Search FQXi

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: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Michael Jeub: on 10/19/13 at 4:34am UTC, wrote Dear Wilhelmus, I appreciate your thoughts. My relationship with this...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 8/14/11 at 15:24pm UTC, wrote Hi Michael, It is an honour for me to encounter for the first time an...

Wilhelmus de Wilde: on 8/14/11 at 14:47pm UTC, wrote Michael, you are very intelligent to open a discussion in a discussion with...

Michael Jeub: on 8/13/11 at 7:11am UTC, wrote attachments

Anonymous: on 8/13/11 at 7:01am UTC, wrote IT is one MB (1097639) bytes but won't upload, perhaps it is too large....

Michael Jeub: on 8/13/11 at 6:54am UTC, wrote The other part of my essay, the abstraction layer, the sketches hopefully...

Michael Jeub: on 8/13/11 at 6:47am UTC, wrote I am attempting to upload the sketches I made while writing the essay.

Michael Jeub: on 8/13/11 at 6:31am UTC, wrote I have attached the sketches I did during the period I was writing the...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

H.H.J. Luediger: "Even darker.... one can not easily downrate a racehorse to a donkey, but..." in Undecidability,...

Steve Agnew: "Well thank-you, you are very kind. I have come to appreciate the fact that..." in Quantum Dream Time

Samuel Parsons: "O also means a whole new universe in a box can be recreated a miniverse..." in Outside the Box

Samuel Parsons: "Is it 127? It's always comes back here. Just saying also I'm trying to..." in Outside the Box

Zeeya Merali: "INSPYRE, INternational School on modern PhYsics and REsearch, organized by..." in Welcome to INSPYRE 2020 -...

David Sloan: "Dear Alan, For any discussion regarding the essay contest, the contact..." in Undecidability,...

Jonathan Dickau: "Thank you Peter... For the kind words of explanation. It is looking like..." in From Cosmic Lighthouses...

Lawrence Crowell: "Tejinder, I was intrigued by your FQXi essay. Thanks for this reference to..." in Alternative Models of...

RECENT ARTICLES

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.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

The Quantum Agent
Investigating how the quantum measurement process might be related to the emergence of intelligence, agency and free will.

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

FQXi FORUM
May 28, 2020

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Adinkra and Gnomon: The Necessary Bipartite Graph by Michael Jeub [refresh]

Author Michael Jeub wrote on Jan. 12, 2011 @ 15:37 GMT
Essay Abstract

The essay is about the chromatic icy glueball, that's sort of fat and dumpy, yet nothing at all, a real philological blunder of immense proportions--a bit on the heavy side of things: a "shrub oak" or gathering of the unnoticed connection. It involves riddles just like the sphinx, but the riddles are about tauri, tauri2, test functions, a progression, a patchy ring, a ferris encounter, and my personal favorite; Stevinus' Hair a full 3D experience with suitable redshift all in one color. There is one last cartoon of synergy, a panchmahabhootas, or as Homer Simpson says, doh!

Author Bio

Michael Jeub is an M-Theorist artist. He has done eight magnificent sketches corresponding to the eight paragraphs, essentially planes of information along information theoretical lines. The sketches are illustrative of the scientific intuition of the giants of mathematical philosophical thought and radiative exploits. This was Mr. Jeub's first attempt at publishing anything of significance to fundamental pursuits. He is enomously pleased to be able to share in such great childish simplicity. If the interest arises, these sketches will be uploaded and put with the essay as a sort of extended Yang Mills super symmetrical compliment.

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 16:45 GMT
double you tee eff?

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 22:16 GMT
Good one Lawrence and well done Michael,

Your essay is obviously one of a highly technical nature that will take me weeks or even months to unravel, although I seemed to be having a feeling of deja vu with every sentence. I've had many days when every scientific paper had a similar read. Are you sure you didn't "borrow" any of this content?

Still, congratulations on a fine piece of work!

LMAO and ROTFL,

Dan

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 22:22 GMT
I agree -- like Finnegan's Wake and I Am The Walrus, people will be discussing this work for decades. Goo Goo Ga-Jeub!

