Search FQXi


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

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

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 8/26/09 at 2:26am UTC, wrote ATTN: FQXi Participants, important -- Regarding the horizon...

Georgina Parry: on 8/25/09 at 23:24pm UTC, wrote Thomas Gold-The inertia of scientific thought

Georgina Parry: on 8/25/09 at 3:49am UTC, wrote Eric Temple Bell, serious mathematician and closet science fiction writer!...

Georgina Parry: on 8/25/09 at 2:28am UTC, wrote Also found this interesting and amusing quote that mentions quaternions. ...

Georgina Parry: on 8/24/09 at 22:25pm UTC, wrote When 4 spatio-energetic dimensions are used in quaternion arrangement to...

Georgina Parry: on 8/23/09 at 19:45pm UTC, wrote I should have said "scientific model" in my last post not "scientific...

Jason Wolfe: on 8/23/09 at 19:43pm UTC, wrote Frank, It is completely plausible to shape your thoughts and feeling...

Georgina Parry: on 8/23/09 at 19:37pm UTC, wrote The scientific method relies upon observation and thus evidence to support...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "OH! OH! Ms. Woodward Ms. Woodward! I know Iknow! It's to keep you..." in Quantum Dream Time

Georgina Woodward: "Dear Joe, if reality has nothing to do with what you think it might be, why..." in Quantum Dream Time

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "your link text" in Hyung Choi and the nature...

alice paul: "All data here is unfamiliar to me. I think Really weird. I think you have..." in Are We Merging With Our...

shery williams: "Kaspersky technical errors that are harming your device and its..." in Are We Merging With Our...

Lena Smith: "Though every Canon printer is manufactured with utmost proficiency, but it..." in Conjuring a Neutron Star...

Jaybee Demeester: "Cleo has proven how a skilled but beginner specialist can have an benefits..." in Plasma Tubes in the Sky


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?


FQXi BLOGS
November 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Is the world made of wave-vectors? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Matthew Saul Leifer wrote on May. 8, 2007 @ 02:30 GMT
It seems appropriate to start my contribution to quantum foundational debates at fqxi with one of the most contentious issues in the subject - the status of the wave-vector. There are essentially two common views: either the wavefunction is ontological or it is epistemic. The ontological view holds that the wave-vector should be interpreted realistically, i.e. whatever things can actually exist...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Count Iblis wrote on May. 8, 2007 @ 17:28 GMT
't Hooft has published some interesting articles about viable local deterministic theories underlying quantum theory, See e.g. here

report post as inappropriate


Ken Wharton wrote on May. 8, 2007 @ 18:08 GMT
Interesting way to frame the issue -- in my opinion it's probably *not* all-or-nothing, and determining where the wavefunction picture does (and doesn't) match up with reality is a very important question to be asking.

Here's an example of a middle ground I've been playing around with lately: Suppose there's a realistic wavefunction that is a solution to the Klein-Gordon equation, and *not* the Schrodinger equation. A single position-space measurement then can't determine the momentum-space wavefunction (because one needs a second boundary condition), but we can still derive the (incorrect) momentum-space wavefunction using the Schrodinger equation. In this case, the measured position space of the wavefunction would be ontological but the calculated momentum space would be epistemic. For a momentum measurement, it would be the other way around.

At the very least, such a picture wouldn't break the fundamental symmetry between position and momentum -- the symmetry is broken by the physical measurement(s), not the interpretation.

report post as inappropriate


Blogger Matthew Saul Leifer wrote on May. 8, 2007 @ 21:01 GMT
I must admit I have never been able to understand 't Hooft's theories, but I am convinced that Bell's theorem is correct. Therefore, I deduce that either he is using a very different definition of locality than Bell, which would not violate my claim since I meant Bell-type nonlocality, or his theories cannot account for known quantum mechanical phenomena. Given my respect for 't Hooft, I suspect he just means something different by locality, but I haven't been able to figure this out from his papers.

Regarding Ken Wharton's comment, I must admit that I was mainly thinking about nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, since I find that the majority of quantum foundational questions can be framed in that context. Having said that, I do suspect that a no-go theorem is possible in the nonrelativistic context. Scott Aaronson has the beginnings of such an argument here, but only for a very restricted class of ontological models that are similar in spirit to Bohm's theory. If relativistic wave equations really do offer new possibilities for this then that would be very interesting. However, I'm not entirely clear about the physical interpretation of the solutions you are talking about, so it would be nice to see more details.

report post as inappropriate


Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on May. 8, 2007 @ 22:47 GMT
Hi Matthew, thanks for laying this issue out so clearly. I used to hold the ontological view, but have gradually come around (collapsed?) more to the epistemic side, mostly guided by Occam's razor. Quantum mechanics is economically described, mathematically, by an observer assigning a complex probability to each history (path) -- weighted by its action and constrained by her knowledge. As you've very clearly pointed out, the tricky part is that -- unlike the real probabilities we're naturally familiar with after visiting Vegas -- these probabilities interfere. This implies these possibilities must, in some sense, coexist.

So, at this point, for me anyway, the ontological vs. epistemic question comes down to how to interpret this coexistence. It's not naturally understandable as a single, classical reality like we perceive, but we don't experience a fractured existence either. The mathematics of quantum mechanics tells us it's both, and we just have to get used to it. We need to take our understanding of epistemic probability and mix in the ontological aspect of these possibilities interfering -- the many worlds picture seems a decent attempt at doing this, as long as too much "existence" isn't attributed to the worlds. I don't think it's possible to successfully disentangle the epistemic and ontological aspects of quantum mechanics -- I think we just have to come to grips with the fact that our reality is best understood as a collection of possibilities that interfere with one another.

report post as inappropriate


Count Iblis wrote on May. 9, 2007 @ 01:03 GMT
't Hooft assumes that the "small print" in Bell's theorem will save his theories, specifically the so-called pre-determinism loophole :) Bell himself identified this and other loopholes that one needs to assume won't cause trouble.

Let me explain a simple case of Bell's theorem a bit for readers who are not familiar with it. When deriving Bell type inequalities one considers counterfactual experimental situations and by demanding that these experiments must be consistent with local hidden variables you obtain limits on the behavior of correlation functions. E.g. in the Aspect type experiment with the two polarizers at an angle of alpha one records the fraction of times both photons of an entangled pair pass through or are blocked.

Here you could reason as follows (this is similar to how Heinz Pagels explains it in one of his books): one minus the correlation measures the fraction of instances where the photon on one side does something different from the photon on the other side. Local hidden variable theories predict that 1 minus the correlation evaluated at two times alpha must be less than or equal to twice the value of this function at alpha.

