Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
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
FQXi FORUM
September 2, 2010
Hello all,
I think it's a very interesting work about these pair photons and the potential of cryptography thus the codes of communication .
post approved
I think it's a very interesting work about these pair photons and the potential of cryptography thus the codes of communication .
post approved
error of posting,sorry
Those informations are a key of the ultim intrinsic code of the elementary particles (rotating quantum spheres)
It's very relevant about the stability of the code .
I think that this theory information is a piece of the puzzle ,i d like insert these datas in my model because it's foundamental like datas and works .
We are on the road of the check of the architecture ,thus a capacity to recreate an information .
Where are our limits with thoses informations ,in resume ,what are the possibilities to copy an information,can we recreate an ultim quantum architecture ,there it's a question of limits thus a limit of creation ,logic we are young babies of the evolution and our technology is thus young too .
If I take a plant for exemple(a polarized system with rotating spheres....H C N O ...NH3 CH4 H2O HCN....adn....plant in Time ,we can say what it's a polarization in Time Space evolution and a stability ,if we know the quantum architecture thus we can use it in a ray and after recreate this architecture in a kind of foundamental fields (spherical for me),thus we must check the fields of becoming or of re becoming in this case ,
I say that because I ask me where will be our limit of reproduction .
I think it's easier with light because in my model light hasn't velocity of rotation thus mass or a very very weak rotations of quantum spheres ,
it's interesting for the check of gravity ,thus mass thus energy .
In all case ,withn light there are less errors of reproduction of the quantum spheres by teleportation .It's a very interesting begining about the codes of informations thus the possibility to check the mobility,the universal mobility .There is a problem of space and linear velocity ,thus it's easie in this road .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
Those informations are a key of the ultim intrinsic code of the elementary particles (rotating quantum spheres)
It's very relevant about the stability of the code .
I think that this theory information is a piece of the puzzle ,i d like insert these datas in my model because it's foundamental like datas and works .
We are on the road of the check of the architecture ,thus a capacity to recreate an information .
Where are our limits with thoses informations ,in resume ,what are the possibilities to copy an information,can we recreate an ultim quantum architecture ,there it's a question of limits thus a limit of creation ,logic we are young babies of the evolution and our technology is thus young too .
If I take a plant for exemple(a polarized system with rotating spheres....H C N O ...NH3 CH4 H2O HCN....adn....plant in Time ,we can say what it's a polarization in Time Space evolution and a stability ,if we know the quantum architecture thus we can use it in a ray and after recreate this architecture in a kind of foundamental fields (spherical for me),thus we must check the fields of becoming or of re becoming in this case ,
I say that because I ask me where will be our limit of reproduction .
I think it's easier with light because in my model light hasn't velocity of rotation thus mass or a very very weak rotations of quantum spheres ,
it's interesting for the check of gravity ,thus mass thus energy .
In all case ,withn light there are less errors of reproduction of the quantum spheres by teleportation .It's a very interesting begining about the codes of informations thus the possibility to check the mobility,the universal mobility .There is a problem of space and linear velocity ,thus it's easie in this road .
Sincerely
Steve
post approved
HIHIHIHI LOL
No no ,the quantum spheres and their rotations are the key and the informations is linked by the ultim quantum code inside the ultim main sphere .
Thus Eureka hihih
Friendly
Steve
post approved
No no ,the quantum spheres and their rotations are the key and the informations is linked by the ultim quantum code inside the ultim main sphere .
Thus Eureka hihih
Friendly
Steve
post approved
Most of physics involves dualities. Positive and negative charges, north and south poles in magnets, matter and anti-matter, etc.
In a broader context quantum physics may represent disorganized behavior as the opposite of the organized behavior of classical physics.
post approved
In a broader context quantum physics may represent disorganized behavior as the opposite of the organized behavior of classical physics.
post approved
End of the Quantum Road?
What does the “End of the Quantum Road” tell us other than perhaps we are somehow missing the point of science.
Stuart Kauffman’s “At Home in the Universe” describes a self-organizing universe, the indefinite evolution of system complexity (IESC), as though it were a cosmic process imperative. Biological systems seem nothing less than an essential and integral agency of the IESC. The human agent has fixated upon the objective means of sustaining the process but will soon become extinct if the subjective essentials do not direct constructive application of objective means.
