Hello, Cy, OMF II - Part 2

First topic message reminder :

And for the insane, or other wise, we present:

Schroedinger's Cat is not Alone

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1004.4206v4

Beatriz Gato, Beatriz Gato-Rivera
(Submitted on 23 Apr 2010 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2011 (this version, v4))
We introduce the `Complete Wave Function' and deduce that all living beings, not just Schroedinger's cat, are actually described by a superposition of `alive' and `dead' quantum states; otherwise they would never die. Therefore this proposal provides a quantum mechanical explanation to the world-wide observation that we all pass away. Next we consider the Measurement problem in the framework of M-theory. For this purpose, together with Schroedinger's cat we also place inside the box Rasputin's cat, which is unaffected by poison. We analyse the system identifying its excitations (catons and catinos) and we discuss its evolution: either to a classical fight or to a quantum entanglement. We also propose the BSVΨ scenario, which implements the Complete Wave Function as well as the Big Bang and the String Landscape in a very (super)natural way. Then we test the gravitational decoherence of the entangled system applying an experimental setting due to Galileo. We also discuss the Information Loss paradox. For this purpose we consider a massless black cat falling inside a massive black hole. After that we outline a method to compute the contribution of black cats to the dark matter of the universe. Finally, in the spirit of Schroedinger, we propose that next generation double-slit experiments should use cats as projectiles. Cat interferometry will inevitably lead to the `Many Cats' interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, allowing to shed new light on old mysteries and paradoxes. For example, according to this interpretation, conservative estimates show that decision making of a single domestic cat will create about 550 billion whole universes every day, with as many replicas of itself.

Jake Reason wrote:

GSB/SSR wrote:Good to know they vet their sources over there ...

TEHRAN (FNA)- Former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden revealed documents providing incontrovertible proof that an alien/extraterrestrial intelligence agenda is driving US domestic and international policy, and has been doing so since at least 1945, some media reports said.

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921021000393

Iran reports U.S. run by secret extraterrestrial alien agenda

http://www.starpod.us/2014/01/14/iran-reports-u-s-run-by-secret-extraterrestrial-alien-agenda/

Thanks Gary.

As we all know here, this is most unusual.

Content aside, Gary, are you confident the report of it being Published in Iran National News, is true?

What of the alleged "Federal Security Services (FSB) report", (again content aside) Gary, do you have confidence that it is an authentic report?

-------------------------------------------

The Hellyer report is true.  He was interviewed on RT News.  Cy brought it to our attention.  However I don't recall he mentioning FSB or Snowden in this interview.  



I personally think Hellyer is mistaken about a number of things.

But what of the Iranian News and FSB reports?


.

Jake Reason answered Gary wrote:GSB/SSR wrote:
There is ZERO supporting evidence behind this story. But that does not mean it is of no interest.

Michael Peck at Forbes points out:

>>>>>



Thanks Gary.

I am stumped to wonder why Forbes would have to speculate.  They have resources of the kind that could easily confirm. So too all the other colluding Media Companies which are publishing this story.

Interesting ploy. So many ways to read it.

No Forbes does not have to speculate.  He's well informed as a member of the liberty movement.

Remember I said earlier that the Liberty Movement does not focus on the Contact Paradigm, it's big concern is us.  It is not uninformed, it simply has the condition of our own house as a higher priority.  Even I do not discuss it in places like OathKeepers forum or any of the other LM forums.  The reason is that only a portion of the population is informed and including that part is considered muddying the water by those who know.  I don't agree but I respect the leadership so I keep Contact Paradigm out of areas I know as so dedicated to the restoration effort.

Forbes is informed but does not bring it into its focus because it would detract from the real priorities he has.  And it would affect his credibility creating a storm he would have to wade through to get things done.  He's not interested in hip wading.  That's a recreational activity he won't engage in until the chores have been accomplished.

So if the dialog seems a little weird well its more of the pink elephant under grandma's skirt thang.  Everyone who is anyone knows its there.  But there's bigger fish to fry in the kitchen.

Shrug.

Maybe the Iranians have finished Charles Hall's books or this:  http://www.alien-ufos.com/ufo-alien-discussions/13081-%91project-preserve-destiny%92-truth.html

or A R Bordon's stuff like The Link or any of the associated research they've been doing to try to confirm the stuff they've been learning in Paradigm?

or the scuffling between the globals and the naval assets which is lengthening the purge lists and swelling the ranks of the Third Option'rs.