This follows from the assumption that what the photon does doesn't depend on the setting of the other polarizer, so one minus the correlation function will give you the fraction of times the photon would have made a different decision had the polarizor setting be different by an angle alpha. The fraction of times the photon will do something different at two alpha difference must be less than or equal to twice the fraction at alpha, because making the same fraction of differences twice to a set of data specifying whether or not the photon passed through can never result in more than twice the result you get when you make the changes once. You would expect that from time to time you change the same data point twice, putting it back to the original value, so the result can only be less than or equal to twice the value at alpha.

The pre-determinism loophole is an objection to the above reasoning on the grounds of absolute determinism. The derivation of the Bell inequalities depends on the assumption that the setting of the polarizors could have been different while leaving everything else unchanged. This is not necessarily true in a deterministic setting. The choices the experimenter makes are just as deterministic as the photons. Clearly the state in which the experimenter makes a different choice regarding the setting of the polarizers must have evolved from different initial conditions of the early universe...



Experimental violation of the Bell inequalities could thus just as well be interpreted as experimental proof that it is impossible to make different decisions regarding the experimental set up while keeping everything else unchanged.

report post as inappropriate


mj_geddes wrote on May. 9, 2007 @ 06:55 GMT
I think the wave function is *both* epistemological *and* ontological. As far as I can tell it's true that the wave function represents knowledge/information. But surely, if we seek an objective physical basis for reality, and QM is the best theory we currently have, we have to accept that the wave function has real physical properties as well (which seems to imply MWI -Many Worlds Interpretation).

Normally map and territory are considered separate, but when it comes to concepts like 'QM wave function' it would seem that the distinction between the two is starting to break down. I was just discussing this on the everything-list.

The issue could possibly be clarified if we allow for different but equally valid 'levels of description' about reality. The QM wave function appears to describe reality at a high (abstract) level of description. This does not have to invalidate a lower level description in terms of (for instance) particles. Something like this was suggested by David Bohm, with his two-level model of reality. At one level was the guilding wave. At the other level was the particle.

report post as inappropriate


Blogger Matthew Saul Leifer wrote on May. 9, 2007 @ 16:54 GMT
OK, a few comments on the comments.

Firstly, I don't personally view both ontic and epistemic as a viable solution and this has to do with my take on the foundations of probability theory. This may seem like a hopelessly abstract thing to worry about for a physicist, since we're used to just doing whatever works and then worrying about the implications later. However, the foundations of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Ken Wharton wrote on May. 9, 2007 @ 17:18 GMT
I find it hard to believe that 't Hooft likes backward causation... The best first-principles argument for including backward causation is time symmetry (or CPT symmetry), but I believe 't Hooft is advocating an explicitly time-asymmetric theory, where different initial states converge onto the same final state (thereby removing all possibility of running the laws of physics in reverse). That's up there with Many Worlds as the precise opposite of what a backward causation interpretation would look like.

I am almost certain that backward causation is the key to all this, and the only reason that it's taken 80+ years to incorporate it is because it is so contrary to how we humans experience time and causality.

(As for the earlier comment concerning the Klein Gordon equation, I'll just mention that the non-relativistic limit of the KGE is not the Schrodinger Equation, because the KGE has twice as many solutions -- so what I said earlier would also apply to non-relativistic QM. I think I'll be able to post a more complete story on arxiv within the month -- for now, if anyone's interested in this general approach, I have a related paper in the January Foundations of Physics.)

report post as inappropriate


Member Antony Garrett Lisi wrote on May. 9, 2007 @ 18:38 GMT
Matthew, why don't you just embrace your personal subjective view as the objective, ontological reality? Then all the problems go away. :D I've always found solipsism to have a certain charm, but you may feel differently.

report post as inappropriate


Count Iblis wrote on May. 11, 2007 @ 02:08 GMT
About realist interpretations in which the wavefunctions is epistemic, does this mean theories in which the quantum fields would appear as ghosts?

Is it possible to say that we cannot observe particles in the same way as classical objects because they don't really exist? You could magine that if the Feynman rules had been discovered by experimentalist without a firm theoretical basis, then you could have had discussions about the ontological status of virtual particles and ghosts etc....

report post as inappropriate


Blogger Matthew Saul Leifer wrote on May. 14, 2007 @ 22:50 GMT
I should emphasize that as far as I know there are no realist interpretations that have been worked out in full detail in which the wavefunction plays a purely epistemic role. It's more of an idea for an interpretation at the moment, and one that I would be very pleased to see developed. Rovelli might be inclined to argue otherwise, but I would say that his relational view doesn't quite qualify as "fully worked out" at the present time.

I would say that you can have debates about the ontological status of anything you like in quantum field theory, or indeed any other theory, regardless of the theoretical basis on which they were discovered. As far as I'm concerned the things you mention (i.e. virtual particles and ghosts) don't have such a status, but are just mathematical objects that provide a convenient way of conceptualizing the calculations we do in perturbation theory and renormalization theory. However, arguments for the opposite position might have some merit and I'm not a particular expert.

report post as inappropriate


Maaneli Derakhshani wrote on May. 18, 2007 @ 02:32 GMT
It seems to me that this discussion has entirely neglected the fact that complex-valued wave-vector formulations of quantum mechanics and field theory are not fundamental. That is, it is well-known that schrodinger's wave equation (also the Feynman path integral) is just a Wick's rotated diffusion equation, and that it is also equivalent to a pair of diffusion equations in time-reversal duality. Most or all of you may be associating Nelson's stochastic mechanics with what I am saying; however, Nelson was the first to show that time-symmetric Markov processes are ALMOST equivalent to the complex valued wave-vector mechanics of Schrodinger and Feynman via the construction of the hamilton-jacobi-madelung equations. I say almost equivalent because the value of the action S in the Nelsonian drift velocity is ambiguous, and thus the full equivalence to the action in the complex-valued Kernel solution to the S.E. does not hold.

It was Masao Nagasawa who rigorously proved Schrodinger's 1931 conjecture that Schrodinger's equation is mathematically equivalent to a pair of diffusion equations in time-reversal duality. Moreover, Parisi and Wu's stochastic quantization formalism has also been shown by Huffel and Namiki to be formally equivalent to the path integral formulation of quantum field theory. Garnet Ord has also shown how one can derive the Schrodinger and Dirac equations from classical statistical mechanics, without analytic continuation.

In these cases, the Hilbert space of compelx-valued wave vectors is not at all unique either ontologically or epistemologically. In fact, contrary to questions about the ontology of the wave function, it is now a more well-defined question to ask about the particular form of the stochastic diffusion process on configuration space, and the physical sources of the stochastic noise. This I think is also the strongest reason for why one can undercut claims about the fundamentality of the Many-Worlds ontological interpretation of the Everettian's.

If there is any doubt about these claims, I can provide references.

