constant the quantized curvature or expectation is similarly bounded and divergence removed. This requires going beyond the Weyl tensor spacetime physics (which is where I have worked) to the full Riemann = Weyl + Ricc domain. This is rather tough as it is similar to gauge theories with sources that are notoriously difficult to work.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 11:24 GMT

"I am not sure what you see as a problem"

I suggest the need for us to attempt falsification of our theories is far MORE important for theorists than experimentalists.

It seems using purely maths has led us away from that. Might that be a reason we're 'wandering' in such a dense forest of untenable and/or unfalsifiable theories!? Do you not also agree we need to remember at times that just because something is describable mathematically doesn't mean it can or does really happen 'physically'?

In experiments, it's invariably not the output data that's meaningfully important but the interpretation put on it, which is theoretical physics and too often based on previous flawed assumptions and interpretations. I suggest then that DISproving those assumptions, mainly theoretical or mathematical, may be far MORE more important that showing something MAY be possible.

Is that not reasonable?


Jack Hamilton James wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 00:05 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have read and enjoyed your essay and just rated it highly. It was very informative. Unfortunately, my education in QM is not sufficient enough to break through the barriers I specified via way of Dennis Polis in my paper, but I am glad you are trying and may have succeeded. Describing life in this way well be an important part of the answer to consciousness, and indeed the question to which this contest is founded.

All the best with your future efforts in this and other intellectual regards.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 16:19 GMT

Many thanks. You're far from alone in not understanding QM, Feynman said effectively (I paraphrase) that those who claim they do are delusional! It may be a GOOD thing you haven't been educated on it as you'd have had to swallow it hook line & sinker to pass the exams! That's not to say the maths don't model the findings ok, it's the 'interpretation' that went off the rails from the start.

Just to advise you I'm now scoring your essay, in line with my positive comments.



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 11:06 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have missed your intellectual contribution on the main forum but I don't blame you as many of the recent discussions have not been of the standard when you actively participated.

I am also happy you put in an essay despite not being fairly treated in the past. I also only decided to put in a contribution almost at the last minute.

You may wish to view and comment later although I see from one of your responses above that you may not be a fan of a single universe.

I see your continuing effort in this essay to demystify quantum mechanics. This is an area that still contains too much magic for my liking so illuminating contributions like yours are very much welcome.

All the best in your endeavors,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 14:42 GMT
Hi Akinbo

Great to hear from you. I only moved to QM as a test of 'discrete field' SR, and as the quanta ultimately drives everything. My SR solution passed the test, so exposing the error in the assumptions underlying QM, giving a unified description, and much more!

An earlier test addressed the flaws, paradoxes, anomalies & unexplained in 'Concordance' (doctrinal) cosmology. That too surprisingly succeeded. The more coherent model free of all the anomalies etc united the Hawking & Penrose models into a single 'recycling' mechanism, at work in the galaxy evolutionary cycle (giving the mass function growth you invoke by pair production). I'll confirm your correctness on that in your essay blog.

Unfortunately significant evidence suggests that some of your adopted starting assumptions were unreliable and probably wrong. Not necessarily the 'bi-bang per se as that needs little improved understanding (and some logic) to be a recycling (re-ionizing) mechanism.

Did you know the only original 'evidence' for accelerating expansion was cosmic redshift? It was only ever 'one possible interpretation', but repeated often enough, like all lies, it becomes 'truth'. I've shown an irrefutable mechanical production of redshift over time which is rather better as it's less problematic. Will the gatekeepers let it surface? Your guess will be correct!

VIDEO; Time Dependent Redshift; let me know if you understand it all.

So just correcting the expansion rate alone removes a host of issues and allows a more coherent picture to emerge!

I enjoyed your essay and it's original approach, and am sure you'll enjoy mine, though it may be more testing than many!

Very Best


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 11:21 GMT
Dear Peter,

I highly appreciate the excellent essay in the quest for classical quantum mechanics. Your thoughts are very close to me.

And I strive to fully understand the mechanisms of the universe «We do know physical motion and interactions exist, but we won't know if any algorithm is correct until we fully understand the mechanisms».

And I'm using «Non-linear 'layered … ' architecture».

And for me the main «a more important point on self organisation»

Few people are constructively trying to find the answer to this question.

You are considering neural networks, but how do think your how works self-organization at the micro and macro level in a dynamic universe?

By what mechanism «'matter' condenses from the sub-matter continuum condensate energy on perturbation»?

And why, as a result of chaotic collisions in accelerators, are formed exactly identical particles, atoms or electrons?

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT

Thank you for understanding and agreeing these important advancements in understanding. I look forward to reading your essay.

"You are considering neural networks, but how do think your how works self-organization at the micro and macro level in a dynamic universe?"

I've identified fractal toroidal self organization, the largest local toroid (whithin oblate...

view entire post

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 17:34 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for the excellent answers to the questions. I got your work on ResearchGate and saw a wonderful film. Now I need to process all the information received and see the old essay, it's not easy - I'm sorry that I'm not an English speaker.

I hope that the ideas in my essay will be interesting to you.

A direct link to the ResearchGate file in your message does not work. For download I must first copy the link, then remove the extra. I came across this, you need to erase all the gaps between [link and /link] when building links.

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 16:55 GMT
Hi Peter,

It is a pleasure to re-meet you in the FQXi Essay Competition. Once again, you wrote and intriguing and a bit provocative Essay, which I have read with pleasure. You deserves the highest score that I am going to give you. Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers, Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 01:39 GMT
Dear Peter

I have read through your essay wherein you weave so many concepts, each is rather specialized and beyond my expertise. It is impressive nevertheless and judging from the comments above has provided food for serious thought. In addition, unlike my essay, you have remained faithful to the fqxi essay question, so that in itself is something, as I and many others seem to have found "mindless mathematics..etc" somewhat baffling and ill-posed.

For myself of the three possible ideas you say a mind can take in at once, I have studies fermion number density, also Einstein's 1954 essay on space which I have read with interest.

The third item is still to be selected from the rich topics you have presented! Perhaps the spinning spheres - yes that is interesting for me.

Best wishes both in and off the contest!


report post as inappropriate

Kevin James wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 11:38 GMT
Peter, I am not going to pretend to understand the physics underlying your paper but the three points that stand out that (1) we are wandering in the dark; (2) there is no way for us to determine whether there is a supreme being; and (3)that further human evolution will be volitional.

The last point struck me as exceptional and resonated most. As Vladimir Rogozhin pointed out in his 2/16 post, thinkers such as Edmund Husserl indicate a way of looking at the world that simultaneously work from the I that witnesses and a subjective Self that seamlessly synthesizes in sync with a pulsating Chaosmos. Here, East meets West with Husserl's practices of bracketing and flattening, the Sufi Dhikr Allah (remembrance of God) Allah - Hu performed with each inhalation/exhalation, Deleuze's notions of immanence, temporality, and Univocity, as well as the full spectrum of various spiritual exercises that seek to still the mind in pursuit of truth, or as Prophet Muhammad supplicated, to be shown things as they are. This approach comports with Gödel's incompleteness theory and its variants.

If I understand you correctly, the next phase of human evolution will not consist of a grand unification theory that further alienates the mind from its character of embedded and embodied being, but in approaching Being through the direct vision of the pre-linguistic/pre-individual self.


Kevin James

report post as inappropriate

James Edward Beichler wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 00:37 GMT

I appreciate your attention to physical detail and your physical analogies as opposed to the purely rigorous mathematical interpretations of nature as observed. You are a true realist. The question that we are expected to answer, "how do mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions", is unanswerable without the reference to physical interpetation that you have so adequately demonstrated. And you rather diplomatically implied that such 'mathetical laws' do not exist without making a direct assault on the basic assumption of the question that they do exist beyond the material/physical reality of our world. Your most significant contributon is the conclusion that "We will keep wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to 'self evolve' to allow more complex rational thinking & logic and less default to primevally evolved fast decisions." Self evoltuin and only self evolution will provide the final answer to our deepest and most thoughtful queries about the naural world and how it works, not hiding behind the escapist strategy of declaring that reality is just mathematics or mathematical laws, just so we can look at nature and say that we don't need to do the real physics that is necessary to solve the ultimate problems of nature.

