This is my second entry to the contest, so I am getting a better sense of how things work. It seems that we often talk past each other in comments on others essays, so for those gracious enough to read and comment on my essay, I’d like to gently direct the blog:

The theme of my essay is simple: I suggest a way to understand quantum theory which can lead to physical theory, which avoids...

view entire post

This is my second entry to the contest, so I am getting a better sense of how things work. It seems that we often talk past each other in comments on others essays, so for those gracious enough to read and comment on my essay, I’d like to gently direct the blog:

The theme of my essay is simple: I suggest a way to understand quantum theory which can lead to physical theory, which avoids many paradoxes, and which does not suggest “It from Bit”. The logical argument for the way to understand quantum theory can be summarized in a few points:

1) Probability is not real. Probability is a measure of our degree of knowledge which we assign to the outcome of an experiment. We do not assign probabilities to things or properties of things. Things do not have probabilities, outcomes do.

2) A wavefunction is a fancy type of probability and is therefore not real. More precisely, a wavefunction is an ordered list of all of the possible outcomes of an experiment and the probabilities that we have assigned to those outcomes. We express this ordered list as a vector. A wavefunction is thus a description of an experiment, not a thing. Things do not have wavefunctions, experiments do.

3) Coins, cats, silver ions, electrons, and systems are things, therefore do not have wavefunctions.

4) Coin tossing, certain types of controlled cat killing, and the deflecting of silver ions by oddly shaped magnets are experiments, therefore do have wavefunctions. In fact, these three experiments are isomorphic, so the same operator and wavefunctions could be used for each.

There are many consequences of this view, with two of the obvious ones being:

1) Wavefunction collapse is obvious. If the outcome of an experiment is known, of course we should make a new ordered list which assigns 1 to the known result and 0 to the others. It would be silly not to.

2) Schrodinger’s Cat Experiment is not the least bit paradoxical: it is coin tossing. In the context of probability theory, |cat dead> does not refer to a state of the cat, it is an outcome of the experiment, and it would be better to write it in full as |“the event that the cat is found dead at end of the experiment”>. It is an outcome state, an event, not an attribute of a cat.

(Too much has been written about this paradox, so to poke a bit of fun: The real paradoxical experiment is one where we put a bunch of physicists in a box and allow them to debate Schrodinger’s Cat Paradox, and we measure the health of trees at the end of the experiment. The paradox is that the experiment returns an outcome of |tree found dead> far more often than reasonable observers would predict.)

So, I would be happy to receive any type of comments on the essay, but especially happy to receive comments directly related to the core argument.

Thanks for reading, Mark

view post as summary

Dear Mark Feeley,

In a comment to Karl Coryat on your previous essay you remarked: "It would probably take at least another complete essay to argue against an entirely "it from bit" picture, so I can't really do the discussion justice, but I'll try nevertheless."

Boy, have you delivered.

Not only should all physics students be forced to write "Probability is not real" 500...

view entire post

Dear Mark Feeley,

In a comment to Karl Coryat on your previous essay you remarked: "It would probably take at least another complete essay to argue against an entirely "it from bit" picture, so I can't really do the discussion justice, but I'll try nevertheless."

Boy, have you delivered.

Not only should all physics students be forced to write "Probability is not real" 500 times, but they should be forced to read your essay three or four times. This would, I believe, go quite a way toward clearing up current conceptual problems in physics.

I completely agree with you that a belief in "magic" is the underlying basis of these problems, whether recognized by the believers or not.

You mentioned that Edwin Jaynes redeveloped much of stochastic mechanics in terms of Shannon's information theory "and gave us a new understanding of entropy as an informational or epistemic concept rather than a thermodynamic one." And yet, as I quote in my technical endnotes, Jaynes said:

"...a persistent failure to distinguish between the information entropy, which is a property of any probability distribution, and the experimental entropy of thermodynamics, which is instead a property of a thermodynamic state... [Many] authors failure to distinguish between these entirely different things [leads to] proving nonsense theorems."

Your entire essay is important, but one of the most important lines is: "they will instantly recognize that an observable is a name for a type of experiment, not a property of some physical thing."

This is what I was getting at in my essay when I said, "It is unclear what bits refer to: does spin have only two states, or is it that the direction of the apparatus' magnetic field forces spin into one of two states?"

Your three line treatment of "collapse" is priceless!

I would like to invite you to read my current essay, Gravity and the Nature of Information, and hope you will comment on it. Because you note that "the evidence offered by the equations positively suggests a physical world with wavelike features" I would also suggest you might enjoy my previous essay, The Nature of the Wave Function.