~M

report post as inappropriate


Count Iblis wrote on May. 18, 2007 @ 21:28 GMT
Hi Maaneli,

I would be interested to read more about this. Do these theories predict deviations from ordinary quantum mechanics under certain circumstances? I mean, if there ae physical sources for the stochastic noise, then these could presumably be perturbed somehow...

report post as inappropriate


Gevin Giorbran wrote on May. 21, 2007 @ 07:42 GMT
As to Matthew's backward causality and Lisi's collection of possibilities that interfere, the most basic principle underlying probability is that any given configuration before computation is equal to any other, and thus a larger group of some classifiable type of states is more probable than a smaller group. Generally in respect to time (and what is possible) the present divides the past from the...

view entire post


attachments: fourgroups.jpg, twoor.gif

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on May. 22, 2007 @ 01:55 GMT
The fact remains, the future expands, the past does not, it actually has a contraction function relative to the present and the future.

Backwards Causation, with a wave-vector solution that exists? ..because no particles can propergate againts the flow of Time. But curiously, a wave can propergate into the past, but it cannot travel very far,for the very fact that the past contracts away from the present,induce's any retarded "wave" to shrink as it propergates.

Close to the "present-now", a wave will exhibit expansion, because we are travelling along/into, the expanding future, but it's wave motion is constrained the further it travels against the flow of time.

There are no waves (detectable) that can stall the arrow of time.

One can ask this question about backwards causation, when we look across space we are looking across time?..we see light arriving that has taken time to arrive here, but from the same location, if there are observers existing at the light source, then they are seeing "us" in their past. So our past, is someone else's future?

report post as inappropriate


Gevin Giorbran wrote on May. 24, 2007 @ 09:15 GMT
What can be said about the history of this state? (attached 1)

Any system in a state of imbalance must have a history that traces backwards to ever greater imbalance. (attached 2)

If we separate all positives from all negatives we have a kind of order, a grouping kind of order, like everything grouped together in a grocery store. If we combine positives and negatives we end up with neutral, or another kind of order, the order of balance. One kind of order exists in our past. Another kind of order exists in our future.

http://everythingforever.com

attachments: imbalancesystem.gif, imbalancesystem2.gif

report post as inappropriate


Gevin Giorbran wrote on May. 24, 2007 @ 09:17 GMT
This is what Bohm recognized with explicate and implicate order, he just didn't realize the extreme of explicate order exists literally in our past, and the extreme of implicate order exists literally in our future. The universe is an evolution of one type of order becoming another.

report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on May. 27, 2007 @ 00:09 GMT
Gevin:"One kind of order exists in our past. Another kind of order exists in our future."

The "past" order is fixed, cannot change, the "future" order has a vast number of configuration paramiters?

Knowing a past order configuration, does not guarantee a knowledge of a future configuration?

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 20, 2009 @ 03:00 GMT
The unification of gravity and electromagnetism in a fourth dimension of space is plainly and significantly obvious in our experience. Most people do not properly understand the naure of being, experience, thought, and dreams.

That is the fundamental problem. Consciousness and language involve the ability to represent, form, and experience comprehensive approximations of experience in general. The dream improves upon (and adds to) the integrated (and natural) extensiveness of being, experience, and thought. The totality of the system has to be considered. Physicists should know this. Said union of gravity and electromagnetism/light occurs in the dream, whereby thought is made more like sensory experience IN GENERAL. Indeed, the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. It is about time that I receive the credit and recognition that I deserve and have earned for this.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 20, 2009 @ 05:34 GMT
Whether it is an ontological or epistemic description is not the first question that should be addressed. The prior question, what is meant by reality?, must be answered first.This is important. Is it the subjective reality created by each observer from observation and interpretation of data, which is thus part of individual consciousness, perception and thus experience? or an external objective reality existing independently of an observer? Make a choice.

Now the original question can be investigated. Unless you wish to define reality in some other way. However just throwing in the ambiguous term reality is not sufficient.What is real? That which is observed or that which exists without observation?

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 20, 2009 @ 05:41 GMT
They are not the same. I am not looking out of two little windows in the front of my skull but my brain is generating an internal image that I perceive as existing externally.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 20, 2009 @ 09:08 GMT
Hi Georgina and Frank Martin,

If we take the study of being and its properties ,like some concepts of the reality ,the ontology has a sense ,like in computing with the sense of informations and their relations and synergies ,interactions between .

The epistemology which is a theory of the knowledge is rational ,logic ,cartesian,

WHAT is the knowledge HOW is the method ANALYZE of the fiability CONCLUSION

If we combine the relations between them we insert different interpretations where the foundations are methodologicals.

Proof

Objectivity

Classment

Concepts

Realism or not (It's there it's important for interactional parameters and the difference between math and its infinity and the physical world with its limits the reals or imaginaries)

Signification ,details

It's like an architecture with a begining but after the complexity arrives and if some mathematical imaginaries are inserted thus the extrapolations are numerous in correlation with our imagination ,

Dear Georgina ,

It's always a question of walls in fact ,indeed the eternity is there behind our physical reality ,but the problem is what some people don't make the difference and of course that's imply some problems .

Dear Frank Martin,

If we take time like a physical reality ,the fourth dimension is a reality but the concept is imaginary ....thus can we admit it like an obvious reality .

Where the method in the architecture begins with imaginaries or mathematical tools thus where begins the confusion in fact ,thus what is the confusion ,a proof of the non rationality perhaps ....

The complexity returns to the simplicity .

Sincerely

Steve

Sincerely

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jul. 20, 2009 @ 16:48 GMT
In the book of Descartes ,"Discours sur la méthode","Discussions about the method"

the rationality,in a specific real interpretation ,is the main driver .

It's evident what some confusions begin where the human parameters interact like imaginaries and their extrapolations .

It's like the whormholes and vaccuums ,and many extrapolations which are in the tree of architecture but not at the base ,the rationality ,thus how interpret the Methodology and its limits if some virtuals are considered like reals .

It's the real problem with the time ....a simple constant of evolution or a fourth dimension linked with space mass gravity where all extrapolations are possible because we use at the base of the tree the rationality and the method at the begining is correct but ....

It's just a question of human analyzes ....on the other side the universal laws are foundamentals in the begining of the tree and its architecture towards the ultimately design.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Jul. 20, 2009 @ 21:07 GMT
Matthew Leifer,

You said, "We are very used to the idea that epistemic states can change radically when new information is acquired without having any major implications for what is going on in reality, e.g. updating a probability distribution via Bayes' rule." I have selected this merely as one of the uses of the term reality in your dialogue.

Please can you clarify what exactly you mean by "going on in reality." What reality are you talking about? Is this a hypothetical objective reality that exists external to observation, analysis and construction by the human mind or reality constructed by thought processes and therefore part of human consciousness and brain processes which I call subjective reality? (It is my opinion that all science is conducted on subjective reality not objective reality.)Or do you have some other definition of reality that you work with? How can the nature of the mathematics be compared to reality if reality is not defined?