But how does the agent find and recognize subjective essentials in nature? It’s easy. The agent merely looks back upstream of the process of emergence for the deeper natural order of which “things” are merely the expression. Emergent biological properties are sustained at a deeper level by emergent properties of chemical processes which are sustained at a deeper level by emergent properties of physical processes. Physicists dismiss this Reductionism, assuming that the objective structure ‘bottoms’ at physics, adding no new information. But Gödel reminds us that
“If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent.
“Therefore, in order to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to utilize some other more powerful system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T's consistency has already been established without using S.” [Wikipedia]
But if objective physics is system S, what is system T?
“Although the theory of everything still eludes us, the language has been learned – whatever new answers are found, and deeper questions spawned, about the universe or its mathematical fabric, at the center will be symmetry.”[Lederman & Hill (2004) “Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe,” Prometheus Books, N.Y. p. 289]
And if symmetry is now system S, what is system T if not aesthetics? Why do we know this? We know this because millions of years of natural selection rewards emergence of the neural faculties essential to understand, and feelings to motivate, choices relevant to sustaining more complex subjective systems essential to the IESC. Why should we be surprised that virtually all the monotheistic religions (i.e. human intuition) support the symmetry, the reciprocity of the Golden Rule? When will science get serious about the essential aesthetics of civil order? Without it, we won’t survive.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
What does the “End of the Quantum Road” tell us other than perhaps we are somehow missing the point of science.
Stuart Kauffman’s “At Home in the Universe” describes a self-organizing universe, the indefinite evolution of system complexity (IESC), as though it were a cosmic process imperative. Biological systems seem nothing less than an essential and integral agency of the IESC. The human agent has fixated upon the objective means of sustaining the process but will soon become extinct if the subjective essentials do not direct constructive application of objective means.
But how does the agent find and recognize subjective essentials in nature? It’s easy. The agent merely looks back upstream of the process of emergence for the deeper natural order of which “things” are merely the expression. Emergent biological properties are sustained at a deeper level by emergent properties of chemical processes which are sustained at a deeper level by emergent properties of physical processes. Physicists dismiss this Reductionism, assuming that the objective structure ‘bottoms’ at physics, adding no new information. But Gödel reminds us that
“If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent.
“Therefore, in order to establish the consistency of a system S, one needs to utilize some other more powerful system T, but a proof in T is not completely convincing unless T's consistency has already been established without using S.” [Wikipedia]
But if objective physics is system S, what is system T?
“Although the theory of everything still eludes us, the language has been learned – whatever new answers are found, and deeper questions spawned, about the universe or its mathematical fabric, at the center will be symmetry.”[Lederman & Hill (2004) “Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe,” Prometheus Books, N.Y. p. 289]
And if symmetry is now system S, what is system T if not aesthetics? Why do we know this? We know this because millions of years of natural selection rewards emergence of the neural faculties essential to understand, and feelings to motivate, choices relevant to sustaining more complex subjective systems essential to the IESC. Why should we be surprised that virtually all the monotheistic religions (i.e. human intuition) support the symmetry, the reciprocity of the Golden Rule? When will science get serious about the essential aesthetics of civil order? Without it, we won’t survive.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
Why is 2+2=4 NOT SO.
Why can't we add E=MC^2 2+2=4.?
Why can't we add the standard equation to Einsteins gravity 2+2=4.?
Why can't we get one equation instead of two by adding in 1/3s.
1/3 CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE+ 1/3 GREEN BANANA= 1 GREEN SALAD SANDWHICH......
This means adding two equations together in 1/3s to get one equation for both.
Why doesn't this work with Einsteins thoery and quantum emchanics.
How can we make it work.?
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Why can't we add E=MC^2 2+2=4.?
Why can't we add the standard equation to Einsteins gravity 2+2=4.?
Why can't we get one equation instead of two by adding in 1/3s.
1/3 CUCUMBER+ 1/3 GREEN APPLE+ 1/3 GREEN BANANA= 1 GREEN SALAD SANDWHICH......
