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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Lachlan Cresswell: on 6/12/20 at 19:06pm UTC, wrote Dear Paul, Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. My essay was...

Paul Schroeder: on 6/12/20 at 19:05pm UTC, wrote Dear Lockie Cresswell, You have identified the frustration that many of us...

Paul Schroeder: on 5/28/20 at 18:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Lockie Cresswell, Thanks for reading my paper. Your theory sure is...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/19/20 at 6:23am UTC, wrote It seems the deadline is unpredictable, but most likely decidable!

Peter Jackson: on 5/19/20 at 2:29am UTC, wrote Lockie, Pleased I made it by the deadline. Lovely essay, no time for more...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/19/20 at 2:04am UTC, wrote Dear Lockie, I thought your essay was engaging, beautifully written and...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 5/18/20 at 10:07am UTC, wrote Dear Lachlan, I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/18/20 at 8:36am UTC, wrote Thanks for your comments Steven. You mention Njal's Saga - it is my...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Jim, I am understanding your philosophical interpretation of this time...." in The Nature of Time

Stefan Weckbach: "Georgina, my goal is not to make you rolling over belly up. My goal is..." in Answering Mermin’s...

Georgina Woodward: "Stefan, you have made your opinion very clear. "For me it is clear that a..." in Answering Mermin’s...

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Every one of us is affected by the rotational motion..." in The Nature of Time

PRASAD DIVATE: "Hi all, I have a comment below! You can travel faster than speed of light..." in Understanding...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Prasad, it is a philosophical approach interesting. Like I see you..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi all, I am occupied here in finland in creating several projects like a..." in Global Collaboration

jim hughes: "We can probably say a lot more about the content of consciousness. But we..." in Understanding...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.


FQXi FORUM
December 6, 2020

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: Wandering towards a ‘Theory of Everything’ and how I was stopped from achieving my goal by Nature by Lachlan Cresswell [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Lachlan Cresswell wrote on Feb. 17, 2020 @ 12:06 GMT
Essay Abstract

A wander down memory lane, from when I first encountered Goldbach’s Conjecture and my foolhardy attempt to prove it, to my exposition on time and free will. I explore the ancient texts of Snorri Sturluson’s Prose Edda to learn of new cosmogonies. I attempt to develop a ‘Theory of Everything’, get close and get excited, but eventually I realise that, due to uncomputability, my goal is stymied by Nature. With the help of two demons I examine determinism and wave/particle duality, and decide that Maxwell rules!

Author Bio

I am a practicing physicist in Australia, primarily measuring magnetic fields for the medical industry. I do theoretical research in particle physics on preon theories, and quantum gravity. I obtained my Master’s degree in Science in 1973 from University of Melbourne studying Gravity.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 17, 2020 @ 16:45 GMT
You don't have to model the universe. You need only to be slightly better than accepted models. That is, model both Gr and QM plus one of the observations that are perplexing to existing models.

Perfect is unattainable, Better is attainable.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on Feb. 18, 2020 @ 02:55 GMT
John, I agree. I was deluded that my computational TOE could be practicably implemented by a computer and give results at the Planck length scale. But a lesser scale 3-D cellular automata may still be interesting to model - I would need to get Wolfram onto it, as I am resource limited!

I have an alternative to GR that I am exploring, that has arisen from my non-self referential definition of time.

My gimli theory is able to suggest answers as to the nature of dark matter, and also the gimli model of the electron looks as though it provides the Vector Potential as well as the B field.

My Ginnungagap theory provides the foundations for a quantum gravity theory that is different from those currently on offer.

So I am no longer after the perfect TOE!! I'll just keep plugging away on what I have already attained.