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 21, 2009 @ 02:08 GMT
Maybe it's just a simple dichotomy. Bottom up process is non-linear, yet top down order is necessarily linear. How to reconcile the two? I still think it has to do with the way physics treats time. As I've been pointing out, the energy going from past events to future ones, is a non-linear process, where order is constantly breaking down, as it hardens into structural form that impedes further expansion of energy and is dissolved. While these emergent events have a linear rationality which can only be viewed in the past tense.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 21, 2009 @ 02:25 GMT
In a sense then, nature is deterministic in in the sense of the future being a consequence of the past, but non-deterministic in the sense that any order of the past becomes a deflection of effect, rather than a cause of it.

report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Jul. 21, 2009 @ 02:44 GMT
The future is a non-linear reaction to the past, rather than a linear effect of it because time is not the dimensional basis of motion, but an emergent effect of it.

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Jul. 21, 2009 @ 02:51 GMT
Hi Matthew,

I have a simple point to make. If Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics interpretation is correct, how can the ontological interpretation be valid any more? If the wave function is different for different observers then are we not forced to adopt a Bayesian point of view? What more is there to say except that the ontological interpretation is an artifact of how we learn quantum mechanics and solve the textbook exercises (which do not highlight the fact that the wave function is different for different observers)?

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 25, 2009 @ 05:30 GMT
Ultimately, reality must be said to pertain (in varying degrees, of course) to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought.

This is consistent with the fact that the integrated extensiveness of thinking is improved in the truly superior mind.

Indeed, it is also consistent with the fact that the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 25, 2009 @ 12:12 GMT
Dear Frank Martin DiMeglio,

your comments are interesting to me.

I think that consciousness as we know it, mustn't be the only form of perception in the universe. There could be more than "one way" to be conscious and having perceptions (conscious interactions with an environment).

For example every consciousness of every man wasn't fully developed at the time of his/her birth. Nonetheless we usually don't remember what it was like as we where babies, the consciousness of babies is surely qualitatively different from ours here and now. Additionally there can be various states of consciousness also in human dream-states, called "lucid dreams", where the dreamer is aware of his/her state of consciousness.

If you are interested in some lines of reasoning concerning consciousness and "ultimate" reality, feel free to visit my essay contest page here and/or give some more examples of your concepts and insights on the issue of consciousness/physics/perception/thoughts.

report post as inappropriate


joel rice wrote on Jul. 25, 2009 @ 12:56 GMT
it seems that the question is whether Possibilities are

ontological or epistemic.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 26, 2009 @ 00:00 GMT
Hi Stefan. The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.

Here are but some of my other new ideas:

1) Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense.

2) Memory integrates experience.

3) Thoughts and emotions are differentiated feelings.

4) Emotion that is comprehensive and balanced advances consciousness.

Thank you for your post. There is so much to say, and I am reading and considering your essay now. I will get back to you on this shortly.

You can Google my full name to see my book and published articles. I go after the most fundamental and difficult questions regarding the nature of being and experience. I will gladly consider any questions that you have.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 26, 2009 @ 00:16 GMT
Hi Stefan. These three statements (below) are definitions/facts/truth. Believe me on this; indeed, we all need to be working/building toward a consensus of truth. The following is very important for many reasons:

Ultimately, reality must be said to pertain (in varying degrees, of course) to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, experience, and thought.

This is consistent with the fact that the integrated extensiveness of thinking is improved in the truly superior mind.

Indeed, it is also consistent with the fact that the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 26, 2009 @ 00:40 GMT
The following is a deep and foundational truth as well. It goes well with my previous posts.

"Since the self has extensiveness of being and experience (in and with time) in conjunction with the integrated and natural extensiveness of sensory experience, we spend less time dreaming (and sleeping) than waking."

This was taken from one of my published articles at Psychologist World.

I will be entering the current essay contest.

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 26, 2009 @ 06:02 GMT
Hi Frank, thanks for your replies to my comment. I am looking forward to read your essay on fqxi and in the meanwhile i will check yours papers. So you have enough time to write the essay without betraying to the community to much of your concepts in advance.

You are absolutely right, the issues we are concerned with are truly very difficult and foundational, concerning our whole situation as observers, human beings and conscious entities. Looking forward to read yours papers and essay!

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 04:35 GMT
@ Joel Rice

As for the problem of randomness/determinism in quantum mechanics, it seems at first glance that these two opposites are mutually exclusive alternatives. In my paper i tried to expose that this mustn't be the case. You mentioned that the question of this thread is indeed wether possibilities are ontological or epistemic. My answer to that is that the question could be wrong, because neither randomness nor determinism can explain sufficiently our human experience of making decisions and therefore guide our scientific understanding of the world by that in an asthonishing and verifiable way. So for me, there must be an exception of the tertium non datur in the whole question and i guess, for human beings and for the whole animated nature in the sense of animals etc., there could be a continuum from determinism to more and more freedom of individual decisions.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 00:50 GMT
The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 01:59 GMT
Frank,

comprehensive approximation is a problematic combination of words to my mind. Comprehensive implies all inclusive, nothing left out and approximation means roughly correct or containing some margin of error, which might suggest that something is missing leading to this inaccuracy.

I could agree with use of approximation alone but I am confused as to its meaning when combined with comprehensive. Or do you mean an all inclusive roughly correct impression?

What do you mean by experience in general? Does this include sensitivity of plants? Is that solely the experience of all humans? All organisms of all species? Or just the more sentient species? If it means just general experience of the individual human the sentence basically says a human experiences experience.I still can not comprehend what you are trying to communicate.

If you are saying that an individual human experiences "an all inclusive roughly correct experience that is the same as that of all other humans" then I don't agree.

I would say in my own words "the individual mind creates its own subjective representation of external reality. And that that external reality can also be interpreted by other individuals to form their subjective realities." However the experience can be quite different.

Two people look at a spider. One of them has a great interest in the morphology of arachnids and seeks to study them closely. The other has a phobia of spiders and finds them highly repulsive. The input is the same in both cases but the experience is very different.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 09:04 GMT
Hi Frank and Georgina,

I agree but you say about the spider.

"Two people look at a spider. One of them has a great interest in the morphology of arachnids and seeks to study them closely. The other has a phobia of spiders and finds them highly repulsive. The input is the same in both cases but the experience is very different."

The perception won't change the rule of the spider ,on the other this different perception can imply different comportments .One can use it pragamatically,an other can make it dead ,an other can see it simply,an other can have a phobia ,an other can study it .......I agree but the real and universal rule of this animal reign is and will be more the optimization of complementarity .

I understand the message of Frank ,in fact He is an universalist ,his point of vue is in the whole .Like an universal memory and a future of complemenatrity .

In fact we can interpret all what we want but the universal laws shall stay .

It's a beautiful perception of the whole I think .

