S.R. Weber
SUPER-MODEL THEORY
Illustrated by my G15 PMN formalism
A summary of many recent thoughts and
conversations in Q&A form
CONTENTS OVERVIEW AS FOR THIS SCIENTIFIC BOOKLET
* General information
* Acknowledgements and a bit autobiography
* About proofreading
* INTRODUCTION
1. Why Einstein's View In One Sense Was Wholly Right
2. What's Wrong With Bohmian Mechanics
3. A First Hint Of Formalisation Of Super-model Theory
4. Beginnings Of Formalisation Of Particle
5. Beginnings Of Formalisation Of Movement
6. Double Slit Waves With Rotating Quantum Vectors
6.A. Classic Water Waves Through Double Slits
6.B. Rotating Vector of Super-model Mapping Double Slits
6.C. Quantum Process Of Particles Through Double Slits
7. Super-Model Coherence, Entanglement, Tunnelling and
first discussion of PMW
8. Special Relativity In Super-Model Theory: Or,
the Relativity of the Measurements of Speeds of Light--
a new nonlocal interpretation of the famous
Michelson-Morley experiment with the new concept of
nonlocally activated flashback light
9. General Relativity In Super-Model Theory: Or,
the Relativity of Duration--time dilation in fields of
acceleration and gravitation not needing riemannian
spacetime, but with the new concept of duration piloting
by super-models
10. The Non-Algorithmic PMN And Discussion Of Future
10.A. Principle of Movement towards Wholeness
10.B. Machines don't have intelligence: Goedel resume
10.C. Working with robotics without being reductionistic
10.D. Concepts of time in super-model theory, and views
on actual future
10.E. Summary of super-model theory and possible
relevance for biology and human living
=======>HINT<=======
If physics ain't your thing, start with chapter 10.
And if programming isn't your thing, don't say it is
difficult: it's just a question of familarity, and of
spending time with it--the G15 PMN programming language
is made to be easy to learn when you have a PC and play
around with it, even if it is looking a bit obscure
initially, with its two-letter codes and all such :-)
GENERAL INFORMATION ON THIS BOOKLET
Publishing history of this physics work: All up to first
part of chapter 6 published online 12. September 2016, &
the remaining chapters in forthcoming months, completed
15. December 2016, at yoga6d.org/super-model-theory and
with backup at yoga4d.org/super-model-theory.
THIS TEXT IS ALSO INCLUDED as part of the standard G15 PMN
module called "THE THIRD FOUNDATION" (TF).
Earlier form: The super-model theory was informally
first sketched in book by same author, ISBN 82-996977-0-0
from 2004 which is available online at yoga4d.org/a.htm.
(Stein von Reusch is an early pen name for S.R. Weber.)
The ripe version of super-model theory includes G15 PMN
formalism bridging an organic understanding with numerical
features of quantum and also general relativity physics.
The G15 PMN is available at: yoga6d.org/get_g15_pmn.
In 2017, this entire booklet is verbatim (possibly with
some grammatical improvements) included as part of a
larger art book entitled "The Beauty of Ballerinas:
awakening non-artificial intelligence", by S.R.Weber,
ISBN 978-82-996977-8-1 at National Library of Norway,
released at Avenuege exhibition at Handverkeren (hvk.no),
Oslo, together with paintings of dancers, May 5th, 2017;
publisher: Yoga4d:VRGM; print: Nilz & Otto///Kirsti Tveter
The plan is that a series of books will be produced that
has this booklet as a standard part of them.
For more info about books by S.R.Weber (Stein Reusch
Weber), pls consult yoga6d.org/books.
Contact information for author: norskesites.org/steinweber
Mainstream scientists who read this should first read
www.yoga6d.org/debroglie_vs_bohm
(That de Broglie work is important also to provide
motivation to read this unusual science that follows, for
those who thought that everything was well with science!)
And it would be of value to also spend time with G15 PMN;
pls see link to G15 tutorials at: www.norskesites.org/fic3
(including learning how to use the Third Foundation G15
PMN which is taken for granted in the formal part of these
discussions as here presented in this booklet.)
COPYRIGHT S.R. Weber and Yoga4d:VRGM, Oslo, Norway, 2016;
in respectful contexts, with no additions and no removals,
you are permitted to redistribute and reprint this booklet
as an UNBROKEN WHOLE, w/this notice & ISBN & website links
in the generous spirit of spreading good science to all.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND A BIT (TOO MUCH) AUTOBIOGRAPHY, ETC
The present text on physics and philosophy associated
with it is, I hope, like artworks can be, reflecting a
sense of the musical, or, as Jon-Roar Bjoerkvold would
say, the muse within, that which has rhythm of the living
type, not merely a mechanically repeated pace (Bjoerkvold,
author of The Muse Within, is referred to in chapter 10.)