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Jeub replied on May. 17, 2011 @ 05:11 GMT
It's hard to think about theories with two times if that is what is meant by "t eff." Theories of everything encompass everything, and I do think my first essay attempt amusing as well. I do not take myself seriously, as most physicists don't either. The namespace for all this kind of theory that I am really deeply interested in is not standard, and I have inherited libraries from here and there and everywhere. My essay may sound like some class instance like that, but I will assure you that I am only trying to absorb into my brain the distributed architecture of reality, and for me it's at the trunk of the tree of that namespace. I am almost afraid to re-read my essay because I might think I've become a machine of AI, incapable of RI!

Cheers, best, and all that jazz!

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 23:07 GMT
How do you know all this stuff? I had google and wikipedia working overtime!

report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 19:49 GMT
It's great to be able to access papers and ideas of real researchers, even if the topic is "over your head" if you are interested, just keep on reading and you will find opportunity to begin the great task remaining before you. One must learn things from multiple angles and laterally.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 01:39 GMT
It will all become clear with "childish simplicity"in another dimension. Meanwhile let us wait to see the "eight magnificent sketches" - they are sure to explain something or other, or the other, perhaps even all the other ones too.

Or are we simply the victims of a hoax-cum-parody by a wanna-be Alan Sokal see this for example

report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 20:00 GMT
No parody intended. The subject is very rich and I enjoy the feedback, and would like to answer specifically what parts you mak think are a hoax. String theory allows for paradoxy, so yes, parody too, a minimalist puppet show on our small planet projected in all directions....

The chinese have this idea that the brain or head is a ball of mud at the top of a pyramid, I kind of like that topology when thinking about human thought, and the stupid rocks that prop it up. But I think about it in a nice way, not in bad spirit.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Jan. 18, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT
Here's another paper from Michael Jeub, maybe it helps:

http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/753/scimakelatex
.86556.Michael+Jeub.html

report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 19:36 GMT
I did not find or write such article. In fact this is the first article or essay for publication I've ever written. I've flagged your post as inappropriate.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 12:13 GMT
Dear Michael ,

I love your writing. It has a poetic flow to it and is full of gems. You said "The thought experiment continues to dominate every field of progress except that of education." So true that we are taught to assimilate and less often to think for ourselves.

You also said "What's inside your thick skull with two holes in it? What is on the outside being taken through those wondrous doors of perception. A dynamic chain of potentials..." This phrase mirrors my own personal journey of questioning and seeking answers about reality. It is such a profound question that I am surprised that it is not more commonly asked. It seems that most just accept without wonder the reconstruction somehow formed within the visual cortex but experienced as existing externally to the organism.

It is a complex piece of writing but delightful. I will take time to mine the treasure that I am able to comprehend within it. I am not a physics specialist so know little about M theory. I find "unpacking the whole" like an ode to M theory. Which means nothing to me on an emotional level as it is not a shared personal experience. Though it is curious to see another so enamored of what is for me, I believe, unfathomable.

I do hope that others take the time to read your writing. I shall certainly read it again, maybe many times. Best wishes Georgina.

report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 20:30 GMT
Thankyou for the feedback. It is encouraging to get some response like this because of the difficulties I have had in getting feedback. My friends and family did not say too much if anything about the essay, so when I read your post It made me happy in getting or aspiring to write things. I love math and physics, but have no demonstrated abilities in them. I desire to write a textbook on the various nodes and modes of dealing with math and physics. For me, math and physics are the same thing, except that the numbers have been abused and misplaced where various representations may serve as building blocks. Physics is that art of approximation, like cartography or other sciences of relativity. You noticed that I am disappointed with the public education I received in my early years. In sixth grade I was ready to learn complicated things and wanted to know about mitochondria. I did not care that they were the powerhouses of the cell, I wanted a tour of the plant! The textbooks and the learning I had was dumbed down at the time I needed to be cultivated in mathematics. My essay reflects the fact of this late start into these endeavors. As I practice, I will get better at not only appreciating the sciences, but also transmission of the learning.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Michael ,

I would love to see the illustrations. I can not imagine them. Your essay makes me think of a magnificent Christmas pudding full of all sorts of ingredients thrown together for a potentiality satisfying but hugely indulgent and frivolous feast.

I am spending far too long looking for the unnoticed connections and riddles, and still coming across beautifully worded paragraphs in amongst others that I find incomprehensible. "Force is no longer equal to mass times acceleration, and pure energy is not so pure for it has somehow escaped like a prisoner into the darkness" referring to dark energy I imagine.