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 12:41 GMT
Steve,

If you are able to understand Frank then perhaps you should be replying to his posts rather than me. I have made several attempts to get him to clarify what he is trying to communicate so that it is comprehensible, pointing out the errors and confusion in his choice of words but there are no replies from Frank. Only further impersonal demands that his ideas are seriously considered and appreciated for the great breakthrough in understanding he claims they represent.

Without clarification of the meaning of these two phrases they are too ambiguous to make sense.

"Since the self has extensiveness of being and experience (in and with time) in conjunction with the integrated and natural extensiveness of sensory experience, we spend less time dreaming (and sleeping) than waking."

The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general.

Re the first phrase-

What is extensiveness of being? Stretchiness? Area covered? Interests?

If I go with interests, in comprehensible English I get in my own words "Since a person has interests, experience and sensory input they spend less time in sleep, including REM sleep, than awake". That doesn't sound like a breakthrough.

Re the second phrase-

If Frank is saying that an individual human experiences "an all inclusive, roughly correct experience that is the same as that of all other humans" then I don't agree.

The spider was my attempt to show that experience is individual and not general for all people. We are not AI with identical brains, with identical responses to external input. My subjective reality is most definitely not the same as yours or Frank's or anyone else's. I have my own unique neural pathways built from my own particular life experiences together with influences from my particular genetic inheritance. It is demeaning and dangerous for society to deny human individuality, in my opinion.

Steve your English is also not good as you are aware, though better than my French I expect. However despite the many errors you make, you do not speak incomprehensible nonsense on the whole. Although it isn't always easy to understand straight away. Frank puts together words that are correctly spelled and make impressive sentences but the meaning is too unclear or ambiguous to comprehend exactly what he is trying to convey.If he has something important to say then clarity of expression is important, for correct communication of those ideas. Being a Universalist is no excuse.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 18, 2009 @ 18:08 GMT
Georgina,

hihihi you are right ,I just analyze your reactions ,lol.

I am frustrated now dear Georgina hihihih ,I am going to improve my english !

You know I have a big default ,I write without reread me and quickly ,sorry for that .It's the same when I write my poems in French of course .Don't think too much when you create ...it's better .

But indeed it's not better hihihi ,like here on FQXi ,even in French I make errors ,sometimes I reread me and I say ,oh my God ,furthermore the French is difficult and complex ,thus ....but I evolve ,I try to do my best but we are like we are ....

It exists many people who think like that too the uniqueness and the singularity is so important ,on the other side it's important to understand what all is linked too .

Because when some limits are not considered thus this individualism imply a non socialism ,paradoxal No ?

It's like that .

The fact to be unique is different than being an individualist in my opinion, where the limits must be too considered ,it's there that the freedom is universal when the harmony is betwenn these points ,subjectivity and objectivity correlated with our universality .

All is specific and unique but all is linked too .

It's dangerous if the individualism take the maximum because an individualism without limits can imply chaotic interactions .

What I say is very simple ,all things are uniques,differents and linked .

It's like our Universe was a fractal of the whole in evolution towards the unification.

I undestand your message about the fact to be unique ,me too I beleive that .The objectivity is our universality but our subjectivity is our uniquity in resume .

What do you think about the time ,do you think it's possible it exists an end time which will be in fact a begining of the eternality ,thus at the unification ,thus at the wall unknew /phys universe .

I d like know more about your time concept Georgina .In fact I am going to read the books of Ray too and you .Do you know if it's possible to find them in French .

Dear Frank ,

Hi sorry to have speak about you without presenting me .

Kinds Regards,

with respects

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 03:31 GMT
Hi Steve. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful comments and introduction.

Look at the below regarding Chimpanzees. Can you explain to me why this is ignored, when it is GIGANTIC; as it has huge implications/applicability/significance.

There is great value in understanding the basics of being and experience in as comprehensive and consistent a manner as possible.

IN...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 09:14 GMT
Hi dear Frank ,

It's a beautiful vision ,we learn indeed always ,alldays ,me too I learn always ,the desire of knowledge and the creativity are so important.

I undertand your point of vue ,The dreams are universals but differents like says Georgina.But Indeed a universl conscious exists .We are in a gauge of perceptibility ,the electro magnetism is relevant about the weak interactions and the very weak polarizations of evolution .We evolve indeed since the begining but all is specific in its quantum architecture and rule .

The quantum coded are specifics thus the future polarizations too in correlation with these electromagnetic effects .We are in a pure gauge of light and all has a rule of complemenatrity .

Personally I don't know how dreams the chimpazees ,but one thing is sure they evolve like all in fact .

The life is appeared about 3.6 billions years ago .with the protists ,unicells ....the time and space after with different parameters and quantum coded spheres help to build the diversity of complemenatrity .

The differeniation of unicells ,ani and veg ,continues thus and complexificattes thems selves by weak polarisations of evolution.

And now our diversity ,our actual visible systems show us the truth of the complemenatrity of evolution.

It exists a link with all and the hominids evidently too are linked in evolution.Darwin and Lamarck ,Huxley ....has demonstrated what it exits a diversity of evolution.

The cranian capacity of a chimpanzee is about 350 to 500 cm³ ,the homo erectus erectus for exemple ,this pithécanthrope about 850 and us humans Homo sapiens sapiens between 1200 to 2100 .Thus the interactions of informations and polarizations are evidently in correlation .Our neural architecture is different in the numbers of synapses and interactions ........

Our Universal memory is universal but the specificities are uniques.

I will continue later ,I must go

sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 21:37 GMT
Hi Steve. Thanks again for your email. The following has everything to do with what is the fundamental nature of our experience in general. This should be read along with my prior post.

Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. The self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 22:27 GMT
Hi Frank,

it would help immensely if you could define what is meant by some of your expressions such as "extensiveness of being" That is if you wish to provide a conceptual framework within which consciousness can be described and analysed scientifically.

Also how do you reconcile your personal experience and intuition regarding consciousness with the scientific requirement for objectivity? Your personal philosophy and comprehension need not be universally applicable just because it appears as a truth to you.

I think that consciousness is dynamic, complex and personal. Dependent on the particular neurological architecture of the individual, levels of neurotransmitters, state of arousal and dynamic flow of impulses within that neural architecture. It can not be easily "pinned down" in subjective truths extrapolated into generalisations. In the same way as the nature of a sub atomic particle is highly dynamic and elusive and therefore defies a simplistic description, that at the same time describes it accurately and fully.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 23:01 GMT
Hi folks. Take the TIME to seriously consider what I have said in my two prior posts before responding please. This will help as well.

Emotion that is comprehensive and balanced advances consciousness. Dreams are an emotional experience. The comprehensiveness and consistency of both intention and concern are central to our consciousness, life, and growth. (Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well.) The comprehensiveness and consistency of both intention and concern in relation to experience in general is ultimately dependent upon the natural and integrated extensiveness of sensory experience. In keeping with this, consciousness and language involve the ability to represent, form, and experience comprehensive approximations of experience in general; and this includes art and music as well. If the self did not represent, form, and experience a comprehensive approximation of experience in general, we would be incapable of growth and of becoming other than we are.