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 18, 2020 @ 01:35 GMT
Enjoyable presentation. I agree with you on the past being relics, artifacts and memories materially Now. The two universes is good idea but imo not taken far enough. They need to be of different kinds. Trying to fit presentism and the block universe together is like forcing jigsaw pieces together. Instead something has to give way.Thanks for sharing your thinking on various idea. Regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on Feb. 18, 2020 @ 03:22 GMT
I also enjoyed your essay. It seems as though we have a philosophy in common. The block universe idea fits in with the philosophy of Eternalism, which I believe is at odds with presentism. Chalk and cheese. I am definitely a Presentist, pushing relative verdandism as the way forward. I shall try and find out about your RICP framework and report back.

I am not a multiverse advocate, but I used the two universe idea to make a point that free will of a conscious entity will stop determinism in identical parallel universes. Regards, Lockie.

Bookmark and Share

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 18, 2020 @ 06:51 GMT
The intro of mine is a quick summary, numbered points on the discussion page. Material uni-temporal universe and from inputs received from there the observer generated 'universe /mapping' experienced or if a device output. Uni-temporal, same time everywhere. Generated 'mapping, spacetime allowing non-simultaneity of experienced event by different observers.

Lots of papers on viXra

I liked seeing the proximity of some of our ideas. You explain well.I don't like 'Many Worlds but there are other kinds of universe such as that see-able by occupants of a distant galaxy that I accept as logical. Regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marts Liena wrote on Mar. 31, 2020 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear Lockie,

I enjoyed your essay very much, particularly the section on wave/particle duality which I have always found uncomfortable. You make a good argument. I also liked your spin on LaPlace's demon (or omnipotent entity?). It highlights how important free will is, and puts up a good argument against determinism.

It is a pity someone spammed you with a lousy vote. I noticed they did it to quite a few authors - a real pity. I will vote later after I have corresponded with the various essayists. Good luck from now.

Marts

ps. If my essay is accepted you will see I found an old presentation of yours that I used to make an important point. I hope you approve!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on Apr. 8, 2020 @ 06:54 GMT
Dear Marts

I am pleased you liked my essay. I made another original observation re Loschmidt's paradox which shows that wave/particle duality is nonsense. It is a pity no-one has picked up on this before. I think everyone is so enamoured with quantum mechanics that only heretics speak out and ask the hard questions.

I was also humbled that you used my old "Future of Physics" talk to make a point about variable speed of light. I hope it can help decide on the ether in due course. I see that Demjanov has been using an allied idea for some decades. Maybe now some more physicists will read his work and perform his type of experiment.

Best wishes for your essay.

Lockie

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 14, 2020 @ 19:28 GMT
Dear Lockie,

I enjoyed your essay and especially your excellent observations.

You note that Laplace’s demon cannot collect all the required info “at a certain moment “ as special relativity eliminates a universal present across all space.

Physicists seem to compartmentalize, using, at any given moment, only a subset of physics theories that support their current effort, yet defending others in other contexts.

You observe that two identical universes might track perfectly until consciousness arises, then all bets are off.

In my opinion a TOE need not compute everything. Schultz’s essay distinguishes between algorithmic patterns (essentially computable) and non-algorithmic patterns which do not place necessary limitations on knowability.

I think Feynman said: “More can be known than can be proven.”

Your discussion of Loschmidt’s paradox is succinct and insightful.

Finally, your view of presentism in terms of “causal relations between energy forms (...) in the Now” matches my view.

All in all an enjoyable and insightful essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on Apr. 15, 2020 @ 01:36 GMT
Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your kind comments on my essay.

My friend Barry and myself agreed some 20 years ago that everything we discuss and theorise on is 'provisional'. We change our minds on ideas constantly as we flesh them out. We are always looking for the 'best fit' to current data and knowledge from a physical understanding point of view.

Personally I believe the 'demon' can take a snapshot of the Universe, as the roots of 'simultaneity' are not well considered, and are tied to a constant speed of light and relativity. My algorithmic TOE works via iteration. I consider an iteration to be similar to the tick of a master clock, yet my theory of time is based on the energy density at a point in space, which gives relative flow of time. A relative flow map of the Universe would match a gravitational map for the best part, but it also encompasses time dilation due to kinetic energy relative to the reference frame of an aether. I think of time flow as 'x' seconds per second, where the denominator is empty space (which we conveniently regard as here on Earth), an the numerator 'x' is a dilated time in the range 0 to 1. However tallying energy can be problematic as we do not understand 'dark energy' at all.