Mark I think your essay is the best one in this contest so far for addressing the topics of this contest and the problems with physics. Thank you sincerely for writing this. It really should be required reading for all!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post

Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES

A. What thing is new and the difference in the absolute theory than other theories?

The first is concept of "Absolute" in my absolute theory is defined as: there is only one - do not have any similar - no two things exactly alike.

The most important difference of this theory is to build on the entirely new basis and different platforms compared to the current theory.

B. Why can claim: all things are absolute - have not of relative ?

It can be affirmed that : can not have the two of status or phenomenon is the same exists in the same location in space and at the same moment of time - so thus: everything must be absolute and can not have any of relative . The relative only is a concept to created by our .

C. Why can confirm that the conclusions of the absolute theory is the most specific and detailed - and is unique?

Conclusion of the absolute theory must always be unique and must be able to identify the most specific and detailed for all issues related to a situation or a phenomenon that any - that is the mandatory rules of this theory.

D. How the applicability of the absolute theory in practice is ?

The applicability of the absolute theory is for everything - there is no limit on the issue and there is no restriction on any field - because: This theory is a method to determine for all matters and of course not reserved for each area.

E. How to prove the claims of Absolute Theory?

To demonstrate - in fact - for the above statement,we will together come to a specific experience, I have a small testing - absolutely realistic - to you with title:

2 . A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT :

“Absolute determination to resolve for issues reality”

That is, based on my Absolute theory, I will help you determine by one new way to reasonable settlement and most effective for meet with difficulties of you - when not yet find out to appropriate remedies - for any problems that are actually happening in reality, only need you to clearly notice and specifically about the current status and the phenomena of problems included with requirements and expectations need to be resolved.

I may collect fees - by percentage of benefits that you get - and the commission rate for you, when you promote and recommend to others.

Condition : do not explaining for problems as impractical - no practical benefit - not able to determine in practice.

To avoid affecting the contest you can contact me via email : hoangcao_hai@yahoo.com

Hope will satisfy and bring real benefits for you along with the desire that we will find a common ground to live together in happily.

Hải.Caohoàng

view post as summary

Dear sie

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead...

view entire post

Dear sie

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.b
logspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-downloa
d/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

……. I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data……

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

….And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?— in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

…..Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

Your essay is highly enjoyable reading TEACHER!, but more important, you call a spade a spade brutally. We fully agree with your views. However, to be considerate to the others, a stochastic process or event is not without a natural cause. The term indicates population parameters – the band width - leaving aside its cause, but focusing only on the effect. Hence we cannot call it...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

Your essay is highly enjoyable reading TEACHER!, but more important, you call a spade a spade brutally. We fully agree with your views. However, to be considerate to the others, a stochastic process or event is not without a natural cause. The term indicates population parameters – the band width - leaving aside its cause, but focusing only on the effect. Hence we cannot call it supernatural or magic. But you are right – modern scientists are the biggest lot of superstitious people, who have blind faith in ‘established theories’ even on the face of proven contradiction and all scientific papers and books contain references to these ‘established theories’ and their authors in unnecessarily glorified terms to make the student superstitious. The cult of incomprehensibility not only perpetuates such superstition, but also protects it from public glare.

Mach’s distinction between ‘information about reality’ and ‘reality itself’ implies observation and observable leaving aside the observer. In many threads here and elsewhere we have proved that physical reality is not observer dependent – the Moon will continue to exist when we are not looking at it and will continue to move at a predetermined rate irrespective of whether someone is observing it or not. Observation only reports its state at that instant to the observer to be stored in his memory and used for comparison with fresh impulses/data later. This makes the information limited. The probabilistic or statistical treatments do not address the problem of limitation, but build structures on limited data, which in many cases turned out to be misleading. Irrespective of the position of the observer, the coins will fall at a certain spatial orientation. That is real, because the result of the toss is invariant to all observers after taking into consideration their relative positions. The positioning of the observer only changes the report, as seen by the observer, because the ‘axes’ of the coordinate system change leaving the ‘origin’ intact. It does not change reality. This is the cause of the directional system. Something that is at our right can be at our left by changing our position.

Uncertainty is inherent in Nature because of inter-connectedness and interdependence of everything with everything else. When we try to measure something, the result of measurement will not only rest on our operation, but also the environment in which we operate. Even our measuring device and its functioning will be subject to the density fluctuations in the environment that will change the income pulse from the outgoing pulse. Heisenberg was right that “everything observed is a selection from a plentitude of possibilities and a limitation on what is possible in the future”. But his logic and the mathematical format of the uncertainty principle: ε(q)η(p) ≥ h/4π are wrong.