Reality must be understood to pertain to (in varying degrees, of course) what is the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought).

The "big picture" that I have been patiently outlining and detailing here at FQXi should be getting more clear to you all by now.

Believe me, I do not waste words or your time.

Questions/comments welcome. Thanks. Frank

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 23:11 GMT
Frank,

I wrote my previous post to you prior to your last post.

I note that at the end of your last post you make this comment."This is quite revolutionary. For those of you who are inclined to attempt to pick this apart, good luck, you'll need it. THINK before you jump to criticize. Remember, it is much easier to be critical than correct."

You have asked for opinions on your work. I have given my time to consider what you have written as you requested. I have give constructive assistance pointing out the problems I have identified, not insulting criticism. If you do not want to hear other peoples opinions of it and consider that your work is entirely correct and comprehensible and can not be improved in any way, why are you posting it here and asking for people to consider and comment on it?

I find the implication that anyone who has contemplated your work and found room for improvement or further development has not actually thought about it rather insulting and ungrateful.Time is precious.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 19, 2009 @ 23:19 GMT
Frank, our posts crossed again.

Frank said "Believe me, I do not waste words or your time." You have given me no reason to believe you and I beg to differ.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 00:06 GMT
Attention all FQXi members, as this is very important:

Dreams unify gravity and electromagnetism/light by involving what is [the gravitational AND electromagnetic/light] mid-range of FEELING between thought and sense. Gravity and electromagnetism/light are both attractive and repulsive in the dream.

Dreams improve upon memory and understanding by increasing (or adding to) the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought) in and with time. The sense of relative familiarity involving dream experience is associated with the improvement of understanding and memory therein. Dreams and memory integrate experience; and both add to the extensiveness of experience (including thought) as well, while involving a [relative] reduction in the totality of experience. The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sensory experience is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience. The dream makes thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism).

Dr. Christian Corda has the common sense/smarts to agree that this is so, and he is correct:

The Dream Fundamentally Balances and Unifies Gravity and Electromagnetism

Gravity and electromagnetism/light unified folks, definitively. Einstein would agree. Go spread the word.

What is everything made of? --- This post, and my last three posts as well, go a long way to answering that question in a very original, expansive, interesting, decisive, and important fashion.

Bring on the questions people, open your minds. Thank you very much for giving my ideas the very careful and serious consideration that they deserve.

We WILL advance the human understanding and condition at FQXi.

Frank

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 01:34 GMT
Frank, for the last time.

Speaking as an individual with exceptional verbal comprehension (of the English language),exceptional IQ and scientific training, your writing is, on the whole, incomprehensible.It may be perceived as beautiful, in the same way as an abstract or impressionistic painting may be beautiful. Being a personal expression of some aspect or aspects of subjective experience. However it is not correct or accurate as is required of a technical drawing. Such a drawing conveys accurate information.That is what science requires.There is still too much ambiguity and lack of definition of the terms that you are using. I have no more questions or comments to make, as you do not reply and do not appear to appreciate them.

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 01:57 GMT
Dear Frank,

I stopped taking Ginkgo Biloba at night because it seemed to help me remember my Dreams better, and that sometimes disturbed my sleep. I have trouble doing math in my sleep (I'm much more efficient awake), but if I can unify Gravity and Electromagnetism in my Dreams, then its worth taking Ginkgo Biloba at night again so I can remember the answer!

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 15:43 GMT
Dear Georgina,

I think I understand Frank. We are all the same and different simultaneously.

We are the same in that we all have unusual ideas that are not accepted by the scientific community. But we are different in that we have DIFFERENT unusual ideas.

Jason’s ideas about Space and/ or Time travel are close to science fiction and yet relevant to physics as well.

Steve’s ideas on Spherization Theory are a reasonable alternative to String Theory when we consider Wave (strings)/ Particle (spheres) duality. He needs to present the details in a compact and understandable format. I understand that English is his third language and there is a small communication gap.

My approach towards a Geometrical E12 TOE is an expansion (and correction) of Garrett Lisi’s E8 Gosset lattice. Lawrence gave me a backhanded compliment by calling my theory K12 (E12 is similar to the Coxeter-Todd K12 lattice) for “Kludge-12”. Kludge is a compliment because it is something that works. The “backhanded” part of the compliment is that E12 looks like an ugly bottom-up artifact. The point is to replace the ugly bottom-up Standard Model of SU(3) x U(1) x SU(2) with something that isn’t as “ugly”.

I hope that the overlap between Lawrence’s ideas on the Leech lattice and my ideas on E12 can lead to a more universal top-down truth. Lawrence is extremely talented.

Florin is very capable, and I appreciate his top-down approach, but he is still building TOE theoretical framework for a model that doesn’t exist yet.

Your ideas regarding Time are interesting. Is Time simply an entropic rate-of-change scalar? Or is Time a fourth vector component with a scaling constant of “c”? I disagree with your analysis of Hubble expansion, but am willing to consider reasonable alternative ideas until we really understand Time.

Frank seems to think that Dreams are foundational to reality. Are Dreams a glimpse into the greater reality (with 26 dimensions)? If so, then the secrets of life (including Time, TOE, etc.) may lie there. Last night, I dreamt that I saw an old friend. He died in January 2004 at the age of 91. He was a physician and a wise, Christian man. My family spent our Summer Vacation with his widow in the mountains of Wyoming. I wonder what he was trying to tell me. My asleep “ape-mind” did not understand. My “ape-mind” was also studying Klein’s Chi(7) hyperbolic curve last night, so I didn’t sleep very well (I really can't do math in my sleep very well).

Our similarities lie in our differences.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 20:16 GMT
Ray,

I also understand what Frank is trying to attempt. However he asked for questions and comments specifically on his work. Not on the merit of an individual vision or personal qualities. I think it does no favours when inaccurate assumptions, ambiguities and undefined terms are over looked. That does not help Frank to improve his communication and to look critically at his efforts.Self assessment (rather than pride)is always necessary for self improvement. Having made those comments to Frank I feel inspired to look at my own efforts with the same critical eye.

As scientists we have a responsibility to ensure that our ideas are carefully thought out and not prone to misunderstanding or misuse.Terrible things can happen when ideas are used in society. Think of eugenics and the Nazis.

This is about foundations of science.Science is not based on fluff and being nice to everyone just so that their feelings are not hurt. The Dr. who praised this work highly has been less of a help to Frank, by pandering to his ego rather than pointing out what is required by science, than myself.

Novel ideas are useful and should not be dismissed too readily. I have not done that. I have spent my own time reading and giving thought as to how Frank might improve his writings. No one else here has offered such assistance.It is possible that no one else has read his work as carefully and put as much effort into trying to comprehend it as myself.I wish my own posts received the same diligent attention.I do not like Franks attitude that any criticism is due to lack of thought,(which may imply a lack of comprehension due to poor attention to the verbal content or stupidity), on the part of the reader, rather than anything to do with the writing itself.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 22:03 GMT
I will help you Georgina before you further embarass yourself.