I am glad you like my version of presentism, as I personally find the alternative (eternalism or block universe) abhorrent.

I am currently reading your marvellous treatise" Everything's relative, or is it?" which I found in a link elsewhere. I am spending about 50% of my time in isolation reading physics essays, it certainly passes the time and relieves he anxiety!

Thanks again,

Lockie

Bookmark and Share


Israel Perez wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 05:36 GMT
Dear Lachlan

Good and nice essay! You touch several issues that are well connected with the main topic of this competition. You argue well the problem of computability by relating it to your own experiences. This is a nice way of expressing ideas. The topic of time is very interesting as well, I have thought about it and I am aware of what you discuss; although I am still struggling with this concept. I guess nobody understand time despite that we can measure it.

All the best!

Israel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 06:45 GMT
Thanks for your reflections on my essay, Israel.

I am enjoying your 'The preferred system of reference reloaded' at the moment.

There are so many interesting essays and it takes time to read them, reflect on them and then leave comments. I am a newbie at this!

I have rated your 'Lost in Maths' essay which I enjoyed, and I have found your review paper on MMX, which ties in with quite a few of this year's essays.

Good luck to you.

Lockie

Bookmark and Share

barry gilbert replied on May. 2, 2020 @ 14:01 GMT
Dear Lockie

I enjoyed reading your essay and found it very stimulating. It’s good to see that the responses you received were so positive.

I would like to add some thoughts on the “wave particle duality paradox.” I totally agree that it is absurd to assume that particles possess a form of schizoid behaviour where it’s either a wave or a particle depending on the whim or actions of the observer.



Maxwell demands that you must not ignore the magnetic moment of the electron, even when stationary, but especially when travelling at constant velocity. The magnetic moment of the electron has several degrees of freedom: it can radiate due to precession or radiate due to rotations or tumbling. Think nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) or rotational spectra, neutrons atoms and molecules also contain magnetic moments. A fast electron can gain angular momentum on interacting with a surface or a force, the result must give rise to radiation in almost all orientations of the magnetic moment. Because of the very small diameter of the electron gamma rays would be generated for practical initial linear velocities. Imagine a squash ball containing a magnet inert-acting with walls, wouldn't Maxwell’s Equations insist on radiation? The paradox of Young’s two slit with electrons is solved with this approach!?

Good luck Lockie

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 12:02 GMT
Hi Barry,

I believe you are 'right on the money' with your maxwellian interpretation of Young's two slit experiment with electrons. I also believe that the field of the electron also passes through both slits, as well as the radiation due to the various forms of motion of the electron. This of course does not mean I accept wave particle duality in the sense of quantum mechanics. I only accept that an electron (particle) always has its electric and magnetic fields, and that motion of the electron creates waves in these fields. (I know we differ in our interpretation of these particular waves).

Good luck with your EPR is resolved essay! I hope some of your long time critics will read this and weep!

LL&P

Lockie

Bookmark and Share


Kwame A Bennett wrote on May. 3, 2020 @ 16:28 GMT
Dear Mr Cresswell,

I appreciate your take on the turning machine in your endnotes

Great essay

The longer form of my essay explores some similar thoughts about the turning machine and it similarity to living biological entities

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 4, 2020 @ 04:21 GMT
Dear Kwame,

Thanks for your comments on my essay. As you already know I enjoyed yours and encourage you to continue to be an active thinker. People won't always agree with you, but that doesn't matter as along as you have an open mind (which is difficult) and you are your own constant critic!

LL&P

Lockie

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 04:42 GMT
Dear Dr Lachlan Cresswell....

This post I am repeating here

Thank you for reading my essay very critically, thank you for accepting my essay to 99%, for me it was a difficult task wonderfully achieved!!!

Now lets come to the point you did not agree.... lets have live discussion....