Keep up the good work, I give you a 10 rating

Jim Beichler

report post as inappropriate

Member Rick Searle wrote on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 23:59 GMT
Hi Peter,

I liked your essay a lot. It reminded me of a section in Frank Wilczek's book "A Beautiful Question" where he speculates that creatures as intelligent as humans, but with a different evolutionary history, would uncover nature's patterns differently. A species of intelligent birds would intuitively grasp Newtonian mechanics, super-intelligent spiders would stumble upon waves before grasping particles. We are limited by our cognitive evolution whose boundaries need to be overcome.

I hope I understood you as well as your barmaids. God-knows I've come across a lot of them more intelligent than myself in my time.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 10:21 GMT

Thanks. I like Wilczek too. I haven't read "A Beautiful Question" but that sounds spot on. I also appreciate your comprehension. Such responses have been well below my 'guesstimate' but you Jim & Neil (below) have got that back on track. Top job. (though non-reader '1' hits keep the score slipping down!)

But the real problem now is how to get flawed but embedded understanding & paradigms updated? Editors and professors seem to run a mile screaming at the concept!

I've resorted to evolution for now. Any other ideas?

Very best


Neil Bates wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 00:53 GMT

This is impressive, You start your essay as a storyteller and interdisciplinary generalist, setting the table about the questions instead of just diving in with the argument. I like that. Could you clarify how the segue into angular momentum carries on to the end point, and per relevance to genetic change etc? I know how important the subject is in general in QM, what I ask is: how in particular, this aspect relates to other issues. Maybe looking at comments from others will help me understand your strategy here - and I need to brush up on "spin networks," spintronics and the like. The latter surely has relevance to neurology at the fine level such as in microtubules. There is something here to pursue. Best.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 12:10 GMT

Thanks. I'm impressed when any understand it. Sometime I do too! Yes, posts to Stefan (March 4) may help. If 'end point' is' QM predictions'; the pairs of orthogonal cos values in 're-emissions' are simply squared by the 'cascade' or 'avalanche' detector amplification, which we already know from QED! This is all part of the 'discrete field' model (DFM) where...

view entire post

Neil Bates replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 16:52 GMT
OK tx. Those interested in a more basic depiction of how entanglement increases effective order can also see my own essay: Is Quantum Magic Behind ...

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 20:47 GMT

Here's a 10 bomb for you. This is not vote collusion. I ask nothing in return, although a comment or question in my forum might be nice.

It's amusing, my first essay did not even receive 10 votes total, but this year's has had almost that number of 1 bombs.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 13:06 GMT

Thanks. I hope admin acts to stop the rot. I did read yours, and made notes which I thought I'd posted but apparently not! I'll do so. I recall I found it a bit more mathematical that I could digest, though that doesn't devalue it and unlike Lewis Carrol I have 'seen' the analogue of quaternions.

Did you read my last years essay identifying the importance of the rules of arithmetical brackets (and socks) to logic and nature? That was scored top, but scores really aren't as important as some may think. I've had others in the top 10 and one 2nd but NONE have ever got in the prizes!



basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 15:15 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your opening sentence is very interesting. We have partial knowledge about many things. Other have knowledge about some of it, part of which may be similar and partly different. Assuming all are correct, it implies that there is more to know and the limit on our knowledge of any subject can be boundless to include all knowledge on that subject. This can be said about knowledge on...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 10:43 GMT

Thanks for the compliments. I agree most of you analysis and comparisons. However I do think, and have found, we can self programme our brains, so consciously self-evolve to think more habitually or intuitively in the 'rational analytical' not 'primeval instinct' response mode.

I've also practiced doing two things at once, like computers and find it CAN be done as one level is 'locked in' operational mode while another level computes. Even talking while driving is a simple example of this. I can helm a yacht to 99% efficiency while computing tactics or deriving and issuing instructions, or stir my tea while also putting the milk back in the fridge. Our brains do then seem to have potential capacity we rarely tend to employ.

On the other hand I also agree with Erik Hoel, that all such behaviours can arise from ever more complex lower level/higher order mechanisms with feedback loops. Not deterministic as we define it but mechanistic none the less. In that case it seems there may be no sound reason why 'robots' (AI) may not one day effectively match our own 'consciousness'. You ask in your essay "why complicate things with unnecessary details which has no physical meaning" yet Occam suggests all MUST have meaning. Can you fault Hoel's analysis? Or his reference to Marco Polo's agreement; "Yes the Arch itself makes the bridge, but each stone is required with a particular form or there is no arch."

Thanks for your thoughts.


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT

It is nice seeing familiar names each contest. I need to re-read your essay because I do not see some of the connections. You seem to be looking at the universe as a whole from smallest to most complex. I am just looking at intelligence as a thing, a very simple and common thing. Life is an intelligent system (with my view of intelligence being simple and common, this is not a statement about the state of the universe). I try to show that thermodynamics, in some cases, makes this development of life a little more likely than not being.

It is great seeing your essay is doing so well!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:05 GMT
Thanks Jeffrey. Yes it does demand a slow 'rationalisation' read to extract it's ontology and embedded value after a first glance over.


Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 04:21 GMT

My worry was that you went beyond the topic of the contest. I now realize how foolish my worry. You addressed most (if not all) the topics which is by itself a wonderful thing. Where you want to go with spin states cannot hurt and might help.

Try to remember the little people after you win,


report post as inappropriate

Peter Bauch wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 20:39 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for leaving that information and scoring my essay. Managed to bump you up a couple of ticks.



report post as inappropriate

Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 02:46 GMT
Dear Peter

I read your essay and much of your conversation with Stefan. It is interesting to read your interpretation of QMs and it gave me the opportunity to brush up on a few things.

I wish you good luck with your project - you have taken on quite a challenge!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:13 GMT
Thanks guys

I'm inspired by Dan Schechtman, discovered of quasicrystals. He was ignored and decried by the elite and mass of journeymen professors, called a 'quasiscientist', lost his job and struggled for 40 years. Then finally got a Nobel! I don't want a Nobel, just to help advance understanding, but I see the task as similar to his. His advice?;

"Ignore those who point out new science isn't 'in the book', Keep going. make like a Rottweiler, bite and don't let go." Hmm. 99% perspiration then!

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:33 GMT
Peter, yours is a brilliant and fascinating investigation of the physics of learning, and of its potential for improvement, but being rooted in science, it lacks an appreciation of the meta-physics of transcendence, negativity, and creativity (not to mention teleology).

I’ll give brief examples, which seem so obvious and commonplace only because we possess these capabilities inherently: The concept of infinity cannot be learned, it cannot be defined (rendered finite), and yet we all have an intuitive (transcendent) grasp of what it means – we have a word for it! Negativity can involve a notion like “this situation is unacceptable, but an alternative can be imagined and may be possible.” Creativity can involve the imagination of something that doesn’t exist: The first hand-drawn representation of an animal, for example; we take representation for granted only because the original creative concept has been handed to us. (I go into these sorts of issues in more detail at .)

This isn’t to disparage the brilliance of your creativity, only to criticize your lack of self-appreciation!

report post as inappropriate

James Arnold wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 20:36 GMT
Dammit again! The page said I was logged in -- that last post was mine.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 12:56 GMT

Thanks for your kind words. I tried to deal with 'creativity' in terms of an Architect, handed a blank sheet of paper with just a context and sets of complex criteria and limiting rules. This goes beyond the normal 3-part analysis of conscious intent which STARTS with the blueprint. In fact it ALWAYS 'involves the recreation of something that doesn't yet exist'.

The complex multi-level 'feedback loops' from imagined scenario's create the 'aims' and teleology in the same way as Erik Hoels essay, but the 'information channel' limitation is overcome by the additional 'spin state' identified in the classical reproduction of quantum mechanical predictions, effectively 'decoding' most of the so called 'noise' in the Shannon Channel (Also see the 'IQbit' in my It from Bit essay 'The Intelligent Bit'). However I also showed that randomness only reduces and is never entirely eliminated (at orthogonal interaction angles).

But I know (and warned!) it was too much to ask for all of the densely crammed elements of the ontological construction to be identified, remembered and put together on one read, and indeed each would have benefited from expansion and reinforcement were there space.