In the abstract it says a real philosophical blunder of immense proportions. M theory as an ultimate theory of everything is unleashed. I love "the predictive power of it will keep governments truthful and terrorists away,even if it is imprecise". The more I look the more I find. I must tear my self away, but I know I will not be able to resist the temptation to look some more.

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 13:47 GMT
Hi Michael, that anonymous was me again by the way. I forgot I was not signed in.

Best Regards. PS.The most thought provoking writing that I have read so far in this contest!

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 20:23 GMT
I should have said ...In the abstract it says "a real philosophical blunder of immense proportions." M theory as the unltimate theory of everything is unleashed...(My interpretation of the core of your essay)

It brings so many ideas together in a sometimes profound, sometimes poetic and sometimes numerous manner. Deliciously rich and creative. Well done.

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub replied on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 06:31 GMT
I have attached the sketches I did during the period I was writing the essay. The one titles "progression" could depict say, a one-form, a vector, and a vector field. The one entitled " a ferris encounter represents a dream I had about chance and fortune and alternating paths. The last one was actually taken from a chart in a paper I cited, but I made some changes to it to make it into an artistic expression without losing the synergy form I saw in the original chart.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 20:59 GMT
Hi Michael,

I am curious about the title. By Adrinka do you refer to the geometric woven designs of African brocade cloth? Which communicate social thought,history philosophy and religion to those able to comprehend the language but being unfamiliar to most communicates nothing other than geometric pattern? Perhaps a metaphor for something both in plain sight but also obscured. As you are an artist I wonder if by Gnomon you refer to the Gnomon school of visual effects. "High end" computer graphics generation?

report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 06:19 GMT
I forgot to answer the clavichord bit. My first clavichord was made from a kit and that one is still on the net as the Burton. That was really not so good of a design, but the kit was there and it was a learning experience. Then I made some other kits and rebuilt a harpsichord which I later dismantled to rebuild again some day. The clavichord I made from a museum drawing is one that is in the Yale collection, a small triple fretted instrument. The tangents in the middle of each fretted note need to bend or spread a certain amount, diverging from each middle tone key, with this in mind it was much easier to tune it after the strings were tensioned and tuned. I found this procedure much easier than trying to follow all the tangent placements that were on the drawing, and made sense to me mathematically finally after living with the instrument for years, learning or appreciating the aspects of its design. Tuning every note adjacent to the tuned string worked better than I thought it would. Each note was like a wavelet contributing to a scalogram of the whole instrument. The tuning and bending of the tangents is not as strange or mysterious or "frettful" of an experience. If I were to place the tangents again I would not follow the drawing at all and place each one in the center of the key, and then diverge them systematically as needed to sound the adjacent half step notes. My next project is to build a dulce melos based on a drawing by Arno. De Zwolle. The clavichord is not as simple of a physical object, and its structure is the device for making the sounds rather than just a base or a platform for the device to reside inside of.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 21:54 GMT
Well I am sure they are all beautiful instruments. My piano restoration project is an ugly, thumping brute by comparison. I admire the function of its mechanism but also despise it, having spent so much time tending to and adjusting it. It would take quite some time for me to forget the tedium. I now better understand why old pianos are frequently discarded rather than restored. Perhaps I chose the wrong instrument. Though the naked hammer and damper mechanism did look pretty cool sitting on the table and is fun to play with. It reminds me a bit of a Theo jansen's walking machines.link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=b694exl_oZo]Walking sculpture.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 02:10 GMT
Here is that link written correctly Walking sculpture Brilliant things.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 00:48 GMT
Michael,

As you can tell the fascination has not gone away. I notice that in the text you do actually refer Adrinka and Gnomon and have two references 5 and 6. I assume that if I dug out these texts they might shed some light on what exactly you are referring to.

Your reference to yourself as a human parser is nice. Considering your self as a processor of input information, breaking it down, digitizing it.

Are the fundamental purists laughing with your "childish simplicity" or a bit annoyed that you can make lighthearted fun of such serious business? I wonder.

Any art that captures the imagination or analytical mind and that compels the observer to spend time with it is good imo. Perhaps like other art it is the observer who in the end puts their own interpretation on to it and relates to it accordingly. It is easy to walk away from the mediocre or un extraordinary and not give it another thought on the other hand.