And the Israelis, well they have been having run in with the 12 footers that make Sasquatch look tame...so the American special access industrial complex corporations hosting the situational landscape with paradigm interactions with the different species produce a different perspective than their experience.  And information sharing is relative to position....hey there's that position thing again...themes run in sets usually.

Cy

Edit to add:

notes from the farside - http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921021000393

I imagine a certain cloud-riding friend is still quite perturbed over Farsnews quoting whatdoesitmean.com Sorcha Faal and taking an impartial look at it. I must thank him for getting to review the http://www.educatinghumanity.com/2014/01/Iranian-UFO-Disclosure-ET-Setting-US-Policy.html

material two days ago.

I did point out some interesting things about Sorcha Faal that struck me:

Cy via email 21 hours ago wrote:Something interesting?

Faal - means "of Eire-land" see the wikipedia entry for Lia Fail near
the bottom on Inis Fail or Inis Fal. It's a derivative spelling.

Sorcha is also a gaelic given name meaning bright. Again see
wikipedia and Eire's lists of given names.

I always found it interesting that everyone attributes a couple of Old
Irish names to Russian. I've never seen anyone mention it.

And it wouldn't be the first time a meddling or gregarious IC group
with their own views on things not necessarily congruent with what
most decent researchers out here know used a mediator or facilitator
to do their dirty work, whatever that might be...let him be the lone
nut who takes the fall if the public doesn't accept what they're
putting out.

Cy

So looking across the landscape the odd behavior tracks over to recent events in this last year where the nukes out of TX nearly became a tragedy in South Carolina and the guys who prevented it paid with their careers and possibly reputation?

see quotes from my email:

Cy says: Yes, it would be nice if he was just a bit off, but I don't think so. Particularly on the nk info. I found the comment on the Santilli show highly interesting that Garrow thinks Zero will have to sit down and
straighten up because 2 of the glassmakers are in patriot hands now
after the attempt Zero's people made at taking the nation down to its
knees with the whole set. I never did hear precisely how many left
the TX location...only that the three heroes in the mil got a hold of
the one bound for the bay and dumped it 500-600 mi off the coast in
the deepest water they could find where it could go off without
catastrophe

Friend replies: Cy I am confident that is why the Admiral and Vice Admiral were let go. Also, there were several lower ranking participants that have either been transferred to other duties and threatened or discharged! We have a very serious coup going on but it is being masqueraded as legitimate !

ref. my post of today on my blog UnCommon Thoughts on Common Things which copies the list of the purged whether legitimate firings or political.

And if I do recall Jake did remark wondering recently just who's side Ron is actually on considering the guy he enabled to climb into office by getting his predecessor to step down comes from what was a post-war nazi stronghold from the group of nazis involved in the Sirius technology exchange and tesla tech development in propulsion courtesy of the Jesuits who helped them make the relocation. A legit question?

So now not only is there a high percentage of and a few peculiar names we might recognize in the US Navy and names from the Army a few of which have also been related to areas of the paradigm too are being purged along side those who control the nukes. And low and behold so are brass in the Vatican being purged at the same time...news out just today. Forgive me I don't have the link handy as I write this....

Awful lot O' purgin going on. Eyebrows raised?

So what happens next guys when Zero gets his hands without opposition on the glassmakers?

And ET?

And just a hair more:


Treason Exposed! Obama Used Benghazi Attack to Cover Up Arms Shipments to Muslim Brotherhood

• Added by Ralph E WallSrAdmin on January 14, 2014
  
  

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/video/treason-exposed-obama-used-benghazi-attack-to-cover-up-arms-1?id=4301673%3AVideo%3A2309902&page=2
-- 

Read what others think
Google--> treason exposed benghazi cover up brotherhood


For the rest of the story
enter any line into your favorite search engine

BENGHAZI BIGGEST COVER-UP 



benghazi night vision


armed jihadists SAMs


Benghazi dozens operatives


Ubben 20 hours



Benghazi eye witnesses


hicks testimony


general stand down


admiral relieved command


ambassador delivered weapons muslims


attorney general lied

meanwhile Buzzfeed reporting a Pentagon official as “I would love to put a bullet in his head,” wrt Snowden.  Lol, if those docs are real which is the latest rave discussion then I couldn't imagine why! (sarcasm, lol)

and 

"Writing for the Atlantic Council, a prominent think tank based in Washington DC, Harlan K. Ullman warns that an “extraordinary crisis” is needed to preserve the “new world order,” which is under threat of being derailed by non-state actors like Edward Snowden."  Paul Joseph Watson January 17,2014.