Your link isn't live. If you're not sure how, click 'link help page' above the reply box, copy & paste it in, then be careful not to include any spaces each end of the link address. I'll then take a look, but possibly after the contest!

Thanks, and very best


Peter Bauch wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 17:52 GMT
Dear Peter,

I perused the paper you got published in the Hadronic Journal and can't find any inconsistencies, although I'm not nearly as familiar with astrophysics as you are. I found it interesting that you peg dark matter down to plasma from quasar jet activity that gathers around a galaxy. If your idea is right then it's no wonder they can't find any on earth since it would be restricted to the halo.

As to your chagrin that it didn't get published by the top mainstream journals I wouldn't feel that way if I were you. It must be difficult if you don't have the appropriate letters next to your name and besides, you got another paper published in arXiv which I would think is quite the accomplishment.



P.S. I hope your 2nd Minkowski doesn't see my essay.

report post as inappropriate

Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Peter

Quite interesting your essay – at least at the point I could follow it. And lots of common viewpoints.

Interesting to know that John Wheelers said "Never make a calculation until you know the answer”. When in a research work, I have similar rule: “never use an equation unless I am able to replace it by plain text”; or, in the other words, “I always have to know...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT

And thanks for your kind words about mine. I'm not surprised at anybody struggling with QM, but that's why I produced the video, to explain the simpler 3D classical dynamics that even Einsteins barmaids could understand! I hope you have time to look; Classic QM or even at the 100sec glimpse here.

I suspect we must still advance in simple steps and the condensate is still a long way off!



William L Stubbs wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 15:46 GMT

Yours is a very interesting essay. I am not going to pretend that I understood everything that you suggested in it, but I do see how you drew the conclusions given at the end of the paper.

I know there are many ways to interpret the contest theme; however, I am surprised at how many essays, including yours, try to develop direct links between the mathematical laws and higher brain functions and higher intelligence. I realize that that is a valid approach to the theme, but it seems like a very difficult undertaking.

As you know, in my essay, I suggest that when DNA can cause something in its favor to happen rather than have to live at the mercy of its environment, it has exhibited intent. Therefore, by merely offering a step from inert matter to that of DNA (and RNA), it seems the question of how the mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions is fundamentally addressed (although I am not saying that I did a good job of addressing it). As living entities evolve into systems of higher complexity; of course, the sophistication of the aims and intentions grows.

Perhaps, in this situation, an incremental approach to ultimately understanding how the laws relate to higher intelligence is more useful than trying to eat the elephant all in one bite. Maybe we need to learn arithmetic and algebra before we tackle calculus and differential equations. I suspect, given the breadth of knowledge displayed in the essays submitted; we could probably come up with a good model of the initial jump from inert matter, driven by its surroundings, to living systems, manipulating their surroundings.

At any rate, good luck to you,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:24 GMT

Thank you kindly. Having studied many thousands of findings, papers (and essays) over many years the data points to describe that proverbial elephant finally allowed the 3D jigsaw puzzle to fit together. So I now have an elephant in the room, but still invisible to almost all! But wise words. I'm trying to describe it incrementally in bite size chunks. Of course it's still dismissed as it's nose is ridiculously long and ears are stupidly big, nothing like the backwardly causal mathematical quarkmonster of doctrine! Perhaps just bites of elephantburger for now then so as not to shock!

Very best


Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 22:47 GMT
Hi Peter thank you for updated comment on my page. The links still do not work. This is an old problem with fqxi - I found that when formatting, you must strip http:// from any url you add after link: try it in the preview it should work.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 08:17 GMT

Video links here, for all, but I'll also copy to yours, without http://.

Classic QM Full Video.

100second 'glimpse' on Vimeo

or 100sec. version on Youtube

tested and they all seem to work!



Vladimir Rodin wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:34 GMT
Dear Peter,

Bravo, good work. The work, setting thinking and continue the analysis of the offered thoughts. The work which will be for my part highly estimated.

To tell the truth, I don’t carry myself to the big experts in the area of physics of consciousness, more likely on the contrary, but in my opinion the consciousness has other, thinner nature. Certainly, I don’t deny physics (more precisely - biophysics) of brain structure, but I’m almost assured that a brain it is simple a highly organized antenna realizing information interchange between individual intelligence (as the mechanism of implementing of the consciousness of an individuum), and a noosphere (as a “global information field” - prof. Vernadsky). All residual body of each person (also of all other live beings) is thought up only for this purpose, to provide optimum performance of this aerial (brain) in certain environment.

Believing that my thought, most likely is not new, I carry myself to supporters of those who denies possibility of the creation of artificial consciousness. The intelligence can be (possibly) to some extent simulated and realized.

Best regards and good luck in the contest!


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 18:39 GMT

Thanks. I think you understood better than the auto-translate understood you! Perhaps there's much room for improvement in the artificial intelligence of translators. But I did understand your meaning, and thank you.


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Piter, I have read all the laudatory comments about your essay and, therefore, expect the best. It is obvious that the authors wanted to get high scores to improve your ranking.

Most of the essays in the contest is 'Much Ado about Nothing', However, is their great work, and I can't give them low scores when they visited my topic and found out that there are New Cartesian Physic.

Peter, you have a talent to combine a lot of good words and a lot of writing. That you attract the attention of others. I do not exclude that you can be among the winners.

I ask you to remember the existence of the New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the identity of space and matter.

I wish you success!

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 18:47 GMT

Thank you. I admire all who write science in a foreign language and make it valuable and comprehensible. I imagine what nonsense mine would be if I tried to write in Russian!

One question, (I'll post on both strings); I suggest that in reality Cartesian 'frame' systems are unreal so help confound much of science, and we need solid 'material', forming 3D geometrical shapes to then make proper sense of nature.



Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 00:11 GMT
Peter, thanks for the question.

I also criticize the Cartesian coordinate system for its long axis and on this basis to reject the special theory of relativity, as it is the basis of the inertial reference system, which prevent each other from moving due to the long axes. I believe that the Cartesian coordinate system takes place only in the infinitesimal sense. The place where we live is infinitely small relative to the entire Universe, so we can mentally use Cartesian 'frame' systems, assuming that space is at rest.

I wish you success!

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 01:13 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have replied to your post on my essay page.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 01:02 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have replied to your post again.

report post as inappropriate

Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 03:53 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

Thank you for your enjoyable and interesting essay. I especially enjoyed your foray into quantum mechanics and the perspective your give on the EPR paradox. We agree on many things that you say and I wonder if you know about Charlie Bennett's work (IBM TJ Watson Research Center, NY) on computational efficiency? In any event I wanted to wish you good luck for the contest and let you know I have rated your essay in the meantime.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 13:28 GMT

Thanks. Few seem to see or understand the fundamental implications. My past essays (and papers) precurse this one. I've contacted many authorities and submitted to journals but of course QM is 'well understood' and there are plenty of 'off piste' views so no 'new understandings' get past the concierge!

No, I wasn't familiar with Charlie Bennett's work at IBM. Thanks. I'm just finishing listening to his IBM Q as I nistype (that's multi tasking!) He does seem very expert on current theory, interpretation and limitations, and agrees we've not yet "proceeded very far towards a quantum computer" though he still does seem rather 'sold' on it so may not be receptive to fundamental review. i.e. he firmly says Einstein was wrong, but it seems BOTH were largely right!

The reaction of most academics here is the norm - ignore it and run a mile back to personal beliefs before any critical analysis. John Bells words about professional physicists ring in my ears! If you have any ideas how an approach Charlie or IBM without being 'bounced off' before they even look, or can help, do please advise.

I hope to read your essay and comment later today.


Robert Groess replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Peter,

The interesting thing about Einstein's disdain for quantum concepts is that his objections inspired other leading proponents to make great strides in their work. In any event I agree with you that "BOTH were largely right". As for contacting prospective collaborators, if they are profesional researchers they will be open to new communication. It is what helps us move forward. I will also reply to the comment you left on my forum.



report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 18:14 GMT

Many thanks, I hope you prove right about professional researchers. No sign of it in the last 10 years but I won't give up hope.



Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 18:06 GMT

I was an interesting and thought provoking essay, I have also studied computer science and also have special interest in physics, mathematics and algorithms. Have reading your essay and enjoying and I think your essay deserves a high score.

I wish you good luck with your essay.

Kind regards


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 18:11 GMT

Thank you kindly. My earlier essays from 2011 identify a coherent STR solution in line with Einsteins 1953 conception consistent with Classic QM, which was effectively a test. I hope you manage to derive a test to distinguish the 1905 and 1953 concepts.

Two key things; Electrons are everywhere, far more than ever imagined, and 'all physics is local'.


Jouko Harri Tiainen wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 05:18 GMT
I have to thank you Peter for your very generous words about my essay.

Your essay is very good, yes I DO understand what you are getting. And as you mentioned we have very similar ideas "I think you may be one of the few with enough imagination and logical understanding to follow the complex ontological (and dynamic geometrical) construction in mine".

Yes I love the cos2...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Jouko Harri Tiainen replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 06:49 GMT
sorry typo's

Better to call your essay "The quantised epistemological steps needed to understand the ontology of reality as survived and observed by humans"

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 18:05 GMT

Many thanks. An apt (though not brief!) title. You bring the % seeing Classic QM's solution to near my (low) estimate! The essay was much a demonstration of the cognitive dissonance problem of physics - even after the first part explained the problem! I find that extends not just right across physics but to logic. I fear only a longer 'duration' of evolution may overcome it, but that we must keep arguing better logic anyway.

I've commented on and scored your own excellent essay. Well done, and keep up the good work.


Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 09:56 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

I really think you view of spin interaction as something interesting. The spin of the electron, as described by the Dirac equation, belongs to the group su(2), which is a double cover of so(3). That is, we need 2 rotations of a sphere. But people forget that these are different things and end up trying to talk about an electron as it were merely ONE very small sphere, tending to radius 0, mysteriously shifting its position up and down. Stephen Hawking did this confusion in his famous book brief history of time. People confuse the algebra if the group with the actual rotation of the electron. So, an electron is a 4 dimensional entity, since the Dirac equation obeys Lorentz transformations. So, people visualize the wrong situation, where the actual situation should be a hyperbolic sphere SO(3,1). And SO(3,1) is isomorphic so SU(2)XSU(2). This is why you needed 2 spheres to correctly explain the spin phenomena. I think you clarified a great deal of things, even for me.

Plus, you have added some great stuff along the way, which may help understand intelligence. Look at this video:

What is happening here it is that the slime molde, when it expands and pulsates, it is mimicking a non perturbation integral of a path integral. When you do non perturbative, you appeal to combinatoric methods, which are very compute intensive for usual computer architectures. I think our brains works in a way analogous to a slime mold, but it needs its parts more fixed, and not too fall apart, like it would happen to a slime mold. So, I think the brain works by expanding "pseudopods", and tries to find the food (the idea), and when it finds, it creates a synapse. As you can deduce from the slime mold examples, things will be stored like loops in the brain (indeed this is the case, and this is more clear in the relation ship between brain cortex and thalamus)

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 10:42 GMT

Brilliant!; 'a hyperbolic sphere SO(3,1). And SO(3,1) is isomorphic so SU(2)XSU(2).' You have a better brain for algebraic representation than I do, so I agree we should stay in touch and hope we can collaborate.

I've just watched the excellent video and also agree most brains seem to work like slime mold (certainly many here!) and perhaps all do at the biological level. I still don't understand how the mold can avoid 'wrong' pathways without learning they're wrong. I'd surmise (not mentioned) that there was a morsel they were after at the end of the maze emitting signals, equivalent to smell?


peter wamai wanjohi wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 12:02 GMT
Amazing and very learned,how you define and discuss biological and AI consciousness as computational intelligence with both inputs and outputs (aims and intentions) based on mathematical principles (Propositional Dynamic Logic).

You suggest that outputs serve a goal (intention)and that evolutionary errors as well as inadequate RAM architecture in biological consciousness which disrupt rationalism and therefore efficient response to stimuli (inputs). And that upgrading to nonlinear processing is necessary. How can this be accomplished or is it an imperative of evolution?

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 18:59 GMT

A great pleasure in life and these contests is when others understand original consistent derivations. Thank you.

I suggest we can and must 'self evolve' our intellect, or AI will soon overtake us to maybe fatal effect (Hawking, Gates, Musk etc all suspect fatal). I've experimented and proved it's far from impossible. How? A simple schema;;

1. First recognise the need, generally and specifically (half the battle!)

2. Clarify the 2 thought 'modes' (1 low level 'instant', 2 high level rational).

3. Learn (from school age on) to identify & challenge assumptions not 'cram in facts'.

4. Cram in 'findings' for reference over a wide range of so called 'specialisms'.

5. Learn to filter 'data' from 'opinion/interpretation' and clearly categorize.

6. Practice using mode 2 NOT mode 1 and thinking outside hierarchies of 'boxes'.

7. Use PDL & top relying on maths as a substitute for unbiased rational analysis!

My experiment was jumping off the training 'carriage' as the rails took it into the wonderland of Alice and the Mad Hatter. I watched it's progress carefully as I studied how Architects learn to think, qualifying and practicing. Yet I probably researched 10 times the papers etc an average PhD might, across ALL science; cosmology to QM. After 4 decades I found areas of the great pile of ill fitting jigsaw puzzle pieces slotting coherently together, some quite different to doctrine, all informing other areas.

I'm sure there may be other ways to do it but that methodology seemed quite successful. Of course it's useless unless others keep up! We may only be 10-15 years from AI doing that and deciding it doesn't need confused primates. Elon Musk thinks even with a 'kill switch' they'd kill us before we could throw it! Do you?


Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 19:02 GMT
7. PDL was 'propositional dynamic logic' (also see my last years essay), and a typo, should read; "stop" relying....


Francis Duane Moore wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 17:40 GMT
Your paper should win a prize if the referees give credence to the number of posts the essay receives. MY greater connection theory is a longer paper available when you email me for the much longer composition It is; fdmooredds@cox,net

the possibilities of the connections have very large permutations

Particle dynamics are a sector of changing connections

Thanks for your Post of my essay "Proton Three Plane Immersion Connection Theory"


Francis Duane Moore

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 10:34 GMT

Thanks. But judging doesn't consider post numbers any more than community scores, or even apparently than originality, importance, amount or quality of content. A very good piece in the APS journal recently identified that; 'who' you are, how close to doctrine your work is and how close to the reviewers opinions your hypothesis is what most influence judgement.

The 'Scientific Method' exists to theoretically aspire to rather than employ, the first half of my essay explains why. Daniel Shecktman's interview in the last issue confirms that (rejected by the foolish for 40 years then given a Nobel). The judges here have ideal opportunity to disprove that thesis or change things but haven't yet taken it. That gives important insight to human nature and our current evolutionary state.

Yes, please do send me the link or pdf. Thanks



Steven Andresen wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 09:01 GMT
Dear Peter

I have taken James Putnams advice to read your essay, and although I havent finished, the opening is certainly very interesting. I will read on and return here with comment.

My essay has only received 8 ratings, which is two short of the ten required for prospectively qualifying finals, with few days till close. Would you be willing to review my essay opening, with a view to read on if it should capture your interest please? James seems to think you might find it of interest. It is certainly a unique and novel perspective, I can promise you this much.

Thank you for your consideration

Kind Regards

Steven Andresen

report post as inappropriate

Member Tommaso Bolognesi wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 12:24 GMT
Dear Peter,

your essay is quite dense — a direct consequence of your Bio! — and, I believe, assumes familiarity with many concepts that you mention rather quickly, without finding space for more patient introductions. As a result, the reading for me was not as smooth as in a previous essay of yours (I seem to remember…). You wrote in my page that our approaches are compatible and complementary, but I could not (readily) find contact points that would trigger some meaningful reaction on my side. You expand on AI, and I can see the relation with the aims and intentions topic, but that’s an aspect of the Essay Theme that I no not dare discussing about... except for a question:

You claim (Conclusion 2) that it is possible to model algorithmic mechanisms implementing intentionality in an AI architecture, but a computer as complex as a biological brain may be required. When do you think this type of computer will be available (if ever)? I have been recently surprised to hear a reknown computer scientist (and Turing Award winner) declare that this is not going to happen…




I usually avoid mentioning scoring. I’m making an exception here, telling you that I am not going to rate your text (not that you need my score! :-)

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 10:09 GMT

Thanks. Compatible concepts were with PDLogics "hierarchy of levels" each giving emergence, and so "goals" as just past 'decisions' at a 'lower' level leading subsequnt ;cascades; of decisions serving the first (via feedback loops), so "just a narrative trick for describing, a-posteriori, features of mechanisms."