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 08:20 GMT
Hi Michael,

I have found your notes which make it a little more clear, here you again mention Adinkra but define Gnomon, a contraction apparently.I think you genuinely love this stuff.It is like musical composition or abstract visualization to you.

Is this your clavichord? harpsichordphoto/org/jeub A burton unfretted clavichord. Pretty. How many Michael Jeub's have constructed a clavichord? It sounds like a minority pass time to me. Do you play it? I have recently restored a piano. Individually restoring and replacing every hammer and dampener. It was unbelievably tedious and will not be done again!

Another thought if the alien kids are humanoid they might find the pioneer 10 diagrammatic representation more interesting.

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 04:34 GMT
Dear Michael,

It seems that you are leading us along a route that led to your own development as an M theorist, recalling introductions to mathematical and physics ideas. It is a somewhat historical but also autobiographical journey.I do not know if it is a non fiction or fabrication that makes an interesting collection of ideas brought together.

As the mathematics and physics referred to is largely obscure to the uninitiated it is bewildering unknown territory. Though the first half seems to be a developmental journey, the middle and end seems to be a celebration of M theory. Including outrageous optimism about its ability.Though if it keeps governments truthful and terrorists away how can we do without it!If as you say numerical topology is the only tool we have I am definitely without a paddle.

I can not agree when you say "I am a machine and so my reality is a machine." I do not think you refer to AI, since you mention the sympathetic and parasympathetic- which is the endocrine system, through which we have emotional responses. Though that may be your personal, subjective perspective. I think something mathematical may be rubbing off. I wrote numerous when I meant to say humorous in a previous post.It also occurs to me that if you are American you may mean foreign or outsider rather than extra terrestrial.

Whatever your intention, the diagrammatic representation of information does override the linguistic decoding requirement that can be a barrier to effective communication.The visual presentation of ideas does seem to be improving and multimedia presentaion is far more common than 30+ years ago.Though I do not think we should shout our existence and ignorance to extraterrestrial intelligence I do remember seeing and admiring the diagramatic representaions sent into space, as a child.

Are you there watching us drown , like untrained rats in a water filled maze? Aware that we must keep swimming until the last note on the clavichord sounds, because there is no escape without a map. A diagrammatic representation to salvation from the icy glue ball. I might learn that maze as well as any rat that has gone before but expect to be drowned before I begin. Pushed down by the crowd or carried in the wrong direction.Are you a silent watcher? or just oblivious in creative bliss? in another part of the M theoretical multiverse entirely. Like an omnipresent but inaccessible God of this own Creation. Any body there? I want to see the sketches , please...

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 21:01 GMT
I had waited as long as possible to get some feedback from family and friends about my essay, but none was forthcoming. You have made up for this void. Indeed I was drowned and found it very slow in coming back to the surface. My favorite classic paper is one by Bernoulli on the vibration of strings, and I am only beginning to get the shadow of the idea of its implications. I used it as a base to conceptualize string theory into one that can handle other objects besides the vibration of physical strings, other things with a frequency (that is the reciprocal of wavelength) such as pendulums. It was interesting to find things out about the seconds pendulum and how it was able to become a gnomon of the gravitational force in its local frame. The degree of arc, the state space it starts in has a strict dependency at 90 degrees and 45 degrees intervals and I made these kinds of comparisons. It was interesting. Some of this would mean that there is a way of measuring the degree of gross chaos using string theory. There is at the heart of these subjects a quintessence in the calculus of the variations. I'm going to be reading up on all these things to refine my understanding. As to the sketches, I will need to borrow someones computer as I have an incompatible scanner situation. If you would like to see my cartoons, I'll try to attach them in another post in the coming weeks.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 19:05 GMT
Georgina,