Is that an ouch?

Maybe whatdoesitmean.com Sorcha Faal is not so far off the mark as some might think?  At least tis tough to argue it with Hellyer kicking the ball back into the globals court on fire.

Cy

Think Tank: “Extraordinary Crisis” Needed to Preserve “New World Order”

Author of ‘shock and awe’ doctrine says elite threatened by non-state actors like Edward Snowden

Author:  Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 17, 2014

Writing for the Atlantic Council, a prominent think tank based in Washington DC, Harlan K. Ullman warns that an “extraordinary crisis” is needed to preserve the “new world order,” which is under threat of being derailed by non-state actors like Edward Snowden.

Image: Atlantic Council Meeting (Wikimedia Commons).

The Atlantic Council is considered to be a highly influential organization with close ties to major policy makers across the world. It’s headed up by Gen. Brent Scowcroft, former United States National Security Advisor under U.S. Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. Snowcroft has also advised President Barack Obama.

Harlan K. Ullman was the principal author of the “shock and awe” doctrine and is now Chairman of the Killowen Group which advises government leaders.

In an article entitled War on Terror Is not the Only Threat, Ullman asserts that, “tectonic changes are reshaping the international geostrategic system,” arguing that it’s not military superpowers like China but “non-state actors” like Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning and anonymous hackers who pose the biggest threat to the “365 year-old Westphalian system” because they are encouraging individuals to become self-empowered, eviscerating state control.

“Very few have taken note and fewer have acted on this realization,” notes Ullman, lamenting that “information revolution and instantaneous global communications” are thwarting the “new world order” announced by U.S. President George H.W. Bush more than two decades ago.

“Without an extraordinary crisis, little is likely to be done to reverse or limit the damage imposed by failed or failing governance,” writes Ullman, implying that only another 9/11-style cataclysm will enable the state to re-assert its dominance while “containing, reducing and eliminating the dangers posed by newly empowered non-state actors.”

Ullman concludes that the elimination of non-state actors and empowered individuals “must be done” in order to preserve the new world order. A summary of their material suggests that the Atlantic Council’s definition of a “new world order” is a global technocracy run by a fusion of big government and big business under which individuality is replaced by transhumanist singularity.

End Quote:  http://www.infowars.com/think-tank-extraordinary-crisis-needed-to-preserve-new-world-order/


***

Now about that global technocracy, a fusion of big government and big business (from among the top 50 said to be involved in the Contact Paradigm? or is it the OLD GUARD technocracy run by the depopulationist feudalists out of the illumined bunch?  Hmmm well going back to those purges....maybe it's the old illumined ones because why would they nix the new paradigm'ers if they were their own?

The new crew tend to be oathkeepers or simple technocrats who don't get involved in politics.  And generally speaking the new crew has always seemed comprised of individuals who were at least at one point in time friendly to communication and disclosure, and the idea that whether or not the general population can handle disclosure that in a Republic, it is their due to know...at least it was till the ufology crowd handed them their arses leaving them with a bad taste in their mouth.

Well that would explain the Old Guard's attempts at kyping glassmakers...and also shines a spotlight on who is who. Busted with words from the mouth of one of their own.

Cy

From: Dan Smith
Date: January 18, 2014, 2:26:59 PM EST
To: Princess Aliyah
Cc: John and Ron
Subject: Re: Spaghetti monster on LotP

Princess,

After a lengthy consultation, John has agreed to be prepared to participate on LotP, at the least, anytime after 5:30 EST on Tuesday. His participation will be focused on the ontology and sociology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster phenomenon. He prefers to use his pen-name.... Skaizlimit, or just Skai.

Dan


On Jan 18, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Dan Smith wrote:

Princess,

I vote to go ahead with our broadcast on Tuesday. If we cannot get any other 3rd party guests, on short notice, we can interview John and/or Ron (anonymously?) on their reactions to the SpaghMon.

Dan

We do love spaghetti here in the emerald isles! Guest speakers do join!

Paul Z and I also had a lengthy convo about holes and manifold substantivilism, stemming from his arguments with Jack about the objectivity of gravity in light of the equivalence principle (EP).   

According to Paul, Einstein and subsequent physicists have been hopelessly muddled about the objectivity of gravity, and also about all the other guage theories since, especially including the Standard Model.  Feynman, Wigner and Paul Z have been skeptical of the ontology of guage theories, despite their predictive precision.  The ontology of quarks is a case in point.  

The ether/Mach problem lurks behind this one.  Not to put too fine a point on it, but the beloved EP is false.