These Imaginery numbers or complex numbers; quaternions, octonions, etc used for multiple variables are tracked.............. Quaternions which are non commutative are especially good for rotations in 3D space, something that is important in particle physics. Although Einstein used tensors, quaternions are making a comeback as they can be programmed on computers, and are used a lot in computer graphics........

I also accept without any problems...... ......

But assume a situation where a third order or any higher order differential equation is used in one or more dimensions while formation, can you get a real solution???

Also assume a situation where some value represented in an imaginary axis perpendicular to time axis, what will be the physical meaning of that point?

Assuming mathematics and giving solutions is ok, what will be the physical meaning ...

40 years I was working on Dynamic Universe model and used tensors with simple equations but not differential equations. Otherwise the real solutions we will get will have singularities.

May the hidden Vak be revealed..........!!!!

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 04:49 GMT
Dear Dr,

I request you not to make any conclusions without a proper discussion.......

I was working on this Dynamic Universe Model for the last forty years under the guidance given by Maa VAK (She is Hindu Goddess Saraswathi for wisdom and education). Almost all papers are important, all results are important, many predictions came true. I dont know which result to elaborate, For...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 12:14 GMT
Dear SNP,

I will continue the 'imaginary debate' via email as you propose. Thanks for rating my essay. Did you enjoy my wander down memory lane?

I will continue to reread your essay and ponder on the cosmology section.

Thanks for your correspondence, I appreciate it.

May the hidden Vak be revealed..........!!!!

Best Regards

Lockie

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 23:47 GMT
Dear Lockie

Thank you for your reply,I dont know you are satisfied with my reply. You may please reply here also, no problem.

Hope you also will rate my essay, if you already rated it, dont worry.

I definitely like to discuss anywhere you like

Best Regards

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 04:54 GMT
Dear Dr

I suddenly remembered OLD 'Two of Us'... Boney M. song

Two of us riding nowhere

Spending someones

Hard earned pay

You and me Sunday driving

Not arriving on our way back home

We're on our way home

We're on our way home

We're going home ....................

Are we really going home?

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 6, 2020 @ 12:09 GMT
Dear SNP,

I am not a Dr., just an armchair spectator and occasional player!

I like the lyrics you posted of 'Two of Us' which was written by Lennon/McCartney and performed by the Beatles on 'Let It Be'. Boney M did a good cover, but I like the Beatles version best.

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 7, 2020 @ 00:04 GMT
Dear Lockie

I dont know that. Boney M re-sung this song is it? I did not here Beatles song.

Well thank you....

We hope to continue...

What is your email Id?

Best

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 8, 2020 @ 19:58 GMT
Lockie,

Thanks for an apt reading of my essay. Yours was a "down-under" type adventure. Your crossword puzzle was an interesting "table-of-contents" of an essay that entertains and informs. I feel more colorful as a skuld entity with self-awareness though perhaps my future output is not totally unpredictable, given my past roadmap. When you speak of the "now" and the future, I think of news of the mutation of the coronavirus as in input in an uncertain future.

Liked your essay and consider it one of the best in discussing the 3 "Us".

My ratings is your 8th in this world of raters giving "1" bombs w/o comments.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 9, 2020 @ 02:55 GMT
Thanks Jim.

My essay's first rating was a 1, which I think causes others to avoid reading.

I'll rate your now as it was most enjoyable to read. I find some essays are too philosophical and some are too mathematical, and others are just hard to read. At the start I was taking a day to read and re-read and digest each essay, but with hundreds of entries that is a lost cause.

I am glad you like being a skuld entity. In another post to Kwame Bennett I defined intelligence as the ability to build a radiotelescope!

As for covid19, it is interesting that a virus pattern in the 'now' can wreak so much havoc in the future, as you note. I certainly don't think it was all pre-determined, especially as the US Presidentis such a wild card!