So then; "All we have is mechanisms - interacting, computational mechanisms all over the place". We may then have sub goals and sub-sub goals ad infinitum. So; "goals prosper as levels of emergence start to pile up,".

On AI. Quantum computing is stalled, thus the Turing winners view. However decoding the 'Shannon channel' noise, which Classic QM seems to allow (you may also recall the 'IQBit') may accelerate that, so also AI development. Researching AI for the essay rather worried me! Hawking, Gates, Musk etc. are all worried too. Musk thinks even a kill switch would be overcome as they'd kill us first. They could certainly disable it! My guess? I don't like guessing, ..but 'not in my lifetime'. Then again I am retirement age!

The best answer I have is to self evolve our OWN intellect so as not to be overtaken. Not as hard as some may assume, but we first need to recognise and address the problem! That means more Mode 2 (complex rationalisation) and less Mode 1 (intuitive/pattern matching) responses. I note your footnote, but consider carefull (in mode2), did that really emerge from a Mode 1 or Mode 2 response?



Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Peter,

My answer for your question on AI & Kant could be found in my blog space " Kantian answers "



report post as inappropriate

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 20:38 GMT
hi peter,

a very accessible essay, which is great. some notes as i'm reading...

interesting to learn that training as an architect teaches how to think of the "what if's". of course it would need to be so, because of the cascading complexities of making sure that a building stays upright!

abandoning classical mechanisms... hmmm... i would disagree with that. dr randell mills demonstrates that the hypothesis that classical mechanisms are a dead-end is false. quantum mechanics is effectively a fourier analysis: mills uses fourier analysis *where needed* as opposed to moving the *entire* exercise into the frequency domain. it's a very very important distinction that is getting a lot of physicists into a lot of trouble.

howeever... ultimately... *both* approaches are going to have to agree. one approach will show the other what the "intractable" problems' solution(s) are.

i do find it very very interesting that you point out that the "3 concepts" could even push things beyond the limits of even the most eminent modern scientists' brain. that explains a *lot*.

section 9, you've just described *EXACTLY* the conditions which i outline in some of my recent papers. i'm currently exploring Jones Vectors and have encountered Castillo's work which i believe to be crucial.

.... ha! i love the conclusion - based as it is on a "catch 22" scenario, thus pointing out that it's humans who need to evolve...

i get the impression that you had to leave quite a lot out from this essay, i see hints of things that are not explored fully but you've clearly thought about a great deal.

yeah. interesting essay, peter. thank you.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:17 GMT

Thanks. Many professionals disagree it's 'accessible', which is the experimental confirmation I expected proving my hypothesis about thinking modes. If there's no embedded memory/pattern of something then the Mode 1 'reactive' response is to refuse it admission.

BUT! I'm not sure where; "abandoning classical mechanisms" came from! Au Contraire Rodders! I agree that's FALSE! What I do is abandon the illogical QUANTUM mechanism. Which is easier to do as there ISN'T ONE!, that's it's problem, there's just an imaginary 'superposed spin state' and a formula, which is classical and we essentially keep!

The 'TWO STATE' electron was demanded by Pauli etc decades ago (Bohr rather dismissed it) but I show it's REAL! Could you find 'clockwise or anticlockwise' by touching an equator? or up/down by touching a pole? yet BOTH are momenta!, and both present in m Maxwell's equations!!

Of course as it's not already embedded as a memory in physicist brains the common 'Mode 1' thinking means it won't be admitted by all but the most intelligent thinkers (using Mode2 rational analysis).

And yes, I explained in an earlier essay how 'frequency' is not 'real' but a time derivative and is abused. As an astronomer I know we HAVE to use lambda (wavelength) as fundamental to make sense of the universe.

I can't remember section 9 but do please use/take up that department in collaboration if you wish and if helpful.

Yes, I jammed it full but left a lot outside the boxes. Very perceptive. Much is already written elsewhere but far from all as it flows out rather overwhelmingly. All collaborations welcome!

I just checked, I did score yours earlier, one of just a few 10's.

Please do stay in

Very best,


Steven Andresen wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 01:04 GMT

I very much enjoyed reading your essay. They are complex views of a complex subject matter, I had to read very slowly to attempt follow the lesson you would teach. I feel that for the most part I understood what was being shared, but understanding a theme and being able to verify it in ones mind, are two different things. I would need to rationalize a large body of your work before I could have a useful opinion on its correctness, even if I do already generally agree the conclusions. Because I too do not believe in magic, and the quantum confusion will one day yield to a sensible resolution given with a compete set of the variables, non remaining hidden. This is part of what you claim to have done, and I will be delighted to learn this is what you have achieved.

You make the point of peoples ability to process visual information better that text. This is how I would appreciate being introduced to your ideas, as Henry has done in the following video. Will you consider preparing something like this?

You have a highly rated essay and I will contribute. I wish you through to the finals.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 09:04 GMT

Thanks. Yes there IS a video showing the visual dynamics Classic QM Video.

I've posted the link many times here but clearly should do it more. I hope you'll be delighted! My essays in 2014 and last year are helpful in precursing this, but only this year did I identify the final piece solving the puzzle; Interaction Cascades squaring the cos values in fields, consistent with QCD.

I watched Henry's video. Very professional graphics. He's largely right but missed identifying exactly what John Bell did, and didn't prove! (which recognized identified and stated!) He did NOT exclude a classical solution, in fact he pointed to it without being able to tie it down. He only excluded normal 'local hidden variable' theories, which ClassicQM is NOT!.

The problem is most beliefs about Bell are heresay (and ignoring the heresay is heresey!) Few have actually read the compilation of his works so it's widely poorly and 'mis'understood.

After seeing the video read the 2nd half of the essay again and it should all come to light. Let me know.




Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 15:10 GMT
dear Peter,

thanks for voting (I also gave you a 10 but you don't need it).

About QM, I have to write you but I need more time.

Best Torsten

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Keppeler wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Peter,

thanks for stopping by at my page. I think I mostly agree with the general views expressed in the early sections of your essay. In later sections I'd probably need some more explanations before I could add something valuable - if at all. In Sec. 6 you write that "to adopt QM we must abandon causal logic" and that QM is "'spooky' and incompatible with Special Relativity (SR)". I'm not sure I understand that. QM is non-local in a sense, but to the best of my knowledge not at variance with SR (no signaling). Marrying QM with SR, I think, has led to relativistic quantum field theory, which is not only one of the best-tested theories but also causal. Can you relieve my confusion?

Cheers, Stefan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 20:58 GMT

QM and SR were never comaptible, right from the big row between Bohr and Einstein at Solvay in 1927, leading to the EPR paradox issue etc. Penrose recently reminded us they use totally different concepts of time! No. They certainly haven't been unified or 'married' yet, and so called 'relativistic QFT' is not only not a solution but is still highly untested and unproven despite the odd (very odd!, even desperate!) claim! Penrose recently called unification the 'Holy Grail'. 'Spooky' was Einsteins word!

Did you spot the 2nd (Maxwell) momenta on a spinning sphere that Bohr missed off in formulating QM? If not, do read the last bit carefully, and watch the Classic QM on Vimeo. video;



Stefan Keppeler replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:17 GMT
Dear Peter,

many people call unification of QM and general relativity (GR) the 'holy grail', probably also Penrose. Do you have a reference for Penrose calling unification of QM and special relativity (SR) the 'holy grail'? SR vs. GR matters a lot here.

I know EPR and that Einstein coined the word 'spooky' in this context, but not in order to claim a fundamental incompatibility of QM and SR.

QFT has it's issues, I'm happy to agree on that.

Do you have a good example which illustrates the alleged incompatibility of QM and SR?