I'm afraid you've been duped. As a physics outsider, it is understandable. Mr. Jeub's essay is a work of art and not science. Taken as art it can be considered beautiful, with humor, with anger, or with a number of different emotions by those who view it. As art, in particular, as modern art often does, it represents the artist's commentary on the certain aspect of society, in this case, the physics community's continued academic and financial support of a field or fields that Mr. Jeub undoubtably considers dubious. He has a way with words, his vocabulary quite extensive, and his use of metaphor is thoroughly amazing, but his meaning, I can assure you, is one of ridicule rather than sincerity. I cannot doubt Mr. Jeub possesses a sincere distaste for the adoration that many in the physics community have endowed upon the String/M Theories, the multiverses, the time machines, the proclivity for mathematics over meaning; and perhaps academia in general, for it comes through with complete clarity to those of us who have read between the lines and looked past the vernacular and metaphor. I, for one, found his essay quite humorous, as much of his commentary, I was in agreement. For those who take serious the objects of Mr. Jeub's ridicule, they probably are in agreement with Lawrence's comment above, in the very least. Don't feel bad. It could have happened to anyone unfamiliar with the territory and it really is beautifully written. Mr. Jeub is unquestionably well educated to make all of the references he has made. Many of his comments are classic, such as:

"In an essay contest not unlike the present one, Euler describes monadists versus those who espouse divisibility in infinity. [1]"

or

"The thought experiment continues to dominate everyfield of progress except that of education. The philosophical attempts to elucidate theory are tortuous.[20]"

These are quite clever and completely hilarious when taken in Mr. Jeub's true tongue-in-cheek style of mockery and sarcasm. To those of us who got, and agreed with his humor, it really was hard to stop laughing.

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 21:13 GMT
Anonymous,

It is such as pity that you chose to be Anonymous here. Like most of the other respondents. Hedging your bets perhaps. I am guessing this is TH Ray since he not only replied to me but told me there was a reply here.

If you had actually read what I had written you would have seen that I was responding to MR Jeub's work as an artistic expression. I have commented on the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 21:27 GMT
Anonymous,

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Mar. 10, 2011 @ 16:04 GMT
Georgina,

I never saw this site before today. I have never written an anonymous post on FQXi (in fact, I don't recall ever writing an anonymous post anywhere). If you think I directed you here, be assured that it was an imposter, not I.

But so far as Michael Jeub goes -- ROTFL!

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 00:13 GMT
Georgina,

This is not T H Ray and you misinterpret my intentions. I never meant to patronize you. I must admit that, with so many essays to read, I did not carefully read all of your responses to Mr. Jeub, only enough to believe that you took him seriously. Sadly, it is my belief that he had three intentions in writing this essay; to mock and ridicule those whom he despises, to display his cleverness to those who empathize with him, and to dupe the uninitiated. His refusal to comment in this forum, IMO means that his essay was all the commentary he needed. I chose to remain anonymous because it seemed a rather awkward and embarrassing situation. I have obviously offended you, so I apologize.

You wrote: "Too often scientist deliberately put up barriers to effective communication rather than trying to explain their work as lucidly as possible. Of course some technical language is require to avoid overly long simple English descriptions."

I couldn't agree more. I am not a professional, only somebody who aspires to be taken seriously. I believe I have unique and creative ideas and a passion to understand the world, yet find it difficult to communicate in general, particularly a field that chooses mathematics over meaning and a penchant for unnecessary formality. Unfortunately, these are the hurdles we must face to have our ideas seriously considered.

There are many things that I envy about Mr. Jeub. He is obviously a genius, has many talents, and is much more educated than I. I greatly appreciated his humor, because I also identified with his frustration. But I also pity him, for IMO he has given up on the system or the system has failed him. I do not know the journey which has lead him to produce a farce rather than an authentic essay, but it seems like a huge waste of talent. I, for one, have not given up.

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Parry replied on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 01:46 GMT
Anonymous,

Thank you for that clarification, and letting T H Ray off the hook. Apology accepted. If the intention was, as you say, 3 fold that alone is remarkable. Even without considering the literary style or any other facet of the work. Most mere mortals would consider 2 birds with 1 stone a worthy accomplishment.

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 21:23 GMT
I am glad to have the criticism. I will have to look up IMO, but I think it means in my humble opinion. I am your most humble and obedient servant. I did include some humor in the essay but I only sprinkled. I did not want the whole thing to be a joke or a farce. I am serious, and I want to write a better textbook for young people that will empower them to take engineering and large data sets to new heights. I also want to make theory the object of learning and how to manipulate it an create it so that everyone can model rather than use givens of someone else.

Is this post made by an "agent provocateur"? If so, excellent job!

