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


Previous Contests

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

Michael Deans: on 3/14/11 at 12:28pm UTC, wrote Dear Brian, Thanks for your kind comment. Would anyone reading this be...

Brian Warburton: on 3/14/11 at 11:41am UTC, wrote Michael's essay is a very good synthesis of ideas from many different...

Peter Jackson: on 3/7/11 at 10:45am UTC, wrote Michael Brilliant essay, and an area I believe far more research funds...

David and Barbara Rogers: on 2/25/11 at 15:20pm UTC, wrote Dear Michael We have printed out your essay and read it. The charts,...

Anonymous: on 2/23/11 at 18:49pm UTC, wrote Neil, your essay reminded me of fruitless attempts to align slits and light...

Neil Bates: on 2/23/11 at 2:19am UTC, wrote Michael, your essay was very creative and reminded me of Roger Penrose's...

Michael T Deans: on 2/10/11 at 12:47pm UTC, wrote My 'minion' chip in the brain model poses some mathematical conundrums. In...

Michael Deans: on 2/9/11 at 15:11pm UTC, wrote Thank you, Georgina, for your valid comment. Inspired by Faraday's 'Nothing...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant. I can..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, "You referred to..." I was referring only to my final comments..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "Eckard, One Objection. Don't blame Fourier: his original series is..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 17, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: The Chip in the Brain by Michael Thomas Deans [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Michael Thomas Deans wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract Our cognisance of reality is limited by the digital nature of the human brain. The idea of an analogue world, whilst convenient to mathematicians, conflicts with the manifest success of quantum mechanics. I introduce a simple structure for the chromosomes, which evolved to facilitate their replication. Its potential for storing and processing information is compared with the standard neural network model. An anthropocentric world view emerges, consistent with observations in every branch of science but challenging its axioms. From this perspective, big bang cosmology, the concept of time as a dimension and the ubiquity of spheres are reviewed. Calculations of the age of the Universe, lengths of day and Sun spot cycle are presented. The periodic table of the elements is derived using planes rather than particles. The cosmos is compared with an X-ray diffraction pattern. Congruity of patterns in music, language and psychology are argued and empirical tests proposed.

Author Bio

Biography Born in 1947, I read Natural Sciences at Churchill College, Cambridge and Biochemistry at University College, London. As an undergraduate, I made a serendipitous discovery of ice re-crystallizing in liquid nitrogen, with properties suggesting a way for order to arise amidst chaos, basis for the origin of life. Combining brief careers in clinical biochemistry and computer programming with library searches, correspondence and model building, I assembled a ‘theory of everything’. Peer review and publication have been denied for lack of experimental proof. As data has accumulated, the validity of the model has become increasingly evident.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



nikman wrote on Feb. 8, 2011 @ 18:19 GMT
I'm a discretist, not a continuist or infinitist ("Analog or Digital?" sucks, frankly) but one thing bothers me. Genetic coding works because the bases are inert. But folding is manifestly dynamic and has never been algorithmized, indeed may well never be. How can we be confident it's not analog?

(You may have covered this and it simply went over my head.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Michael,

just to let you know I have read your essay.

I had high hopes for it having read the abstract. However you do seem to have amalgamated a lot of "everything" into it without really answering the question.I am not saying that to be derogatory but to show that I have failed to grasp how this is relevant to this particular physics competition. It is perhaps included to demonstrate the unbiased nature of the competition.It may have more appeal to other readers.Best wishes and thank you for sharing it with us.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Michael Thomas Deans replied on Feb. 9, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
Thank you, Georgina, for your valid comment. Inspired by Faraday's 'Nothing is too wonderful to be true' and Crick's application of physics to biology, the perspective on reality offered by my 'chip in the brain' makes the distinction between analogue and digital irrelevant. By showing that basic things are simple, not complex, my approach offers hope that the real questions facing humanity can be solved in our time. Life is a three-way balance in motion - please score my essay and help keep it going.