The mathematicians, Hilbert, Poincare, etc, understood Einstein's mathematical confusions, but they did not come up with an alternative to the guage theory that came out of Weyl's invention of it, as an 'explanation', in the context of the GTR.  

How does any of this relate to the SWH?  It does relate to the problem of objectivity in physics, which is best illustrated in the quantum observer problem.  The observer problem is also related to the hole problem, in that one has to introduce 'test' particles to make any sense of the hole physics, even in the classical case.




(cont.)

Dan, it seems you are wrong about Tegmark's point of view:

Not only do we lack evidence for the infinite, but we don't actually need the infinite to do physics: our best computer simulations, accurately describing everything from the formation of galaxies to tomorrow's weather to the masses of elementary particles, use only finite computer resources by treating everything as finite. So if we can do without infinity to figure out what happens next, surely nature can too – in a way that's more deep and elegant than the hacks we use for our computer simulations. Our challenge as physicists is to discover this elegant way and the infinity-free equations describing it – the true laws of physics. To start this search in earnest, we need to question infinity. I'm betting that we also need to let go of it.


Read Tegmark's essay at


 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org

GSB/SSR wrote:Dan, it seems you are wrong about Tegmark's point of view:

Not only do we lack evidence for the infinite, but we don't actually need the infinite to do physics: our best computer simulations, accurately describing everything from the formation of galaxies to tomorrow's weather to the masses of elementary particles, use only finite computer resources by treating everything as finite. So if we can do without infinity to figure out what happens next, surely nature can too – in a way that's more deep and elegant than the hacks we use for our computer simulations. Our challenge as physicists is to discover this elegant way and the infinity-free equations describing it – the true laws of physics. To start this search in earnest, we need to question infinity. I'm betting that we also need to let go of it.


Read Tegmark's essay at


 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org

Yes, Gary. It's kind of like physics explaining this:



If the cards knew they could flip when they felt threatened, or wanted to play trickster, flipping would be a 'natural' reaction. No?

Wild Cards, the beauty of MaJic. WYSINWYG.

Creation is finite; otherwise it would not be creation. Corollary: How do you get to infinity from here?

Gary,

Thanks for the update on Max T.

It would be a challenge to try to paint a coherent picture of his various beliefs. He is soft on AI, not being totally sold on Transhumanism. But he does belive that we are on the threshold of colonizing the universe, and that very few civilizations have made it this far. Thus he avoids the Fermi Paradox.

I have tried to find the basis for his argument against infinity, unsuccessfully. It certainly does not fit with his very robust take on the Multiverse, of which, of course, he is the prime proponent.

Until you can find the coherence, Gary, I am inclined to suppose that Max is grasping at straws.



(cont.)

Anything on this playlist of note, stemming from the above video?

https://www.youtube.com/user/amazingparlorticks?feature=watch

Shrugs  

Probably makes no sense.

From: Ronald
Date: January 20, 2014, 6:48:11 PM EST
To: Dan Smith
Subject: Please post the short news regarding Princess shooting demonstration

From: Foot Mann
Date: January 20, 2014, 6:29:59 PM EST
To: ........
Subject: Princess Achieves Outstanding Marksmanship with Assault Rifle

Dear Brothers, Sisters, and Friends of the Princess,

Always ready for warfare, the Princess has a new weapon in her arsenal, a Devil Dog Arms assault rifle.  At the NRA Headquarters, instructors and safety officers gathered as the Princess stepped up to the range and began assembling her rifle.  Then she loaded the big magazines with Russian Special forces ammunition -- Wolf Gold.  Finally she stepped up to to the firing line. NRA instructors gathered along the line. Public observers gathered behind the heavy glass partitions, all hoping to see the Princess demonstrate this new weapon.

With the calm hand and eye of 5,000 years of breeding perfection, the Princess began firing.  A target 30 meters away, but in her mind a poacher stalking the African Bush in search of an endangered rhino.  With each shot she could imagine a rhino saved from a painful death. and a trophy on the ground to warn other potential poachers of a new threat.

Soon the Princess will be back in Africa with a new fleet of Drones optimized for locating poachers. And somewhere in the Bush the Princess will be waiting.  

Footman

What time is the show tomorrow?
Do you have a link yet?

https://openmindsforum.forumotion.com/t124p90-musings-of-randomness#4875

Music for the cruise.

Does Jack write Prose in Trig?