Please don't take this as criticism, I'd really like to understand your point.

Cheers, Stefan

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:41 GMT

No probs. I think should challenge everything! QM & SR incompatibilities are fundamental. QM contradicts the central Principle of Relativity and needs 'absolute' time, and non-locality, both anathema to SR. Many essays here note the issues, including I recall Beichler, Yousef, Kraklaue, Roychoudhuri etc. Penrose called them 'twin pillars of science', which can never meet. I...

view entire post

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 22:14 GMT
Dear Peter,

I found your essay to be interesting, well written, and you seem to make a good case for a missing OAM state. Is your idea refutable; have you spoken to appropriate theoreticians and experimenters for their various opinions about it?

But I would query what you say about (so called) “Artificial Intelligence”. Because, despite all the advances in what is misleadingly...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 11:56 GMT

'Is your idea refutable; have you spoken to appropriate theoreticians & experimenters for their various opinions." Yes. The process with new findings still seems to be; "First it's ignored or rejected, then misinterpreted and argued over, then trivial, then entirely self apparent anyway." It's had all those responses, because once properly studied and assessed it actually is "entirely self apparent". Indeed it's consistent with Maxwell where QM isn't! But most are at stage 1, with no response at all.

That's not a surprise and supports the first thesis of my essay; in Mode 1 thinking if a memory doesn't already exist then a new idea won't match anything so is rejected a priori.

I understand your point on AI, but it's now being overtaken as AI learns in ways not anticipated. Indeed experiments are run to FIND OUT what it can and can't do! (Take a look at Larissa Albantakis 'experimental analysis' essay for a very simple current example). Sure we make rules and set conditions, but often we have no idea what's possible within those. In advanced deep learning & fluid AI it may then reasonably become possible (with more layering, 'RAM' and 'feedback loops' etc) for the 'brain' to overcome the initial rules and set it's own! That's what Elon Musk found and is worried by; even if we have 'kill switch' it may kill us first or disable it.

Is that reasonable? Also look at my response to Ulla's question on qualia here, and at Danial Dennett's work.

I owe you a response on your blog, also a rating, which so's you know what's cumin I'd noted as provisionally 8 but I'll re-{speed} read it). I'll pop up to see you shortly (I know most think of South as DOWN but I think it should really be UP as its +, and I do insist on looking fo ALL ways to look at things! - Is it UP to you?)

Very Best


David Pinyana wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 23:32 GMT

I have read your essay but it makes me difficult to understand given its depth and complexity, but I agree with you that our essays are complementary and that in the future we can discuss them more in depth.

I understand that your proposals are centered on the smaller scales (between the quantum scales up to the Planck scales (10 ^ -20 to 10 ^ -35 m).

These scales are still a mystery and different concepts (strings, KK spaces, loops, ...) and theories (CDT, DSR, ...) are being dealt with ... and also Fractal Theory can be an alternative.

For me, the fact that the processes that occur on these scales, then can generate other processes on higher scales as different as simply an immaterial being, or an intelligent being, makes the concept of emergency so important.

Where can we say that the separation between the two occurs? ... evidently it seems that it begins in the biochemistry, that is, from the scale point of view to the 10 ^ -10 m.

I will send you my book that best explains my proposal ("THE FRACTAL RAINBOW") and I trust that we may be in contact in the future.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:05 GMT

Thanks. I did state it needed to be read slowly! (Thinking Mode 2) but English being a foreign language (and not brilliant for science!) makes it worse. I speed read most essays first. I penetrate to between 90% & 10% (& often read again in mode2) With mine It'd be less than 10%!

"Where can we say that the separation between the two occurs?" Not just two in my book! Literally; like interleaved pages, and exactly as (in logic) the infinite (indeed 'fractally' structured) number of possible bracketed functions within bracketed compound functions/propositions(2015) in arithmetic. So at EVERY 'scale'.

I'd be delighted to receive your book. (I'm thinking about mere effective ways of getting info embedded into our networks but only video's beat reading so far!)

I just checked, I did score yours (highly). Can you tell me why you think the condensate itself is also fractal? No reason why not, but any evidence or reason why?



Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 00:09 GMT
Dear Peter,

Since I am not sure that will be able to read your text entirely and with full attention before April 7, I am limiting myself so far with a brief remark on just a single statement: “Maths or matter may imply a creator, who must be created.” The causal source is required for special things, but not true for totalities. You might be interested to see how we deal with that problem in our previous fqxi essay Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe .

All the best,

Alexey Burov.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 15:57 GMT

Yes I recall the essay, scoring well & close to mine. I was intrigued by, but recall finding no convincing argument or evidence supporting, the starting proposition; "The wide range, high precision and simplicity of the fundamental laws of nature rule out the possibility for them to be randomly generated or selected. Therefore purpose is present in their selection."

Indeed as everything is relative I think could make a good case that our current laws are quite the opposite; Limited in range, incomplete and often approximate. Of course that can't rule out; 'purpose in selection' but I didn't feel that 'rule out' randomness.. or 'therefore' purpose.. were proven to be the best choice of terms.

You note I wrote 'may imply a creator'... because I agree it is indeed uncertain. My point is that 'agency' is an inescapable infinitely recursive concept UNLESS we step over to the metaphysical. I noticed someone else made that point better than me, and agree with Alan Kadin who argued 'Humans see agency and intent everywhere, because we are programmed to do so". Also agreeing with Dennett, who points out essentially that all such concepts and matters of 'totality' are emergent concepts.

I can't recall, did you have another 'non metaphysical' definition of a 'totality.'?

I also can't recall what intelligence you assigned the 'purpose' to?

I did rate this years higher, but think you've missed some excellent work and derivations here in saying of; "connection between thought and matter... attempts so far turned out to be futile." I hopy you'll study carefully when you've time as I think it's become clear some now look well beyond that!

Very Best


David C Cosgrove wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 02:33 GMT
Hi Peter,

Lots of interesting concepts raised in your essay – and I will have to spend some time contemplating their bearing!

I have also started looking at some of your related material on QM.


David C.

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT

Thanks, great! I look forward to discussing further. Of course QM was just a test of a coherent adjustment in understanding of SR allowing unification (see earlier finalist essays from here on) 2020 Vision fqxi 2010 It's seemed to pass! (Shocking I know).


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 09:15 GMT
Hi Peter,

Having another look at your nice essay as the competition draws to a close. A commendable effort...



report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:35 GMT
Hi Peter,

This is easily the most overwhelming essay in the a good way! And you conclusions are logical and enlightening. I looked at it in chunks now it is time to vote.

Thanks for your epic work,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
Akinbo, Don,

(sorry, but lets save posts!) Thank you both. Much appreciated. I think you both did very well too and (just checked!) scored both accordingly.

Very best


George Gantz wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:49 GMT
Peter - Thank you for the comment on my essay. I have responded, and include my remarks here as a matter of convenience:

"Thank you for the careful read and excellent comments. Yes, I did read your essay – I found it difficult to follow but I am in general agreement with key points. Specifically, I would agree that “Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but it...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 16:47 GMT

Great response. On; "do we perhaps not find a choice point --- a single quantum interaction, fundamentally indeterminate, where a 50:50 probability ultimately decides the fate of the second billiard ball? By such interactions the fine tuning constants may have emerged in our universe." Good point. I suspect there must be a direct link.

In fact the NEW PHYSICS I identify contains TWO such 50:50 probability 'crossovers', PHYSICALLY producing the twin inverse 90o curve crossovers of QM.

On the (Bloch) sphere (maybe think 'sponge' rather than 'billiard' ball) the ZERO MOMENTUM tangent points are at the Poles and on the Equator (so orthogonal). So the latter has 50:50 +/- charge ('curl'), and the poles each 50:50 UP/DOWN angular momentum.

These are real, as a dynamometer will tell us, but they've been in the hiding place every spy known is best, in plain sight, and on the very surface of eyeballs, lenses and antenna! That surface becomes Maxwell's near/far field transition zone if we're in motion in the local background, so implementing LOCAL SR as well as ClassicQM! (well you do did manage the 'difficult to follow' essay - so just read that 7 times in brain Mode2 and it'll start making make perfect sense!)