Bookmark and Share



Michael T Deans wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 12:47 GMT
My 'minion' chip in the brain model poses some mathematical conundrums. In the attached file are 4 puzzles to solve: 1 Re-inventing the periodic table using perfect solids. 2 A 3-D version of the 4-colour mapping theorem. 3 Scaling down CERN to molecular size. and 4 Trying out an alternative to Einstein's General Relativity. Publishable proofs would strengthen the case for the model and your standing as a mathematician.

attachments: Math.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Neil Bates wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 02:19 GMT
Michael, your essay was very creative and reminded me of Roger Penrose's speculations about tubulin and quantum effects in the brain, etc. Your illustrations could use some more resolution as I could just barely make out some details and labels, etc. Some things I question, like "pools of liquid nitrogen" - are you aware, that requires -320 °F at sea level and would be at low reactivity. Also, if cold fusion happens at all (let's be open minded), it still seems to require special conditions like properly prepared Pd, extreme discontinuities/environments etc. and I don't see it clear that that exists inside the human body. But an ambitious attempt to relate various features and symbolism, reminiscent of some "spiritual alchemy" and other interdisciplinary/syncretist efforts, certainly stimulates free associating and looking for unexpected connections. Best wishes, I do suggest rechecking some notions and carefully separating serious description, poetic analogy, etc.

BTW, my own essay states that the quantum measurement problem is not solved by decoherence. If so, then quantum effects can have more role in brain function, DNA etc since recently decoherence has been considered a block to quantum effects being important in those systems. Check it out, please.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT
Neil, your essay reminded me of fruitless attempts to align slits and light beams as an undergraduate. More legible versions of my diagrams appear on my web site. As to whether liquid nitrogen would occur on Earth, my reading certainly suggests the possibility - take it as axiomatic; without that starting condition, we wouldn't be around. Cold fusion does require 'special' Pd to work, but plenty of reports support the possibility. If you email me, I'll forward a set of 4 mathematical 'theorems' which, if proved, would support my thesis. Since I argue that quantum mechanics arises from the way the 'chip in the brain' functions, any consequences for science are 'circular arguments'. One of my PhD examiners was known to his peers as an alchemist, my forbears were poets. Thank you for your comments, best of luck in the competition.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


David and Barbara Rogers wrote on Feb. 25, 2011 @ 15:20 GMT
Dear Michael

We have printed out your essay and read it. The charts, tables and formulae were beyond our technical competence. But much of the script we could understand, and we found your observations most interesting and enlightening.

It is certainly a formidable piece of work and we wish you success with it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 7, 2011 @ 10:45 GMT
Michael

Brilliant essay, and an area I believe far more research funds should go to. Not my area, but I've always studied progress on it avidly, and often find parallels, which I certainly do with yours. I understand your falsification/peer review problem as I've had the same and only now a first one accepted for review. I suspect you're only low in the community rankings due to your free thinking and non 'central' (to here) subject matter. You've certainly got a top mark from me.

I liked your root M as a fundamental. It needs some thought. I didn't absorb whether or not you had a view on the big bang, and suspected it may have been more just a touchstone, but I've recently explored some logical conclusions of my own model (which is also falsifiable), and they point to a recycled universe. I'm interested in more details of the basis of you 11Bn year figure as mine tends more towards 15. (These derivations are not in my essay, but there are links in the strings to an 'implications' paper).

Your reference to octaves also struck a chord (relevant jest!). Indeed Christian Corda is currently considering a paper rejected by mainstream focussing on just that, but ref em waves, harmonics and diffraction, related to my discrete field model (DFM).

I do hope you can read my essay (2020 vision means neither of our theories will probably be recognised before 2020!). http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803 It takes high conceptual visualisation skills to see the simple solution to resolving the paradoxes of relativity. Our brains are just not developed enough to readily handle the number of dynamic variables required. I suspect you may see it (present rate about 1 in 5), but you'd need to read it slowly not skim it. I hope you like it I need all the high scores I can get! Do ask any questions.

Very best of luck, with the essay and your future research.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Brian Warburton wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 11:41 GMT
Michael's essay is a very good synthesis of ideas from many different fields.

Science sometimes gets into a 'cul de sac' e.g. lack of recent progress in theoretical physics and the way forward is to utilise such a synthesis.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Michael Thomas Deans wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 12:28 GMT
Dear Brian,

Thanks for your kind comment. Would anyone reading this be able to assist me in creating animated graphics to bring my ideas to a wider audience? Then please email me at michaeltdeans@gmail.com.

Michael

Bookmark and Share



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.