The inequality: ε(q)η(p) ≥ h/4π or as it is commonly written: δx. δp ≥ ħ permits simultaneous determination of position along x-axis and momentum along the y-axis; i.e., δx. δpy = 0. Hence the statement that position and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously is not universally valid. Further, position has fixed coordinates and the axes are fixed arbitrarily from the origin. Position along x-axis and momentum along y-axis can only be related with reference to a fixed origin (0, 0). If one has a non-zero value, the other has indeterminate (or relatively zero) value (if it has position say x = 5 and y = 7, then it implies that it has zero momentum with reference to the origin. Otherwise either x or y or both would not be constant, but will have extension). Multiplying both position (with its zero relative momentum) and momentum of the same particle (which is possible only at a different time t1 when the particle moves), the result will always be zero. Thus no mathematics is possible between position (fixed coordinates) and momentum (mobile coordinates) as they are mutually exclusive in space and time. They do not commute. Hence, δx.δpy = 0.

Nature Physics (2012) (doi:10.1038/nphys2194) describes a neutron-optical experiment that records the error of a spin-component measurement as well as the disturbance caused on another spin-component. The results confirm that both error and disturbance obey the Masanao Ozawa’s relation: ε(q)η(p) + σ(q)η(p) + σ(p)ε(q) ≥ h/4π but violate the old one in a wide range of experimental parameters. Even when either the source of error or disturbance is held to nearly zero, the other remains finite.

Quantization is opposed to inter-connectedness and interdependence. The degree of uncertainty and manipulations (contrary to mathematical principles) of Maxwell’s equations also confuse everything as shown below.

The wave function is determined by solving Schrödinger’s differential equation:

d2ψ/dx2 + 8π2m/h2 [E-V(x)]ψ = 0.

By using a suitable energy operator term, the equation is written as Hψ = Eψ. The way the equation has been written, it appears and taught to students as an equation in one dimension, but in reality it is a second order equation signifying a two dimensional field, as the original equation and the energy operator contain a term x2. The method of the generalization of the said Schrödinger equation in one dimension to the three spatial dimensions (adding two more equal terms by replacing x with y and z) does not stand mathematical scrutiny. A three dimensional equation is a third order equation implying volume. Addition of three areas does not generate volume [x+y+z ≠ (x.y.z)] and [x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z)]. Thus, there is no wonder that it has failed to explain spectra other than hydrogen. The so-called success in the case of helium and lithium spectra gives results widely divergent from observation.

Much before Anaxagoras, the ancient Indian Text ‘Yoga Vashistha’ written not later than 4000 BC, says: “Mano bhavati bhutatmaa taranga iba varidheh” – which literally means the mind itself becomes the perceived world like one wave in the sea arises after another.

Your refutation of Wheeler’s views has traces of the measurement problem nicely put.

The views of Jaynes was discussed in much greater detail in the ancient Indian Text ‘Gautama Sootras’, whose commentary by Vatsayana is much more elaborate. We have used some of it in our essay “INFORMATION HIDES IN THE GLARE OF REALITY by basudeba mishra http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776” published here on May 31. You are welcome to visit it.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

Dear Mark,

Your course, and the lessons that can be taken from it are excellent! Well-written and critical of the right fundamental elements, with a logical presentation that's laid out so lucidly--it is a truly great contribution. '"Bit" is about "it"'. Of course it is.

I agreed with everything from your assessment of Machian epistemics, to your classical construction of quantum...

view entire post

Dear Mark,

Your course, and the lessons that can be taken from it are excellent! Well-written and critical of the right fundamental elements, with a logical presentation that's laid out so lucidly--it is a truly great contribution. '"Bit" is about "it"'. Of course it is.

I agreed with everything from your assessment of Machian epistemics, to your classical construction of quantum mechanics, to your criticism of where it all went wrong; i.e. attaching physical meaning to probabilistic outcomes. Simply put, physics got to where it is today because at the beginning of the twentieth century they were all positivists--except that they then began to surreptitiously assign some form of realistic to aspects of models that have no basis in reality.



The points in your lesson plan were laid out so clearly; e.g.,

"Furthermore, heads and tails have no meaning at all until the experiment is complete, so coins cannot be said to “have” heads or tails states. They will conclude, hopefully, that heads and tails are outcomes of the experiment. They are not properties or states of the coin; they are states of the outcome. The difference is profound."