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 02:19 GMT
Without H the opinion is not so humble and merely stated as opinion rather than fact.

report post as inappropriate

Armin Nikkhah Shirazi wrote on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 18:09 GMT
Hi Georgina,

I have not previously commented here. Since the cat about the hoax-like nature of this paper is out of the bag, I'll share my opinion: I strongly suspect that this paper was written by a random paper generator. Here is one you can try out for yourself: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

My interpretation of the purpose of this paper is more benign than that of anonymous: I have already seen other entries in this contest which clearly demonstrate that when a paper looks like it was professionally written and throws around a lot of physics buzzwords, it tends to garner approving comments by anyone who does not read it carefully, and this can apply whether they have the credentials to know better or not. I see this paper as a humorous attempt to prod people to read the papers submitted to this contest more carefully and really try to understand what they assert, rather than just imbibe the prose without further reflection of its content. And I am all for that! After all, the primary purpose of this contest, as I understand it, is to open a venue for new useful ideas to be introduced into mainstream science from authors who are not necessarily in the mainstream. And I don't see how regarding a work like the essay by 'Michael Jeub' as a piece of art serves this purpose.

Amusingly, one of the papers entered in this contest quotes a book by the Bogdanovs (google if you haven't heard about them) as a reference, and its author seems to have learned his lessons from them very well.

Armin

report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 21:43 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 00:25 GMT
Hi Armin,

I have found this work intriguing unlike many of the other highly complex papers that are just utterly incomprehensible and completely un-intriguing and frankly dull to a non specialist such as myself. This essay is very content rich but is I think not ultimately indecipherable or nonsensical.

It would have helped if the author had more clearly explained the raison d'etre of the essay in the abstract. Though that would also have removed some of the intrigue and interest for me. Guessing is not the best approach but making the effort to do serious research is time consuming, so having the author explain is a short cut.

Now that Michael Jeub has replied to some of the comments and elsewhere on the site, it is clear that he has a particular and unusual style of communicating that includes a lot of detail and skill in the use of language. It may be a reflection of his thinking style. That linguistic skill is demonstrated in the essay as well.It is not mere conglomerated content.

I see no reason why such an essay should not be included in the competition and readers and judges can make of it what they will.It did say in the details about the competition that the essay should be accessible to a well educated but non specialist audience and they suggested a new scientist article to be the cut off in difficulty. This essay would seem to fall outside of that suggested level but so do other essays in the competition, in my opinion.

Georgina

report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Jeub replied on May. 17, 2011 @ 06:04 GMT
I might add, that the abstract I wrote for the website is not the one I intended. As a novice I just let this go. Most people who are wirters have had years of practice and were good writers when they went to school. I did not start writing until I wanted to understand math and science better, which was 2007. Textbooks need to be written with primal and fundamental flavors, not just the basic stuff either. For example a small child needs to know that sqrt(x)=

$sqrt x$

Well in the literature, the young poor person will need to attempt to translate the mangled awful language of science and computer science into terms that ring true with understanding. Is reluctance, for example, resistance, capacitance and induction all wrapped up into something only the componentizers should know, or should it be explained? I say to the scientists and engineers of the world, don't be reluctant, it impedes progress.

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 24, 2011 @ 00:27 GMT
Armin,

Thanks, for your input. I had no idea these random paper generators existed. Your interpretation is more likely than mine. For someone to have both the vocabulary and the writing ability as "Mr. Jeub" in retrospect doesn't seem as plausible now. It sure did read like an attack on the establishment and M Theory in particular. I know a lot of people who hold contempt for it. Maybe my interpretation says more about me than the possibly fictional author.

Fortunately, I stayed,

Anonymous

report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 21:57 GMT
Armin, I have worked very hard at trying to understand stuff. I don't see how you can think of my contribution to this contest as an attack. I love M-theory, and am a fan of Ed Witten. I was hoping that my essay would have some value as promoting a degree of agreeableness. My essay I would hope fits with string theoretical approches to open up modeling and the power of this theory in developing the most robust of sciences.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT
Michael

Brilliant - ranks alongside Tommy Gilbertson as an enjoyable respite. But I particularly warmed to your;

"This led to the most complex notion of "length" as being quite useless unless it is first normalized, and then re-normalized."