Steve says:

"I understand the message of Frank ,in fact He is an universalist ,his poinst of vue is in the whole ."

Georgina, repeatedly -- although I do not waste my time reading all of your overly critical, disrepectful, misleading, and wasteful posts -- you have displayed tunnel vision; as you are incapable of grasping the "big picture". You big words and your little bo peep diploma mean nothing against the likes of me. You consistently use big words and all of your little "facts" in conjunction with fragmenting the understanding and attempting to baffle any readers. I'm not impressed. Not big words Georgina -- big concepts, that is what you are incapable of. Your understanding of being, memory, experience, genius, dreams, and thought is very lacking and inconsistent.

Why is my book Human Being: Self, Desire, and Consciousness in the University of Chicago's library collection? Why is the book in 5 branches of the Baltimore County Public Library System, where it is classified as a psychology reference/textbook? Why is the book catalogued and included in the state university library system for all 13 universities in Maryland?

Dr. Joyce Starr read the book and told me that she loved it. Sonia Barrett

(Sovereign Mind Radio) says that my ideas on dreams, consciousness, and television are groundbreaking. I could go on and on, but I don't need to.

What you are doing is basically lying. I was not born yesterday. You are slick Georgina, but you are lost at the level of thinking/understanding that I am at.

Christian Corda says that he took the time to carefully review the article entitled: The Dream Fundamentally Balances and Unifies Gravity and Electromagnetism. He then said that it is "philosophically excellent" AND that he endorses it and is sending it out to the scientific community for review.

Have you seen my two articles at Psychologist World? They published them unedited. Not a single comma or letter was changed.

I have definitively demonstrated that the Common Chimpanzee is in between (i.e., in the middle of) our dream and waking experiences with regard to what is the integrated extensiveness of their being and experience -- including in time. I have shown this in my prior posts here in this thread WITH SPECIFICS.

That is gigantic.

You have demonstrated that you are not such a credible and competent thinker Georgina. You embarass yourself to the better thinkers than youself (like me) on this forum. True seriousness, Georgina -- get some.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 22:37 GMT
Georgina, your so-called "exceptional IQ" -- as you put it -- is nothing in comparison with true genius. Also, do not act up like a child that is trying to get badly needed attention.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 20, 2009 @ 23:54 GMT
It is a complete waste of time offering constructive criticism to a person who asks for comments and questions but does not wish to consider the replies. Therefore I must also stand by my former comments in regard to the time I have needlessly wasted trying to assist Frank. I have much better things to do than give up my time for someone who repays it with arrogance and insults.

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 08:54 GMT
Georgina,

Don't let this guy give you a hard time! You have my permission to knock his block off!

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 21, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
The modest sympathy I had with Franks views was always to be limited by my deeper empathy with Popper and solid contact with inductive methodology. Unfortunately it has all now evaporated with his credibility.

I'm with you Georgina, but please don't let that close your mind.

Back to the subject; I'm convinced our language is partly to blame (one of the three main issues with deductive philosophy) though I err to the ontological as I've become convinced that one we understand the quantum mechanism we'll kick ourselves and be embarrassed about all our bullshit, and pretence about the kings new clothes. RF; "Nature will always find a way far simpler than we could ever imagine".

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 22, 2009 @ 05:46 GMT
Peter, thank you.

It has occurred to me that a problem with the scientific method, and deductive philosophy, built upon observation is the order in which the process of constructing meaningful concepts and comprehension occurs.Following observation the data is analysed using mathematical or verbal language. Conclusions are then drawn and meaning and comprehension is formed from those conclusions.

"A deductive argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow necessarily (or is indeed a logical consequence of) the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. If a deductive argument is not valid then it is invalid."Wikipedia

However sometimes although the mathematics or verbal analysis may be elegant and even beautiful, it does not necessarily lead to correct meaning or understanding. I have in the past complained about the mathematical tail wagging the science dog, leading to nonsensical conclusions.Error is often accepted as truth until there is new evidence that shows the former conclusions to be invalid. Though as Karl Popper explains nothing is ever really proved by science only not disproved. This does not stop the frequent false argument that "this has been conclusively proved" being used. This slow "evolution" (or shifting sands) of understanding is a natural part of the process of scientific discovery.

The scientific model on the other hand provides a framework for comprehension and meaning. If it is a sound, ie. not invalid model, it will give an underlying reason why particular observations occur.The observations support or conflict with the model.Such a model is not found directly by observation. The thought, then concept and meaning and then the description, which may be either verbal or mathematical comes next.Which is then tested against observation. This is the reverse order to the scientific method. It is the order in which the space-time concept was constructed. Beginning with intuition or imaginative(rather than logical)intelligence and ending with objective experimentation.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 22, 2009 @ 22:06 GMT
It has also occurred to me that although science prides itself on its logic and objectivity most science, conducted using the scientific method, amounts to not dis-proven speculation. Following some observation that aroused interest, speculation is needed to produce a testable hypothesis. This is generated by the logical mind that communicates via language, verbal and mathematical.That hypothesis is then dis-proven or not dis-proven.

With so much not dis-proven scientific "knowledge" how can one join the dots to get a holistic model? As well as those dots that are representative of an actual underlying objective reality , there are also those that have not yet been dis-proven but will be in time and those that will not be dis-proven but are still incorrect. Errors may actually support other errors and lead on to further error.

A scientific model can be generated by the imaginative non verbal mind by intuition. Intuition is different from speculation. It is when the letters of the anagram, almost instantly, appearing as the hidden word. That is before the logical mind has had time to interfere and tell the imaginative mind where to move the letters to get good combinations. The imaginative mind does not speak but shows.The question is asked, a solution is provided, no discussion.

Having a solution it is then necessary to analyse it with logic and reasoned argument to check that it is sensible, self consistent and relates to observed reality including a body of science already widely accepted as solid and foundational. If it fails any of these hurdles it is necessary to ask the question again excluding the first solution. Intuition that has not undergone this process remains imagination. Which should not be devalued because it is essential for the arts and all creativity which enhances human experience.An expression of right rather than left hemisphere thought processes.

I think it is important to distinguish where certain ideas have come from.Are they from speculation that is not dis-proven (Scientific method)or intuition that has undergone logical analysis (Scientific model)? Are they just raw intuition I.e. imagination? Or logical error built upon former error? Merely beautiful or eloquent words, beautiful or skilful mathematics or a potentially true expression of underlying objective reality.Fitting with all observation as well as other accepted scientific models and Laws.Perhaps this analysis might help in the ontological versus epistemological debate.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 08:06 GMT
This is fascinating in demonstrating how perception of reality is controlled differently by the two hemispheres of the brain. Leading to comprehension of how those with a dominant left hemisphere think and experience quite differently from those with right hemisphere dominance. (Many people do not have one hemisphere dominant over the other but they work together equally.)