Ron went ahead and posted the Princess' interview with me that was on the LotP show last month, 'Maniac or Messiah'...... https://youtu.be/IHJ6BmJk188 .  Pman also posted the interview, the link was given on a previous page, and it requires a sign-in.  

It is snowing back here, so the LotP show on WolfSpirit, scheduled for 5pm EST this afternoon, may be postponed.  


Bard,

I do thank you for your musical suggestions, and, hopefully, we will be able to use them on the boat or on the radio.  

Where is Waldo......?  Perhaps I should ask.... who is Waldo?  


Yesterday I had lengthy conversations Paul Z and Skai.  I will attempt to summarize......


Paul and I are looking at the intersubjectivity of physics.  

Skai and I are looking at the various religious perspectives on eschatology and soteriology.  He is well versed in both the Protestant and Catholic perspectives, having been raised a Baptist before becoming a Catholic.  


Intersubjectivity of physics.........

This started with Paul's interest in the 'aether' problem in physiscs..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether .  

The point of the aether is that it provides a conceptual bridge between physics and metaphysics..... it is neither here nor there, yet is physical consequences may be profound.  It is potentially a wedge issue, shall we say, although philosophers still see it mainly in its historical context.  

Lately, though, we have been discussing a related issue, the conceptual problems with gauge theory.  Only now are these problems coming to light, and only amongst physicists.  It was his inability to interest his physics collegues in this issue that led Paul to leave Oxford, at about the same time I left Univ of Md, in 1977.  

The guage problem is, superficially, a technical one, but Paul is pointing me to its deeper significance......

Steven Hawking has characterized the more general problem with the following question...... what is it that breathes fire into the equations of physics?  This neatly reverses Wigner's observation concerning the 'unreasoable effectiveness of mathematics'.

Nowhere has mathematics more thoroughly taken over physics than within the purview of gauge theory, and this started with Herman Weyl's 'gauging' of Einstein's GTR, which approach has led directly to the famous Standard Model of particle physics and, now, the God particle.  

Gauging, however, is hardly more than a mathematical trick, with virtually no physical motivation, beyond the significant fact that it gives the right answers, and often with incredible precision.  

My latest conversation with Paul came at the end of a lengthy three-way exchange between himself, Jack S. and Jim Woodward..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_F._Woodward .  Jim continues his experiments with the Mach/Woodward effect, which he belives is responsible for UFO propulsion.  It is a gravito-magnetic effect that also appeals to Mach's principle.  

Both Paul and Jack are skeptical of Jim's theory and the experimental results, however, the gauge question figured prominently in those discussions.  

The nature of Einstein's Equivalence Principle is a major part of Jim's speculative theory on the source of inertia, and how to counteract it.  Paul is a student of the many versions of the EP and the controversies surrounding them.  This is mainly what he and Jack have been discussing for the past several years, well before I got to know Paul, through Jack.  They both reside in North Beach.  

The commonly cited, simplest version of the EP is a freely falling body experiences no gravitational field.  Allegedly this is due to the fact that gavitation may be expressed purely in terms of the Reimannian geometry of spacetime.  Similar geometric/algebraic constructs now lie at the heart of all the rest of physics.  These constructs are what comprise Gauge Theory.  


5:15-------

Jack, along with the rest of the physics community, is a positivist about physical theories.  As long as they make the right predictions, don't worry about their foundations.  

But then there are those of us who are more inclined to think deep thoughts, like how did we get here, for instance, if not just by accident.  

Then we discussed Leibniz' Identity of Indiscenibles (PII), which has to do with the nature of spacetime.  Newton was an absolutist about space, whereas Leibniz was a relationalist.

The BPWH/SWH is biased toward Leibniz' view, which favors an intersubjective ontology.  What sayest the aether and gauge theories?  

On the one hand, the aether, certainly in the pre-relativity days, seems to objectifiy space, albeit in a non-material or quasi-material way.  And is mathematics not an intersubjective construct, a construct which then carries over into gauge theroy?  

But there is a more subtle issue that Paul is pointing to. I believe that it has to do with the mental substrate, and that this comes back to Leibniz' PII, and the identity of the abstract points that make up the spacetime manifold. How do mathematical points differ from the Leinizian monads?




(cont.)

Continuing with Paul and the aether issues.......

The point that Paul is making, contra the physics establishment, is that most forms of the equivalence principle (EP) are incorrect..... you cannot nullify the gravitational field by means of a mathematical transformation, or by any other means.  IOW, Einstein's elevator has windows.  It is not a monad.  Is this not a strike against Leibniz?  

For the record, let me state the technical issues involved.....