Cheers

Lockie

Bookmark and Share


Michael James Kewming wrote on May. 10, 2020 @ 02:06 GMT
Hey Lachlan (and fellow Australian),

Thanks for the interesting essay. You wrote about Wolfram's ideas from a new kind of science. There is a bit of strange beauty that arises from these simple building block automona models when they make a very complex but strangely simple structure. As you noted right at the very end, the brain must work in a similar fashion. The interesting question is at what point does self-referential consciousness arise? Does the brain reach some critical mass where it suddenly emerges? In any case, if we take our current understanding, it appears the brain is a highly non-linear, dissipative Turing machine (not sure if it is universal).

In any case, it was a unique set of ideas that you presented in your essay. I hope you can take the time to have a look at essay which considers the dissipative nature of Turing machines and might be of interest to you.

Michael

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 11, 2020 @ 09:41 GMT
Thanks for your comments Michael.



I enjoyed your essay and left comments for you on your site.

Given that I believe in mathematical structures as approximations of the object reality of the Universe, I suppose that would mean I am also an adherent of skuld monism. But I do not believe in determinism! I think that emergent skuld beings such as ourselves are a form of coarse-graining, and it is this coarse graining that prevents determinism.

In my essay I wrote that instead of considering procedures that can recursively call themselves, what if the procedure/program/brain can modify itself, thus changing and improving, and so on? Surely this type of recursion lies at the heart of the origins of consciousness? Many millions of years of evolution have honed consciousness to fully skuld awareness of an endless variety of things. I guess that is my take on things re consciousness arising.

Cheers

lockie

Bookmark and Share


John Joseph Vastola wrote on May. 12, 2020 @ 15:04 GMT
Interesting essay. One reason I think theoretical physicists tend not to like cell automata-like models is that they are hard to extract insight from. Even if a wizard gave us a cell automata model and told us it was the Theory of Everything, we would still probably like to come up with phenomenological descriptions of it that are easier to understand. Having the rules for such a model doesn't tell us why the consequences are what they are, e.g. why there appear to be four forces and why these rules cause atoms and galaxies to form. For a theory that we don't a priori know is right, these automata theories are also hard to test experimentally.

The thermodynamic arrow of time is, in some sense, pretty much understood. It doesn't have anything to do with wave/particle duality, since it happens in the classical mechanics to classical statistical mechanics transition also. It's an emergent consequence of having lots of chaotically moving particles. Formally, you get time irreversibility when you take the particle number N to infinity, a singular limit. There's a good chapter discussing all this in Chibbaro et al's "Reductionism, emergence, and levels of reality".

Not sure I understand your positions on presentism and free will. Maybe I did not read carefully enough.

John

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 06:23 GMT
Dear John,

Thanks for your comments. I agree with your statement"Even if a wizard gave us a cell automata model and told us it was the Theory of Everything, we would still probably like to come up with phenomenological descriptions of it that are easier to understand." but wouldn't it be nice (to borrow from the Beachboys). I think the wizard's rules are based on the force laws we have, but how they are to be explained well... (you will have to ask his demon).

I do believe the thermodynamic arrow of time is very tied up with Maxwellian waves and the ultimate 'heat death'. I only covered the duality issue as an aside, since I do not believe in the quantum photon interpretation.

In my ontology, it is only because of free will that we can break the chains of determinism, not some quantum belief in HUP.

All the best,

Lockie

Bookmark and Share


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 13, 2020 @ 00:11 GMT
Since you wrote on my blog, though addressed to someone else, I wrote the following:

The quantum numbers such as spin I think are independent. An elementary particle is I think an entanglement of states for each of these quantum numbers. In solid state physics these are called quasi-particles, such as phonons, plasmons, spinons etc. Experiments done recently have shown that an electron can be placed in a state where the spin is in one location and the charge at another. I actually think elementary particles are these entanglements of quantum states corresponding to these quantum numbers.

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 13, 2020 @ 02:06 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I hope I didn't seem rude, posting to PJ on your blog, but I wanted to comment on spin. I am still reading your essay and may comment in the future, but as I am rather poor at math I am finding it difficult. Still I regard my logic as being fine, so I can comment on ideas that are within my grasp.

