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

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

Jeffrey Schmitz: on 3/22/17 at 22:27pm UTC, wrote Peter, It is nice seeing familiar names each contest. I need to re-read...

Stefan Weckbach: on 3/22/17 at 17:59pm UTC, wrote Peter, thanks for the reply. “Not quite. The TWO momenta (curl+AM)...

Neil Bates: on 3/22/17 at 16:52pm UTC, wrote OK tx. Those interested in a more basic depiction of how entanglement...

basudeba mishra: on 3/22/17 at 15:15pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Your opening sentence is very interesting. We have partial...

Peter Jackson: on 3/22/17 at 13:06pm UTC, wrote Gary, Thanks. I hope admin acts to stop the rot. I did read yours, and...

Peter Jackson: on 3/22/17 at 12:50pm UTC, wrote Stefan, All correct up to para4; "Then the one particle (say, the left...

Stefan Weckbach: on 3/22/17 at 5:37am UTC, wrote Peter, the field electrons dictate orientation (due to their own...

Gary Simpson: on 3/21/17 at 20:47pm UTC, wrote Peter, Here's a 10 bomb for you. This is not vote collusion. I ask nothing...


Philip Gibbs: "Everybody in the top 50 at least has been repeatedly 1-bombed. It affects..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Sagar sai: "Existing without the answers to the difficulties you’ve sorted out..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Sagar sai: "Thanks a lot very much for the high quality and results-oriented help. I..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

leonae gonzales: "This seems to be very interesting site. Professionally i am a writer at the..." in Quantum Replicants:...

James Putnam: "Quoting Gary D. Simpson: "If you disapprove of one-bombing and wish to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Steven Andresen: "It might be that I have come to know where the hidden variable is, to..." in 80 Years of EPR —...

dieu le: "The Creation of Momentum From the gigantic Milky Way Galaxy to the..." in Alternative Models of...

dieu le: "What causes Things Move in Universe? Things move when encountering a..." in Alternative Models of...

click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.

March 23, 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.

This essay's rating: Community = 5.4; Public = 5.0

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

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

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

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'P' and 'R':

Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.