Let me know if it does. Now about those barmaids....



PS; Lots of other stuff flows out as may be expected, but to keep interpretation on the rails; god MAY still exist, the model is entirely causal (ok 'quasi'.. as Gell Mann) but NOT entirely deterministic, and uncertainty does NOT go away, it just reduces as a fractal with scale (as heliospheres are bigger than planets, beach, balls, peas etc. & electrons).

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:07 GMT
Hi Peter.

Qualia as a result of a PROCESS ?? How?


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 16:30 GMT

We must see through the fog & myths to what Qualia are; fine differences between memories, all interlinked. The smells of 5 different roses can be distinguished, each recalled on seeing a colour or form, hearing a name, even feeling a petal.

Decoding half the quantum noise in a Shannon channel with Classic QM allows far more information storage and a more Intelligent Bit or 'IQbit' (fqxi2104), though, with last years red & green (reversible) socks and now finding Cos2, only now complete. This may then allow multi trillions of memories/cm3 deep within our neural RAM architecture.

Dan Dennett found he only needed trillions, and called qualia simply "the ways things seem to us". How could anything "seem" to be anything without being memories? Infinitely small distinguishable patterns. As a cosmologist I can conceive the enormous 'room at the top' we have, and as Wheeler said - there's also "plenty of room at the bottom"! Humanity finds that similarly hard to conceive (a bit like Classic QM!) but only as we have no memory of it!


Kigen William Ekeson wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thanks for the fine essay. Very insightful and well written. I've commented about it as part of my response to your comments on my essay.

Best of luck.


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 10:48 GMT
Thanks for your kind words. I've responded to your post on yours. I also scored yours earlier.


Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Peter: I have read your article. It is a scholarly article with strong bent towards intellectual logician. We have both agreements and dis-agreements. I can learn a lot from you; which means we can collaborate and complement each other, if you want. You can also download some of my selected papers from Specifically, I would suggest down load the paper "2014.2". It explains my methodology of thinking in more detail.

"At present we're wandering in the dark. We do know physical motion and interactions exist, but we won't know if any algorithm is correct

until we fully understand the mechanisms."


My methodology of thinking is that we must implement Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).

"Our brains themselves are part of the system as part of the observer."


Human brain is only the interpreter. It is physically separate and independent of the data-generating instrument where the interaction processes are going on (invisible to us; and that is the problem. Counter example: Unless, of course, you are analyzing your own brain. Say, you inside an fMRI machine and interactively trying to interpret the images while the images are dynamically changing as your logical brain is WANDERING to find the intellectually most pleasing solution.

Again, thanks for writing an excellent article.

ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 17:44 GMT

Fantastic, thanks. (Chandra.. Raman was a hero of mine).

Yes, I agree. I'll have to check the context of my 'brain' comment as I've pre agreed your description. See; fqxi 2012 7th. to see how it matches up.

I've also hit your link and the 2014.2 button, (live here);

Anybody reading this please look at Chandra's essay and score it up as it really should be a finalist!

Empower Mathematical Equations Using Evolution Process Congruent Thinking.

I'm away at a wedding this weekend so I'll read 2014.2 and we can talk next week. I'm sure I have much to learn from you too.

Very best of luck in the run-in


John Edward LaMuth wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 19:34 GMT
Hi Peter

I agree with your statement that the REAL start of conscious intelligence is when;


Also pattern matching


John laMuth

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:03 GMT

Yes, thanks. I mention the key role of pattern matching in the essay, but also identify it the main basis of our 'primevally' evolved 'auto response' Mode 1 thinking mechanism (mainly called 'intuition') which I suggest we need to self-evolve AWAY from (to Mode 2 rational thinking mechanisms) in physics if we're to truly advance our understanding of nature (and stay ahead of AI!)

In practice; Anything that's not already installed as a memory (pattern), like new physics or understandings, is 'auto rejected' by Mode 1 thinking.


Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 21:04 GMT
Dear Peter,

now I had a chance to see your video (nice socks) and read also the old paper about classic QM. That was really hard work for a non-native speaker....

Did I understood you right: you derived the cosine expression by geometric arguments (I was able to follow). Then you argued that an interaction term will produce the cosine square (in agreement with QM as you correctly stated).

But here you supposed many instances but there is only one wave function. Ok if you will argue like Bohm then there is a non-local self-interaction. Seondly the wave function is not a real wave.

Also you mispoken in the video: you described spin 1/2 (instead of spin 2) which needs 720 degrees to identity (in general 360/s degrees with spin s)

All the best and good luck for the contest


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:43 GMT

Thanks. I derived BOTH Spin 1/2 AND Spin 2 (720o) in the video. But like the essay it was all packed in rather tightly! For ease I post the 100 second version here so you can see it again (just different relative rates of z axis rotation).

And yes, the rest was correct, the cosine distribution with Latitude well known in Geophysics and known in marine...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:45 GMT
That ghost in the machine logged me out again!


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 23:00 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

Thank you for the nice explanations…!

So these "You mean both blue and redshifts are simultaneously present in a single Galaxy" are visible in a Galaxy that stays edge on and both the Astronomical jets are visible. Dynamic Universe Model also explains the existence of such Galaxies. These are classified as Galaxies which are not redshifted as well as NOT...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:53 GMT

Both jets aren't always 'visible'. Often near full power the receding jet is too fast so the light is redshifted out of optical range. many are found in the IR, but nay not 'seen' at all! (The 'approaching' jets are then severely blue shifted).

I think the Sauron Galaxy rotation shift etc stuff is here;

The HST 46c finding is here; Meyer, E.T. et al. Optical Proper Motion Measurements of the M87 Jet: New Results from the Hubble Space Telescope. ApJ, 2013 774, L21. I can't find a link for the mo but Google will. Nothing PROPAGATES faster than c, but from here Hubble 'see's' the inner pulses at 46c. It only takes a bit of mode2 thinking to work out! Most physicists seem to use mode 1 so dive for cover screaming rather than even look at it! It's simply angular change over distance, so only 'apparent' speed. See my earlier essay;2012 2020 Vision fqxi.

Also look up Rees's may papers, like; Rees, M.; Cosmic Jets. 1985. NASA. Goddard Space Flight Center Nineteenth International Cosmic Ray Conference. Vol. 9 17 p (SEE N86-31483 22-93)

But read, read, read, snp. Don't 'believe' a word of it but store the actual findings away upstairs ready for coherent interpretation! (or read & test mine!)



PS try to never write 'Correct'. Nothing is fact or proved wrong, it just has more or less consistent evidence. You should just 'Agree' or explain why not!

Dan J. Bruiger wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 23:06 GMT
Hi, Peter

A whole paper (or maybe book) could be written just to unpack the first paragraph of your essay!

I think what you meant to say in the first sentence of the second paragraph of your introduction is “Nature may meet the conditions for a mathematical universe but so also do most physical and metaphysical universes…” ? After all, there is only one nature. Great point that math implies a creator.

If you are interested in the “hard problem of consciousness,” I have some thoughts on the “Homunculus Fallacy” .

I am afraid I cannot comment on QM, which I know little about, except to say that (along with the different statistics) the fact that “light always has the polarization state given by the last polarizer” strikes me as one of the keys to what makes quantum different from classical. I could add that the idea of “spin” (QAM) is really a metaphor, based on the macroscopic notion. Other metaphors could work to describe the experimental findings, based on wave harmonics, for example.

I like your conclusion that “We will keep wandering in a search for understanding until we decide to ‘self-evolve’ to allow more complex rational thinking & logic”. That strikes me as a profound insight and a springboard to more writing…

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:26 GMT

Thanks. I need to learn from Amazon; Use a shoe box to send a copy of Nature! It's all that thinking outside boxes! Yes, I agree that's what I meant in sentence 2.

Ah that was it; 'Humuncous fallacy'! I was trying to think of that term in answering Alexey Burov above. Did my reply re his 'Totalities' cut it? Do step in, ..and give your thoughts there and/or here.

Was I right dismissing the agent? (his % was too high!)



Peter Leifer wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 09:50 GMT
Dear Peter, I gave a good score!

I think that ``classical" should be replaced by ``rational".