Indeed, it is; and by the lucidity of your beautiful essay, I could clearly see the profoundness of your point already by the time I got to "... have no meaning..." The conclusion of your second class is fundamentally important.

Your re-assertion:

"Not wishing to write more lines, they will not accept that the wavefunction is in any way physical, or even directly associated with anything physical. Probability is not real"

comes at exactly the right place--just where the formalism risks being thought of as something more than a probabilistic model used to describe outcomes of (coin-toss) experiments. And you cement the right idea perfectly in what follows, clearly demonstrating what's wrong with common ideas like wavefunction "collapse".

I, like you, am at a loss to see how "law without law" could possibly make sense to anyone; how experimental outcomes could be all there is to reality. Wheeler's proposal, in the Machian tradition, is simply to try and put the cart before the horse--and it's as unrealistic as any proposal in that tradition could be; "a premium on stupidity" that "supports a supernatural view"

I give your essay a thumbs-up, interpreted on the scale of 1 to 10, which is unfortunately all I can do to combat the thumbs-downs you've received from people who obviously haven't read your incredible essay.

The scope of my essay (1820) is completely different, but it's fundamentally consistent with yours. I hope you can read and rate it, and perhaps find time to comment as well.

Best wishes in all regards,

Daryl

view post as summary

Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi...

view entire post

Dear All,

It is with utmost joy and love that I give you all the cosmological iSeries which spans the entire numerical spectrum from -infinity through 0 to +infinity and the simple principle underlying it is sum of any two consecutive numbers is the next number in the series. 0 is the base seed and i can be any seed between 0 and infinity.

iSeries always yields two sub semi series, each of which has 0 as a base seed and 2i as the first seed.

One of the sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

the second sub series is always defined by the equation

Sn = 3 * Sn-1 -Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2 * i

Division of consecutive numbers in each of these subseries always eventually converges on 2.168 which is the Square of 1.618.

Union of these series always yields another series which is just a new iSeries of a 2i first seed and can be defined by the universal equation

Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2*i

Division of consecutive numbers in the merged series always eventually converges on 1.618 which happens to be the golden ratio "Phi".

Fibonacci series is just a subset of the iSeries where the first seed or S1 =1.

Examples

starting iSeries governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2

where i = 0.5, S0 = 0 and S1 = 0.5

-27.5 17 -10.5 6.5 -4 2.5 -1.5 1 -.5 .5 0 .5 .5 1 1.5 2.5 4 6.5 10.5 17 27.5

Sub series governed by Sn = 2 * Sn-1 + Sigma (i=2 to n) Sn-i

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 2 5 13 34 ...

Sub series governed by Sn = 3 * Sn-1 - Sn-2

where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 3 8 21 55 ...

Merged series governed by Sn = Sn-1 + Sn-2 where S0 = 0 and S1 = 2i = 1

0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 ...... (Fibonacci series is a subset of iSeries)

The above equations hold true for any value of i, again confirming the singularity of i.

As per Antony Ryan's suggestion, a fellow author in this contest, I searched google to see how Fibonacci type series can be used to explain Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity and found an interesting article.

The-Fibonacci-code-behind-superstring-theory

Now that I split the Fibonacci series in to two semi series, seems like each of the sub semi series corresponds to QM and GR and together they explain the Quantum Gravity. Seems like this duality is a commonality in nature once relativity takes effect or a series is kicked off. I can draw and analogy and say that this dual series with in the "iSeries" is like the double helix of our DNA. The only commonality between the two series is at the base seed 0 and first seed 1, which are the bits in our binary system.

I have put forth the absolute truth in the Theory of everything that universe is an "iSphere" and we humans are capable of perceiving the 4 dimensional 3Sphere aspect of the universe and described it with an equation of S=BM^2.

I have also conveyed the absolute mathematical truth of zero = I = infinity and proved the same using the newly found "iSeries" which is a super set of Fibonacci series.

All this started with a simple question, who am I?

I am drawn out of my self or singularity or i in to existence.

I super positioned my self or I to be me.

I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

I am Fibonacci series in iSeries

I am phi in zero = I = infinity

I am 3Sphere in iSphere

I am pi in zero = I = infinity

I am human and I is GOD (Generator Organizer Destroyer).

Love,

Sridattadev.

view post as summary

Hi Mark

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post

Hi Mark

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

(http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don’t know why that is – it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn’t look at all like the way you said it before. I don’t know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature.”

I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

The belief that “Nature is simple” is however being expressed differently in my essay “Analogical Engine” linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

Specifically though, I said “Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities” and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism … and so on.