I have successfully reduced elementary particle quantum numbers to just 3, and can show that that is all required to analyse any particle interaction. With respect to the QM/classical divide I have been pidgeon-holed into the 'classical' camp and I do not ascribe to entanglement, except to say that fundamental particles are entangled with their fields. But in the spirit of QM, I do not think that is what you mean. I have no problems with quasi-particles or with the assigning of quantum numbers to them, to help with quantum field theories associated with them. Maybe ultimately it is semantics and our chosen ontologies that divide us, and in the end we do believe in the same stuff. You state: "I actually think elementary particles are these entanglements of quantum states corresponding to these quantum numbers." In my theory all elementary particles obey the symmetry of just 3 quantum numbers, so three simple arithmetic equations suffice to describe any particle interaction. If arithmetic=entanglement then I agree with your statement. As I said it may just come down to semantics.

Regards,

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share


Jason W Steinmetz wrote on May. 17, 2020 @ 22:05 GMT
You wrote: "And so, in summing up, we can have logical and mathematical propositions that are undecidable; we can have structures in physics and mathematics that are uncomputable and we can have complex nonlinear systems whose output is seemingly unpredictable from the point of view of computability and we can have complex skuld organisms whose output is completely unpredictable due to free will.

I wrote (in my essay): "...predication is typically interpreted and defined within the context of other equally nebulous concepts such as determinism, free will and randomness."

Although those quotes may seem to conflict they actually do not. They simply reflect the fact that I probably did not go far enough and you may have went too far. But it was certainly an interesting excursion. And I really liked your crossword at the beginning of the essay. That was a nice touch.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 02:08 GMT
Thanks for your comments, Jason.

I'm not sure where to start in replying. I met a philosopher in my dog walking park a couple of days ago and he was trying to convince me that subjective reality is all there is, that everything I see and touch and do is all a projection of my mind. Well I must have a very complicated mind, inventing this essay competition and a huge variety of essays to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Steven R Brock wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 07:00 GMT
I appreciated your essay, with a less formal style, which can be much more effective in arguments which are not intended as informal proofs, and adaptation of Norse concepts. Interesting that you are firmly convinced of free will, given the fatalistic strain in Norse literature, which is what helps make works like Njil's saga so magnificent. I view counterpredictive operations, whether in algorithms such as are used to show that the halting problem hasn't a universal solution, or in analogous linguistic and mental processes, as a means to a rigorous understanding of free will. If you're interested, you might be enjoy the article by Jen Ismael I reference. It gives a good introduction.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 08:36 GMT
Thanks for your comments Steven. You mention Njal's Saga - it is my favourite! Yes, the Norse were fatalistic. Personally i'm drawn to some aspects, but the intellectual me wants an open future, and sees free will as the way forward. I think formal proofs are for papers and essays can concentrate on ideas, of which I am blessed to have many. This competition has been a good training ground for philosophy and logic for me - which hopefully I can apply to my many theories.

Thanks for the reference, which I will look up. I think I have read as many refs. as I have read essays. Pity it is all coming to a close today!

Cheers,

Lockie

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 10:07 GMT
Dear Lachlan,

I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

"With the help of two demons I examine determinism and wave/particle duality, and decide that Maxwell rules!"

While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: “Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus”, due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 “Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability”.

I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

Warm Regards, `

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 19, 2020 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear Lockie,

I thought your essay was engaging, beautifully written and easy to read. You made the concepts of undecidability, uncomputability, and unpredictability understandable.

I would have liked more detail about biological systems, brains, free will, and “artificial intelligence” because conclusions can’t be made about them by looking at surface appearances: the devil is in the detail about how these things actually work.

Regards,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 19, 2020 @ 02:29 GMT
Lockie,

Pleased I made it by the deadline. Lovely essay, no time for more discussion right now! But enough to score it, well.

Very Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 19, 2020 @ 06:23 GMT
It seems the deadline is unpredictable, but most likely decidable!