The right hemisphere finds connections. It is imaginative, comparative, intuitive, holistic and as seen in this video does not regard self as separate from external reality. It also seems to be where wonder and appreciation of beauty reside.The left hemisphere is where difference and separateness are found. As well as control and ego. It is logical, mathematical, is involved in detailed classification or analysis of objects or phenomena and is where language functions reside.

How it feels to have a Left hemisphere stroke

Which hemisphere actually gives the representation that is most like external reality? Or are they just different interpretations of the same sensory input that are equally valid? This may have some relevance for how models of physics are united. Some theories appear to connect phenomena and objects suggesting that everything may be strings of energy or probabilities in an empty multidimensional void. Other models or theories emphasise the material substance and separateness of phenomena and objects within a definite framework.The curious thing is that the mathematical left hemisphere appears to have found something akin to a right brain perspective in quantum physics and finds it interesting and worthy of pursuit and development. An intuitive right hemisphere appears to have found a left brained perspective in space-time and found it interesting and worthy of pursuit and development.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 17:34 GMT
To think that the union between Einstein's theory of gravity and electromagnetism (i.e., Maxwell's theory of light) is not plainly and significantly obvious/manifest in our experience is one of the greatest blunders regarding lack of common sense that I have ever seen.

Electromagnetism involves extremes of feeling, brightness, visibility, size, and energy. Gravity and electromagnetism/light are united at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. When scale is balanced, gravity is repulsive and attractive as electromagnetic energy/light and feeling.

Demonstrate gravity as attractive and repulsive -- in keeping with relatively constant (and proper) lighting, energy, and brightness -- in a space that is at once understood to be larger and smaller. The space must also be invisible and visible at once.

You now have electromagnetism/light as gravitational space. Space manifesting as BOTH gravitational AND electromagnetic/light energy. (Constant energy as well.)

The union of gravity and electromagnetism/light in a fourth spatial dimension

completes, balances, and extends Einstein's theory. It demonstrates thought that is more like sensory experience in general. The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the integrated extensiveness of thought, experience, and being. Indeed, the ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience (including thought) at the mid-range of feeling between thought and sense.

This entire post is describing dream experience. Dreams demonstrate space manifesting as energy.

Electromagnetism/light and gravity are fundamental to life. They are united in the dream. The totality of experience has to be considered.

Dr. Christian Corda, Ph.D is the only one among you who agrees with/sees this? I doubt it. Well, I have stolen the show, now haven't I? Say thank you.

See: The Dream Fundamentally Balances and Unifies Gravity and Electromagnetism

http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefphilfmd1
3.htm

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 19:37 GMT
The scientific method relies upon observation and thus evidence to support an hypothesis. Philosophy relies upon the use of logic.To convert a philosophical argument into a scientific theory, it is necessary to show that the logic is sound and that there is objective evidence from observation to support it.

"A deductive argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion actually does follow necessarily (or is indeed a logical consequence of) the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. If a deductive argument is not valid then it is invalid."Wikipedia

report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 19:43 GMT
Frank,

It is completely plausible to shape your thoughts and feeling around the behaviour of physics equations. That is one way to experience the mathematics intuitively. It is faster, but less accurate.

I do recognise some of what you are saying as the duality of nature, of life experience: attractive/repulsive, visible/invisible, electromagnetism/gravity, large/small, etc. For years, I was able to predict the bizarre and inexplicable behavior of crazy people by looking at their relationship to duality. The political left and right have no idea that they are about to be absorbed into a dualistic realm of thought in which there is a time and a place for tools from both points of view. Those who are close minded are about to have their ideologies buffetted by the winds of enlightenment;for soon they will start to see that a boat with one oar will always travel in circles.

Keep up your efforts. See if you can wrap your intuition around quantum mechanics. If you can do that, you will blow the minds of the experts who have been doing it for years.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 23, 2009 @ 19:45 GMT
I should have said "scientific model" in my last post not "scientific theory".

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 22:25 GMT
When 4 spatio-energetic dimensions are used in quaternion arrangement to give a reference framework within which to describe the universe it is possible to appreciate some of the different opinions as to the nature of space and forces.

If considered in purely energetic terms, all forces can be considered to arise from energy flux and fluctuations within a field. Any phenomenon observed to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 02:28 GMT
Also found this interesting and amusing quote that mentions quaternions.

Eric Temple Bell : The Development of Mathematics, [McGraw-Hill, 1945]:

p.208: on rivalry and inertia in mathematics (re: vector and matrix analysis):

".... Frenchmen, Germans, and Italians, urging their respective substitutes for quaternions, added to the din. By the second decade of the twentieth century there was a babel of conflicting vector algebras, each fluently spoken only by its inventor and his few chosen disciples. If, at any time in the brawling half-century after 1862, the bickering sects had stopped quarreling for half an hour to listen attentively to what Grassmann was doing his philosophical best to tell them, the noisy battle would have ended as abruptly as a thunderclap. Such, at any rate, seems to have been the opinion of Gibbs. In retrospect, the fifty-year war between quaternions and its rivals for scientific favor, appears as an interminable sequence of duels fought with stuffed clubs in a vacuum over nothing."

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 03:49 GMT
Eric Temple Bell, serious mathematician and closet science fiction writer! Nothing wrong with that.

I just want to repeat this because it is relevant to the original post and has become somewhat buried with the automatic shortening of my last but one post, prior to this.

Both the energetic field within which energy change is observed and the material medium of transmission within which disturbances and dynamic motion occurs are different descriptions of the same phenomena. A spatial change can not occur without an energy change and vice-versa.If mathematical values or algebraic terms are given to all of the energy changes or changes in spatial position then an entirely mathematical description could be given. It would still be the same model whether described energetically using energy variations within a quaternion field, as dynamic changes within material medium in quaternion space or mathematically within a mathematical construct representing quaternion field-space.All describe the same underlying objective reality and are not incompatible.

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Aug. 25, 2009 @ 23:24 GMT
Thomas Gold-The inertia of scientific thought

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 26, 2009 @ 02:26 GMT
ATTN: FQXi Participants, important -- Regarding the horizon problem/uniformity of universe: This uniformity is a result of making the telescopic observation (a creation of thought) more like thought. Similarly, dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general, thereby reducing the understanding (relatively); as the totality of experience in dreams is all more the same. We are so smart that we are stupid in the dream. Similarly, the "Horizon Problem" and the uniformity of the universe. The self, represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general. To a significant extent, astronomical observations are interactive creations of thought; accordingly, they will necessarily involve unpredictability and contradictions (or opposites) of/involving thought -- as in the dream.

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

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.