Essentially, the Einstein covariant curvature tensor may be decomposed into its matter-field and free-field components, the Ricci and Weyl tensors, respectively.  Unfortunately, the combination of these two components cannot be uniquely defined wrt their mutual boundaries, e.g. on the Earth's surface.  This non-uniqueness is related to the hole problem of GTR.  

So then we introduce the Levi-Civita Connection (LCC), q.v.......

TBMR, Paul is saying that the non-vanishing of the LCC, it being a first order derivative in the fields, disproves the EP, and thereby provides a 'window' for Einstein's elevator.  But how this might relate to the hole/boundary problem presently escapes me.  

The LCC is well understood within the physics community, so it's not clear why this violation of the EP is not more widely noted.

Be it further noted that the LCC, in being uniquely defined throughout a given Reimannian manifold, and in providing a basis on which parallel transport may be properly defined, does, itself, provide a mathematical handle on the 'physical' aspect of the gravitational field, which, by definition of 'physical', cannot be made to vanish, even locally, as in an 'elevator'.  

Does the LCC, then, provide us with an argument against the positivism of the EP?  

And how is positivism not actually an aid to, or a step toward, idealism?  How does positivism differ from phenomenology, say?  Is it not a form of solipsism?  

Ah, yes, and here is, yet, another point that we discussed.......

At one time, Einstein stated, in effect, that the GTR proved Leibniz' relationalist view of space, over Newton's absolutist view.  However, this was before the discovery of (matter-) free-field solutions of the Einstein equations.  

Do these solutions bring us back to Newton's 'containerized' view of space?


11am-------

So, it is clear that the metaphysical conditions remain foggy, or are becoming increasingly so.  This, in itself, could be a sign of the times, or, as the Germans like to say, ze zeitgeist.  Postmodernists may revel.

There were, in the conversation with Paul, various metaphysical cross-currents being encountered.  And what about the aether vis-a-vis gauge theory......?

Allow me to interject my own observation wrt 'physical' fields.....

Physical fields... electric, gravitational, etc. are best defined in terms of their corresponding 'potentials', which, in the electric case, is simply the voltage.  

Now, the (static) electric field is defined in terms of its scalar voltage potential.  But the Lorenz invariant (dynamic) E&M field is defined by its four-vector potential, A.  Two biggies on the metaphysical side of physics are David Bohm and Yakir Aharanov.  Together, they give us the Aharanov-Bohm effect..... to the effect that an electron may be effected by a magnetic field, despite the fact that said field and said electron have no direct, i.e. physical(?), interaction.  

But is this not like Newton's problem with Gravitation?  How could gravity be subsumed within a mechanistic worldview, when, clearly, it countenanced a 'spooky' action-at-a-distance?  I.e. gravity, wrt the 18th century sensibility, was acting telepathically.  

Us modern-minded folk, however, now, rather blithely, think in terms of force-fields, and pay no mind to such telepathic spooks, unless it is grandma going bump in the night!  


My (chicken) little piece of advice...... beware the mind-field!  

Let's start with this..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov–Bohm_effect#Significance .
--------------

BTW, yesterday, Cy wrote and emailed an excellent piece on Thomas Jefferson.  If it hasn't already been posted elsewhere, on OM, I would like to post it here.
--------------

noon--------

The Aharonov–Bohm effect is important conceptually because it bears on three issues apparent in the recasting of (Maxwell's) classical electromagnetic theory as a gauge theory, which before the advent of quantum mechanics could be argued to be a mathematical reformulation with no physical consequences. The Aharonov–Bohm thought experiments and their experimental realization imply that the issues were not just philosophical.

Hmmm.........



(cont.)

dan wrote:Gary,

Thanks for the update on Max T.  

It would be a challenge to try to paint a coherent picture of his various beliefs.  He is soft on AI, not being totally sold on Transhumanism.  But he does belive that we are on the threshold of colonizing the universe, and that very few civilizations have made it this far.  Thus he avoids the Fermi Paradox.  

I have tried to find the basis for his argument against infinity, unsuccessfully.  It certainly does not fit with his very robust take on the Multiverse, of which, of course, he is the prime proponent.  

Until you can find the coherence, Gary, I am inclined to suppose that Max is grasping at straws.  



(cont.)

Dan,

What you need to understand is even in a mutiverse there is one and only one universe FAP (for all practical purposes).