Bookmark and Share


Paul Schroeder wrote on May. 28, 2020 @ 18:00 GMT
Dear Lockie Cresswell,

Thanks for reading my paper.

Your theory sure is an antithesis of my thinking. I guess I am backwoods practical thinker. What I see and experience is what I know and assume throughout. . Your ideas are just difficult for me to follow. The philosophy of life is separate from the activities ‘now’. The ideas of Le Place, and Maxwell are too philosophical. Wave duality is wrong due to mis-defining waves rather than an invalid determinism.

Perhaps the philosophical theme of your paper limit the interest in your theories, but you did get high ratings. I also have no peers in the journals and little connection within FQXi. My challenge is that physicists have to give up too much to contemplate the pieces of my model. For your paper, Philosophy allows speculating in too many directions.

I don’t accept nor care about determinism , nor any total effect of the past or future causes. The hard topic you cover is ‘time’ including as the arrow of time and your extension to consciousness. For me the topic of time is just for speed analyses.

I did contemplate a bit about your lost memories topic.

Best wishes to you,

.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lachlan Cresswell replied on Jun. 12, 2020 @ 19:06 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thanks for reading my essay and for your comments. My essay was based on how the 3 Un's have impacted on my physics, so it was a bit philosophical and not really touching my TOE, which is, of course, my main topic.

My TOE is based on matter particles and aether particles. By the combination of the two I can produce a fundamental description of reality. One particle and one force acting between particles - that is very simple, and like your theory requires very little math. From this theory I can easily produce most of the Standard Model's players (without the quantum field theories). The particles I leave out are the bosons of the strong and weak forces as I explain them simply with another method (structural physics). Gravity comes as a mechanical byproduct of particles spin property. Needless to say it is a 'pull gravity', but different to anything else that has been proposed to explain gravitational action at a distance.

So there we are! We have the Standard Model, we have my 'Structural TOE' and we have your TOE, and maybe there are many other well developed models that do the job. As I said before it is a pity that the hurdles for publication are so difficult for newcomers not affiliated with any organisation. I tried 'Foundations of Physics' but was knocked back on the third occasion with just a brief comment that 'proof' is needed. That wasn't helpful at all! What we seem to need is a mentor who is in the system, who knows the ropes, and who can encourage and suggest, without putting his or her biases to the front. What we all need is open and honest dialog.

May be some FQXI'er reading these posts may come to the party. Time is running out for many of us retirees.

Good luck on your endeavours,

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Paul Schroeder wrote on Jun. 12, 2020 @ 19:05 GMT
Dear Lockie Cresswell,

You have identified the frustration that many of us theorists feel:

was knocked back on the third occasion with just a brief comment that 'proof' is needed. That wasn't helpful at all! What we seem to need is a mentor who is in the system, who knows the ropes, and who can encourage and suggest, without putting his or her biases to the front. What we all need is open and honest dialog.

I have also dealt with this for years. But I have a tool others don’t have. The Standard Model of Physics is full of holes. If you recall my paper is built around pointing out the errors. I have another major key point today, "the Doppler indefensible as a redshift source". Copying my transverse discussion hasnt worked. The color and figures get lost. See Wiki. For now after reading the summary here. I can e-mail you the whole revelation if interested.Meanwhile:

Important!

Astronomers know of three sources of redshift/blueshift: Doppler shifts; gravitational redshifts (due to light exiting a gravitational field); and cosmological expansion (where space itself stretches). This article concerns itself only with Doppler shifts.

Note that the third source here is cosmological expansion which is the fantasy that came from circular reasoning and may have never existed.

The second source here is the always ignored gravitational redshift which overrides the idea of a constant speed c. The exit from a gravitational field results in a slowing of the speed, thus red shift.

The first source here is Doppler shifts which can arrive from various relative motions of stars. So we can choose ‘the sky of all-stars’ is in circular motion around earth. (or any other central body one chooses)

Best of luck Lockie.

Paul Schroeder

Bookmark and Share
post approved


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.