I hope a mind like yours might like mine, where I've hidden a real toroid black hole, in plain view, with photographic evidence, and am now announcing a prize to the first who spots it and doesn't get sucked in.

I hope you can read it and comment. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Stay cool

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Michael Jeub replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 03:32 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 12:51 GMT
Michael

Thanks for your kind and perceptive comment in my string. I responded;

"Well worked out. But did you identify the lensed light betraying the Black Hole's outline?

We must define the meaning of 'pressure' in more detail to validify our generalisations. We have missed something VERY important in present science, as I mention above;

When a light signal in medium A enters a new medium B, moving at v, we observe (from A) a different wavelength.

The light speed also changes (c/n), but, before we start thinking about the LT to stop it exceeding 'c' when we add v (medium) consider; An observer in medium B will also see a FREQUENCY change! This validates the SR postulates and Law of Conservation of energy (both c and E = f*lambda.)

This is NOT TRUE from the viewpoint of observer A, as that is now not a valid observer frame from which to measure the phenomena within medium B.

The reasons for introducing the LT are REMOVED. Light scattered from B to A does max. 'c' anyway. The SR postulates can now be met without paradox or the many anomalies that are thrown up.

Are the powers of logic or visualisation of the majority of humankind really not yet adequate to comprehend this?"

I think it's been rather missed that this is precisely the paradigm shift we've been searching for to remove the rift between QM and SR, and all the anomalies. I am a little nonplussed. Hmm, but, as an example; should I not be less unsurprised ? ..as this is simply one step beyond our brains natural capability!

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 06:47 GMT
I am attempting to upload the sketches I made while writing the essay.

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 06:54 GMT
The other part of my essay, the abstraction layer, the sketches hopefully attached.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 07:01 GMT
IT is one MB (1097639) bytes but won't upload, perhaps it is too large....

report post as inappropriate

Michael Jeub wrote on Aug. 13, 2011 @ 07:11 GMT
attachments

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Aug. 14, 2011 @ 15:24 GMT
Hi Michael,

It is an honour for me to encounter for the first time an essay from a “number theoretical philosopher” who is also an artist, but aren’t we all artists ?

Some remarks on your essay :

You mention you were in the inner surface of a Mandelbrot set, but is there an inner surface ? Mandelbrot set is an eternal repetition of the same entity, if you look at it from an external view point it looks like a chaos, but it is exactly this external view point that allows an observer to be aware of a part of the total that is in his own scale, he doesn’t see the infinitely lower lengths nor the upper ones, but he is conscious of the essence of the set. So I think that your position IN the Mandelbrot set puts you in a position to be unaware of the correspondence you are searching for.

In your point of view the reality (whatever it is) is digital , so as you mention in your essay essential is the graininess, this however you cannot compare to the so called “monade” (monades) that you are referring to, monades is both the ultimate little but also the ultimate great (that is understandable) because a monade is a building block of consciousness, you refer here to your favourite theory M (not Monades ?). I agree with you that in our 4D causal Universe we have limits (yes grains) and these limits go back to a certain length and time, the ultimate length and time from space/time can be discussed (Planck or 10^-48m) but ARE there in my opinion. To take a Monades in its original form (quantum of consciousness) as a bases for understanding and creating an C(onsiousness) Field should be a huge step forward in our thinking and understanding. M theory is made of the total of mathematical thoughts and like I agree with in my essay, maths can deal with infinities both lower an upper, and so outclasses the material universe.

Furthermore the language you use is difficult to me , I think it is because of the fact that my native tongue is Dutch, but when you appreciate your essay as a work of art then it is like with a painting the first time you perhaps do not understand it, if this is the first painting you create I wonder what the next will be. Did you already succeed in the digitisation of your art work, I would be very happy to have a glance.

(PS I looked up the word Panchmamhaboothas in Wikipedia but could not find it)

Keep on thinking free

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate
Author Michael Jeub replied on Oct. 19, 2013 @ 04:34 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus, I appreciate your thoughts. My relationship with this forum was amost fides unde abiit, eo nunquam redit, but after your thoughtful post and the changes to make the anonymous show themselves for the challanging discussion, I will start again seeking answers to questions. I have grown in my thoughts and approaches to the subject and have correspondingly been more careful about...

view entire post