Thus, from our universal point of view, the other worlds appear as potential alternative futures or, in some cases, as possible alternative pasts. But more to the point: If you were to connect two universes with a time machine/wormhole, they would no longer be two different universes but simply new physical aspects of the same (emergent) universe. Indeed, this is also the problem of time for our universe in the Deutsch sense that other times are merely special cases of other parallel universes (in the quantum sense).

Tegmark's key point is, of course, that we are always only connected within a finite set of quantum to classical events that we identify as our universe.

One might then argue that a classical path (say, for example, the yellow brick road leading to the wizard of the best possible world) is an emergent phenomenon resulting from those special cases of other parallel worlds. Adding closed timelike curves (even for the most basic signal intelligence) merely adds to the potential best possibilities (growing the size of the finite set).

The key concept is we exist within a finite universe surrounding with infinite resources, but we only access a small sample of the resources. Some would, of course, seek to expand the available resources.

Gary,

All this could be true, contingently, but why do you and Max insist upon finitude, seemingly as a matter of principle?  

Mathematicians come in two flavors..... Platonist and constructivist, according to their belief or skepticism wrt infinity.  The vast majority are Platonists.

Why, then, do you and Max insist upon adhering to the constructivist view?

Inquiring minds wish to know.


4:15---------

Paul's main metaphysical point is that physics relies upon immaterial entities, such as the aether.  

A typical response would be..... what else is new, given the universal acceptance of the mathematical superstructure of every physical theory?

Gauge theory, and the resulting string theory, is simply rubbing more salt in that old wound.  

So what is Paul's point, we might wonder?  Something a bit more subtle?  

He pointed to the fact that gauge theory fails to provide even a conceptual grounding for the physics that allegedly results therefrom.  Force-fields seem robustly conceptual, by comparison.  

But why get our knickers in bunch over the lack of conceptuality in gauge theory?  

What, then, about quantum theory, for goodness sake?  Is it not notoriously counter-intuitive?  Well, yes and no......

In QT/QM we have the notorious observer-problem (OP).  The lack of intuition wrt the OP is relative to our modern, mechanistic, objectivist intuition (sic).  Clearly, intuition comprises a large cultural component.

Perhaps, another way to look at Paul's conundrum is from the PoV of gnosis...... where we take gnosis in its original, primordial sense.  Our pointers back to the ancient wisdom would then be the likes of Plato and Aristotle, e.g. QM may then be seen as a step back toward teleology.  Certainly this is the message that may taken away from Jakir's theory of weak measurements.  

What then do we make of gauge theory? May we not see GT is the necessary complexification of the mathematics as it passes over into teleology? I would surely like to be able to be more specific about this right of passage. That way lies the MoAPS.



(cont.)

At my request, I received a lengthy, detailed and mostly technical response from Paul concerning my attempt to summarize, over the last couple of days, our recent phone conversation.  I will now attempt to summarize his response, in layman's terms, where possible.  I will endeavor to point out Paul's corrections to my above statements, and to note any residual disagreements between us.......

Equivalence Principle (EP).......

There are two (related?) principles that are typically included under this label.....

1.)  The equivalence of the gravitational and inertial masses.  Experimenters continue to test this equality, now out to eleven decimals places.  See the Etvos experiment.  We did not discuss this particular form of equivalence.  I will refer to this as the 'static' version of the EP.  

Prior to our discussion, I had neglected to read the wiki entry on the EP.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle .

I will include some of that exposition, herein.  Also, I have just noticed another entry..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle_(geometric) .

I also recommend..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_gravitation_theory .

2.)  The simplest statement of the 'dynamical' EP is that free-fall = inertial motion.  IOW, the (Newtonian) gravitational 'force' is completely subsumed by the (Riemannian) geometry of spacetime.  

This, however, turns out to be an over-simplification, if, indeed, it is not simply false.

There are both physical and metaphysical objections to the 'EP'.  I will endeavor to sort them out, and focus on the latter.

What just occurred to me is the additional complication brought on by the 'confirmation' of the Higgs' theory. Where, in the Higgs' theory (HT) of mass, may one find the embedding of the EP. Surely, I'm not the first to wonder. Now we have Higgs = inertial = gravitational masses. I am hardly a student of Higgs, however, I did notice that the HT 'directly' explains only bosonic mass, for them that has any. Fermion masses present a whole other level of theorizing and calculation. So, we should now restate the EP.... HTBoson = HTFermi = inertial = gravitational masses, while keeping in mind that the God particle is strictly a gauge phenomenon.



(cont.)