This means adding two equations together in 1/3s to get one equation for both.
Why doesn't this work with Einsteins thoery and quantum emchanics.
How can we make it work.?
Steve
report post as inappropriate
Information is conserved like energy is conserved. Steps to destroy information will simply create more information in the form of those steps. However, is this concept of information obscuring a deeper concept? Is there a substrata of existence? Is there any reason to think that such a strata is the ultimate? The answers to these questions will be found when we can rid ourselves of the blinders imposed by 'the beginning'. Even the concept of muliverses acts as a blinder to understanding existence. The multiverse concept is just saying that there are many beginnings, many big bangs, many Creations, but not describing anything new. Our long cultural immersion in beginnings theology colors our thinking about reality. We have to let go. The idea of information is a step away from our physical reality but does not go far enough because it is ultimately still just referring to (information about) existing systems. We are catching glimpses through dark matter that there was no 'formless void' into which our universe ermerged. Something existed before and continues to exist today to which our existence is connected in a subtle way.
Bill
report post as inappropriate
Bill
report post as inappropriate
Bill,
Another insight into the mystery is offered at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ where the fractal structure of natural order, i.e. the self-similarity of expression at all scales is implied, there being three major scales in which nearly all mass is concentrated; atomic, stellar and galactic. In other words, the big bang history from our perspective might be early in an expanding supernova moment from the next larger stellar scale perspective. Any adjacent set of three such scales would likely support a life-form (such as ourselves) and a total body of accessible knowledge confined to just such 3-scale set by Plank limits at the small end, and c at the larger scale. As suggested earlier, Godel’s second incompleteness theorem suggests that Physics must reduce beyond the physical to the more fundamental subjective constraint through symmetry into aesthetic principles for which our most evolved neural faculties were naturally selected, for a reason. The objective world seems to exist for no other reason than a basis for the (subjective) experience of novelty which is not possible without perceived differences made possible by imposed limits. Our neural associative faculties give us objective means for survival, such as our sciences and technology, but without paying attention to both social and ecological harmony, reciprocity, etc (essentials of aesthetics; remember the Golden Rule?) we will soon become extinct. Indeed, atmospheric oxygen is at about 20.95 percent and has begun rapidly decreasing, while we require 19.5 percent to survive in good health.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
Another insight into the mystery is offered at http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ where the fractal structure of natural order, i.e. the self-similarity of expression at all scales is implied, there being three major scales in which nearly all mass is concentrated; atomic, stellar and galactic. In other words, the big bang history from our perspective might be early in an expanding supernova moment from the next larger stellar scale perspective. Any adjacent set of three such scales would likely support a life-form (such as ourselves) and a total body of accessible knowledge confined to just such 3-scale set by Plank limits at the small end, and c at the larger scale. As suggested earlier, Godel’s second incompleteness theorem suggests that Physics must reduce beyond the physical to the more fundamental subjective constraint through symmetry into aesthetic principles for which our most evolved neural faculties were naturally selected, for a reason. The objective world seems to exist for no other reason than a basis for the (subjective) experience of novelty which is not possible without perceived differences made possible by imposed limits. Our neural associative faculties give us objective means for survival, such as our sciences and technology, but without paying attention to both social and ecological harmony, reciprocity, etc (essentials of aesthetics; remember the Golden Rule?) we will soon become extinct. Indeed, atmospheric oxygen is at about 20.95 percent and has begun rapidly decreasing, while we require 19.5 percent to survive in good health.
Joe
report post as inappropriate
SSR fails
Kuhn’s failed ideology captures sociology of religion, not science
Philosophers place Kuhn among useless historians of science. Historians of science place Kuhn among useless philosopher of science. Physicists misunderstand the philosophy of science. They also ignore good history of science. Each know that Kuhn couldn’t have been right in their niche, but being niche...
view entire post
Kuhn’s failed ideology captures sociology of religion, not science
Philosophers place Kuhn among useless historians of science. Historians of science place Kuhn among useless philosopher of science. Physicists misunderstand the philosophy of science. They also ignore good history of science. Each know that Kuhn couldn’t have been right in their niche, but being niche...
view entire post
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post