Taken two at a time, it can be read as “what quantum is to classical” is similar to (~) “what wave is to particle.” You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

Since “Nature is Analogical”, we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

Good luck and good cheers!

Than Tin

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear....

view entire post

Dear Sir,

This is our post to Dr. Wiliam Mc Harris in his thread. We thought it may be of interest to you.

Mathematics is the science of accumulation and reduction of similars or partly similars. The former is linear and the later non-linear. Because of the high degree of interdependence and interconnectedness, it is no surprise that everything in the Universe is mostly non-linear. The left hand sides of all equations depict free will, as we are free to chose or change the parameters. The equality sign depicts the special conditions necessary to start the interaction. The right hand side depicts determinism, as once the parameters and special conditions are determined, the results are always predictable. Hence, irrespective of whether the initial conditions could be precisely known or not, the results are always deterministic. Even the butterfly effect would be deterministic, if we could know the changing parameters at every non-linearity. Our inability to measure does not make it chaotic – “complex, even inexplicable behavior”. Statistics only provides the minimal and maximal boundaries of the various classes of reactions, but never solutions to individual interactions or developmental chains. Your example of “the deer population in Northern Michigan”, is related to the interdependence and interconnectedness of the eco system. Hence it is non-linear.

Infinities are like one – without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceived, the dimensions of infinities are not perceptible. (We have shown in many threads here without contradiction that division by zero is not infinite, but leaves a number unchanged.) We do not know the beginning or end of space (interval of objects) or time (interval of events). Hence all mathematics involving infinities are void. But they co-exist with all others – every object or event exists in space and time. Length contraction is apparent to the observer due to Doppler shift and Time dilation is apparent due to changing velocity of light in mediums with different refractive index like those of our atmosphere and outer space.

Your example of the computation of evolutionary sequence of random numbers omits an important fact. Numbers are the inherent properties of everything by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no similars, then it is one; otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,…n depending upon the sequence of perceptions leading to that number. Often it happens so fast that we do not realize it. But once the perception of many is registered in our mind, it remains as a concept in our memory and we can perceive it even without any objects. When you use “a pseudorandom number generator to generate programs consisting of (almost) random sequences of numbers”, you do just that through “comparison and exchange instructions”. You develop these by “inserting random minor variations, corresponding to asexual mutations; second, by ‘mating’ parent programs to create a child program, i.e., by splicing parts of programs together, hoping that useful instructions from each parent occasionally will be inherited and become concentrated” and repeat it “thousands upon thousands of time” till the concept covers the desired number sequences. Danny Hillis missed this reasoning. Hence he erroneously thought “evolution can produce something as simple as a sorting program which is fundamentally incomprehensible”. After all, computers are GIGO. Brain and Mind are not redundant.

Much has been talked about sensory perception and memory consolidation as composed of an initial set of feature filters followed by a special class of mathematical transformations which represent the sensory inputs generating interacting wave-fronts over the entire sensory cortical area – the so-called holographic processes. It can explain the almost infinite memory. Since a hologram retains the complete details at every point of its image plane, even if a small portion of it is exposed for reconstruction, we get the entire scene, though the quality is impaired. Yet, unlike an optical hologram, the neural hologram is formed by very low frequency post-synaptic potentials providing a low information processing capacity to the neural system. Further, the distributed memory mechanisms are not recorded randomly over the entire brain matter, as there seems to be preferred locations in the brain for each sensory input.

The impulses from the various sensory apparatus are carried upwards in the dorsal column or in the anterio-lateral spinothalamic tract to the thalamus, which relays it to the cerebral cortex for its perception. At any moment, our sense organs are bombarded by a multitude of stimuli. But only one of them is given a clear channel to go up to the thalamus and then to the cerebral cortex at any instant, so that like photographic frames, we perceive one frame at an instant. Unlike the sensory apparatuses that are subject specific, this happens for all types of impulses. The agency that determines this subject neutral channel, is called mind, which is powered by the heart and lungs. Thus, after the heart stops beating, mind stops its work.

However, both for consolidation and retrieval of sensory information, the holographic model requires a coherent source which literally ‘illuminates’ the object or the object-projected sensory information. This may be a small source available at the site of sensory repository. For retrieval of the previously consolidated information, the same source again becomes necessary. Since the brain receives enormous information that is present for the whole life, such source should always be illuminating the required area in the brain where the sensory information is stored. Even in dream state, this source must be active, as here also local memory retrieval and experience takes place. This source is the Consciousness.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

view post as summary