Dan, I am surprised you do not yet appear to understand the problem Tegmark sees regarding infinity: Within the new information paradigm it is a matter of the available resources (we exist in a finite bubble universe with finite resources). This is why Jack is always citing Valentini, because he knows he does not have the necessary resources to support his far-out-there beyond-space-and-time ideas unless he can go outside of the quantum theory.

Btw, Jack sent this on to his list, a recent look at time machines, somewhat related to the above-mentioned resource problem:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4933.pdf

Dan, regarding EP:

http://www.stanford.edu/group/kasevich/cgi-bin/wordpress/?page_id=11

GSB/SSR wrote:Dan, I am surprised you do not yet appear to understand the problem Tegmark sees regarding infinity: Within the new information paradigm it is a matter of the available resources (we exist in a finite bubble universe with finite resources). This is why Jack is always citing Valentini, because he knows he does not have the necessary resources to support his far-out-there beyond-space-and-time ideas unless he can go outside of the quantum theory.

Btw, Jack sent this on to his list, a recent look at time machines, somewhat related to the above-mentioned resource problem:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.4933.pdf

Well, Gary, you and/or Max are saying two (three?) different things.....

1.)  Reality is quantitatively finite, as a matter of fact.

2.)  It's a shame that reality is finite, because then material progress must also be limited.  

3.)  Jack and I agree that physics must be trancended..... he in the technological sense, me in the metaphysical sense.

Have I got this much right?  


In the meantime, Jack sends the following link....... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129530.700-from-i-to-u-searching-for-the-quantum-master-bit.html?full=true#.UuFeRCw8KK1 ....

Now we have an entity that seems more befitting of the title: the omniscient, omnipresent and unseen "u-bit" (see "From i to u: Searching for the quantum master bit"). Some will pounce on the fact that science needs such an entity to explain the universe. But the existence of a u-bit would be no more profound than the existence of natural laws. Let's leave God out of it this time.

Hmmm.....

And I note that NS also has an article on the End of Infinity, but this is mostly about the problem of infinitesimals in physics.  See also the UV Catastrophe.  


3:40---------

Unfortunately, Wooters' original paper on the u-bit is available only for purchase.  

The wiki entry, previously referenced..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle_(geometric) apparently answers my question about the inertial/gravitational equivalence of the bosonic and femionic masses.  It seems that, in the geometric EP, deriving from gauge theory, the gravitational field is taken to be equivalent to a Higgs(-like?) gauge field, so the equivalence of the Higgs masses is built-into the theory.  This purely geometric theory derives from the 'strongest' version of the EP.


What Paul and I are striving for might be charaterized, in functional terms, as similar to what Wooters is attempting to do with his u-bit.......

As with gauge theory (GT), QM is also fundamentally based upon what seems to just be a mathematical trick.  Thus does the imaginary 'i' become the building block of QM.  Bill senses that this mathematical trick is hiding something that may be the basis of our physical reality.  This is what he calls the u-bit, which others are wont to think of as the God-bit, heaven forbid.  

Is GT also hiding something that is more universal and more metaphysical?  Something that, like the God-bit, smacks of a universal intersubjectivity?  


5pm-------

What is the teleological, intersubjective hook in GT? It is well hidden, more so than in the conventional quantum case.


BTW, I should point out that the SWH/CTC could be viewed as analogous to a universal perpetual motion machine (PMM), while still adhering to the finiteness (~10^4yr) of the CTC, from the PoV of us, its co-Creators. IOW, the CTC is eternal from the perspective of eternity, i.e. of the Creator.






(cont.)

Dan, Tegmark is consistent on the finite and the infinite, but does not accept the possibility of interaction with other worlds in the multiverse except, perhaps, in the sense Deutsch calls other time different special cases of parallel worlds. But my understanding is every bubble universe "out there" is also finite, even as they exist in a never ending but finite number of possible configurations.

This of course relies on inflation for those worlds Max calls level one. Max also argues if level one and level two (universes with different laws of physics) exist, then quantum many worlds are a no-brainer since they add nothing to the set of possible world configurations.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283

Dan, perhaps you (and the Princess) should promote a Best Possible World concert ...

There's a new product raising hopes of peace in the Middle East, it seems: South Korean pop music.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23606319

Dan, I think I've got all this science/metaphysics figured out now. I agree with you and Jack. Ok, that much I have down, but the details are ever new appearing and being discovered, which aspect I'm not involved in.

There is matter and energy: So, is there must also be theories that other things exist besides matter and energy. Jack, I'm guessing would be working on the matter and energy frontier; whereas, you would be working to discover possible new and possibly unrelated frontiers ??