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 17:08 GMT

Thanks. Good idea. What to call it was tricky, but there's a popular UK radio channel 'ClassicFM', so ClassicQM just sounded natural!

I thought your own essay revealed deep understanding of QM and scored it 10. Some key extracts/quotes for others who may believe the 'folklore' of QM's mystical; 'superposed spin states';

"Heisenberg [4]: 'I pointed out that we cannot, in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition probabilities, but no actual path.'

....there is a motion of the superposition state of spin AND electric charge (Dirac describing spin and charge of the electron) naturally such quantum invariants as spin and electric charge independent from a quantum setup may be included in the geometry of complex projective quantum state space."

The two 'states' were always right there, but one just ignored!. Even more shockingly they're also equivalent to the orthogonal E and M of EM!



Peter Leifer replied on Apr. 8, 2017 @ 08:04 GMT
Dear Peter, thanks again!

I cannot understand what literally means ``they're also equivalent to the orthogonal E and M of EM!". I just now checked that the scalar product vec(sigma)vec(pho) is not equal to zero, where vec(sigma) and vec(rho) the matrices of Dirac. What do you mean? I will try to understand you nice pictures.

Best regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 12:33 GMT

I mean that from Maxwells equations and in standard electrodynamics (EM) electricity and magnetism have an orthogonal relationship, exactly as the two states; 'curl' (peaking at the poles) and 'angular momentum' (peaking at the equator) - so 'orthogonal', or acting at 90 degrees to each other.

Then their inversely proportional complementarity and cosine distributions, (which we've now reproduced classically), also reproduce the predictions of QM (once the cos values are squared by the photo-detector cascade). All we then need is to agree electrons DON'T all re-emit absorbed energy at 'different' speeds wrt their own 'centre of mass' rest frame, and Special Relativity fits naturally into the whole 'Discrete Field' model as well! (see my essays from 2011 on).

That IS a lot to take on at once, but does it now make better sense?

Very best


Georgina Woodward wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 10:37 GMT
Hi Peter I have read your essay. I think it is good that you start out relating your answer to the essay topic. The second half seemed to me to be a different essay from the first part. It is clearly something you feel is very important and wanted to discuss. Kind regards Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Thanks Georgina.

Yes, the 2 parts (really 3) are directly as well as indirectly connected which 'reverse engineered' the ontology, but I had to trim a few of the words that that clarified how. (And a few too many others!)

Essentially; The fine structure complexity required to produce 'Qualia' (Ullas excellent word) and 'intent' from the architecture and 'mechanisms' in our cortices simply wasn't adequate. However decoding all the 'noise' (in a Shannon information channel, - see my It from Bit IQbit essay) by revealing the second Cos2 momentum distribution on the surface of an electron easily allows it.

We then 'loop' back' (as the neural architecture does) to thinking modes, which shows why, because physicists have no 'memory' (patterns) embedded in that complex RAM, that all such new concepts are rejected a priori when thinking in Mode1 (primeval evolved intuitive response mode). So once you see the link you should see a massive elephant sized Catch 22! (some smaller scale ones have been identified!)

I actually announced a medium sized one; Anyone 'skipping over' the essay (mode 1) would miss most of it's true value. You'll see I guesstimated ~20% would 'get' the BIG and important (ClassicQM) discovery (many aren't interested in QM) that's just been surpassed, which is great progress!

I hope that helps. I hope that didn't feel too much like decoding Shakespeare in English Lit!- but I AM saying we need to self evolve to more Mode2 analytical thinking to understand nature better after all!!

Very best


Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 17:05 GMT
Dear Peter,

I want to thank you for your very kind comments on my essay, and generally for your energetic, cheerful and open-minded participation in these contests. I've postponed responding to your essay, though, because I seem unable to process more than three sentences before my brain freezes up. Skipping to another paragraph doesn't help, because it feels almost like I'm starting a new essay each time.

The problem isn't that you make no sense; that would be easy to handle. It's that there's too much knowledge and intelligence packed into each line. I can almost always work out what you're saying, a sentence at a time, but it would take me a paragraph to say it, along with some footnotes. (I thought I had a problem myself with writing too densely, so you've helped relieve me on that score).

So even though I feel I agree with all your conclusions, at the end, I can't say I've done a good job following the argument. I will say that I've been impressed in the past by the complex spherical symmetries of quantum systems, and will take a look at your videos to see if they help me there. But I'm not hoping for a "classical" resolution to the quantum puzzle; I would be disappointed if there's not a deeper level of understanding to uncover in the quantum domain.

Thanks again,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 12:41 GMT

Thanks. What I've identified is that a classical explanation of QM's predictions can help REVEAL a deeper level of understanding to the quantum domain. There's a fantastic amount still to discover but I suggest we can never do that if we're making the wrong 'starting assumptions'.

Very best


James A Putnam wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 18:56 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

The judges neglected to comment to you about your work on their first opportunity. Your essays have built up a series of presentations of solutions to stubborn unexplained physics problems. The judges will now have another opportunity to perform their role of reviewing one of your essays. Anonymous judging makes sense to me; however, it also makes sense to me for judges to forward, either publicly here or privately to the author, explained main points of their evaluation. They, you and everyone profits from evaluation whether it is for or against. Good luck to you.

James Putnam

report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 12:54 GMT

Thanks. I agree. Secret judging, like peer reviewing, is reasonable and acceptable as long as you get some degree of feedback from those doing the evaluation. I have suggested it but (again) had no response. Form an evaluators viewpoint there will seem many reasons not to.

I'm not concerned about the prizes, just advancement of understanding of nature. However as my essay identifies we seem to be far slower than we could be at intellectual evolution, perhaps as Hawking, Gates, Musk and other suspect, too slow to stop AI overtaking & eradicating us in the foreseeable future!

Very best


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Apr. 12, 2017 @ 16:03 GMT
Hi Peter,

After seeing your comments to George, and noting that the conversation quickly ground to a halt, I decided to take a look (at your essay's references and the comments page). It appears you are unaware of a new effort by the experimentalists to explore Chiral Quantum Optics. A web search of that term should get you a half-dozen leads to run with. My guess is that these folks have gathered some evidence that directly impacts your theory. I can't tell you whether it supports or conflicts with your ideas, but I am fairly certain it does offer perspective on what you are trying to prove.

Warm Regards,


report post as inappropriate

Author Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 13, 2017 @ 09:54 GMT

Thanks. Yes, it does. I'd actually tried to make contact with the Vienna lot but had the usual (no!) response. The raw data all agrees with the causal model (as do ALL experiments) but their analysis is 'one dimensional' (they note they aspire to two in future!) so they're some way behind other work and Nature, which is 3D!

I'd only speed read most of it so went back, which was worth doing. The 2nd (orthogonal) 'state' is actually identified but they say (as it's still not understood) that they're only "concerning themselves" with the one! (that's rather like trying to solve a Rubic cube from a picture of one side! A few other labs are ahead of them with 3D work (i.e. Allen, The Planck Inst. etc.) See also my prev 3 essays and refs etc on the helical paths they 'discover! The hype may have been as much about funding as anything.

They also rely on old doctrinal assumptions which gives rise to the 'surprise' findings etc and makes their limited analysis even less useful. - Indeed most analysis focuses on an anticipated range of possible practical applications (consistent with a funding motivation).

Thanks for flagging it up. It should indeed have been relevant, but like most current experimentation, though the data all fits the 2nd, orthogonal, momentum state I identify it remains simply 'invisible' to most minds beyond Maxwell's 'theoretical construct' and a bit of lip service!

Have you managed to 'hold' it in your mind? (I assume you watched the video - short version here; 100sec 'glimpse' video. )

Very best


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 16, 2017 @ 23:41 GMT
Thanks for responding Peter..

Agreed they are looking for funding, and probably will keep some findings to themselves until they have a (read: their own) congruent explanation for what they are observing. Which may mean that if the experiment greatly supports your work, but is not in affirmation of 'accepted' Physics, it may be a while before they do report anything meaningful objectively. And yes; of course it is worthwhile to contemplate and the visuals help. FWIW; I remain an agnostic, but I acknowledge that a major overhaul might be needed because a lot of researchers are plugged in to an answer that remains a cul de sac, rather than an open road to progress.

All the Best,


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.