Anything worth the while to study is, I think, a kind of
symphony of impulses, where all sorts of experiences can
provide glimpses of some light that become incorporated
into the work. What I call 'super-model theory' is, I
hope, also such a symphony and composition, a whole, where
really--to be honest--very many acknowledgements far
beyond the technical realm are called for. The resulting
work is, I find, also in science, always far more nuanced
than later quick summaries will have it. For instance,
many considers that Einstein led a sort of crusade against
the 'aether' theory. He didn't; he rather provided some
impulses which didn't, at least not at first, need that
concept. To show something of Einstein's rich mind, when
the time came for his General Relativity theory, he spoke
of the aether concept quite positively: Space has, indeed,
properties, he said, and in that sense, there is an
aether; and it is part of the General Relativity theory
to assert this. This was a different aether concept, but
all the same, it shows how theorizing is never identical
with a cut'n'dried summary of formalisms or the like.
So, my principal acknowledgements is to dialogues with
an excitingly large quantity of great-thinking people:
and the chief references to written stuff is trivial and
obvious and, unlike the dialogues, hardly worth
mentioning here. Internet also play a role, but often
also a role in spreading exaggerations: so I will say a
little in this paragraph about Internet as well.
Ackn.-list is extended in books containing this booklet.
A fairly rich and compherensive list of acknowledgements
is included in the 2004 book, whose raw text is always
available at the internet at yoga4d.org/a.htm. All
classical papers on physics are assumed background
references in this work, in addition to the works, in
toto, by David Bohm, Louis de Broglie, and the others
mentioned inside this text or inside the 2004 book.
Prior to the completion of chapters 8, 9 and 10 I had a
conversation with Henrik B. Tschudi about these themes in
a fruitful and inspiring way; this adds to a series of
conversations I have had about physics (rather since early
childhood)--with everyone in my big family (cfr list that
follows) & esp. my father Stein Braten, whose emphasis on
understanding also human immediate dialogic connectivity
in a nonreductionistic way has been as important as his
enthuasism for programming; with ballerinas including
the eminent Monica Herstad, with philosophers incl. Arne
Naess, with physicists incl. David Bohm, etc. In the broad
contexts of interviews in the Flux magazine Henrik and I
started (with Sonia de Zilwa as secretary--Sonia also
suggested the name "flux" which we eventually agreed upon)
and ran together in Oslo from 1992-1996, a number of
recorded and printed conversations took place. (I used
pen name S. Henning R. Braten etc.) The Arne Naess Flux
conversations that I initiated and Henrik took over (from
the point of the Joshua Tree, San Diego conversation
between Ann Kerwin and Arne) led to several books. The
conversation I arranged, aided by Nathalie R. Holland,
between Arne Naess and Odd Nerdrum, printed in Flux in
1996, was among a handful of conversations I had done with
Arne and which found their way into a thick book
containing many conversations between Henrik and Arne,
and edited by Henrik, as published at Erling Kagge's
superb publishing house, Kagge Forlag.
Scientists I interviewed during the socially intense
Flux period included Ilya Prigogine, Joseph Agassi
Roger Penrose (with Anna-Kathinka Evans), Holger-Bech
Nilsen (inside the veritable Bohr Institute in Copenhagen,
aided by Anette Krumhardt), Francisco Varela (in Paris),
and a good deal more, always with an eye to enhance
insights into an essentially nonmechanistic view of life,
mind and the universe.
Gradually, it became clear that in order to go deeper
into structuring own thoughts, I had to have a period
less determined by publishing pressures and that which was
becoming a very 'public' type of life. I also wanted to
develop skills in writing English, and my relative Johann
Reusch and Leah Garland, his girl-friend, invited me to
stay in New York, where I also brought my own dancer
girl-friend and a wonderfully creative, synchronistic
phase begun. The Learning Society group bringing me into
the Parliament also got support from the Norwegian
Research Council; this, with some additions from Flux and
from U.N.D.P. and with great support from a number of
friends allowed me to devote myself to the process of
explorative thinking and writing during, all in all, about
a year in New York's Manhattan district. Some of my
friends were versed in philosophy, some in various
aspects of physics and biology, some in art, some in
buddhism, some in ecological organisation thinking. Among
friends making this phase work out: Ray Strano, David M.
Schonberger, Chong Ming, Buffy Lundgren, Jennifer Garufi,
Turid Sato, William E. Smith, the twins Liliane and
Pauline Heyzer Fan; and worked for a while for the UNDP.
During this phase I also knew a lot of people just by
their first name, who played important roles for me.
Before, during and after the Flux period I acknowledge
also: Anette Krumhardt, Jens Hvass, Mette Husemoen,
C. Will Zhang, Aage Borg-Andersen, Steinar Brenden, Espen
Holm, Svein Myreng (also made the transcript of the talk
I gave at the Norwegian Parliament seminar in 1996 which
was later published in Flux magazine that year, a seminar
featuring also Borg-Andersen, Brenden and on initiative by
Per Lundteigen & author Espen Holm); Bente Mueller, Warren
and Ivan Brodey, Per Heimly, Johan Lem, Zdeneck Sopovsek,
Jairon G Cuesta, Raman Patek and many more. I am grateful
to Odd Grann both for giving me a reference enabling me
to work for a departement of the U.N. briefly in Mexico
through its N.Y.C., Manhattan offices, and later on also
in Odd's own branch of the U.N. organisation in Oslo;
Odd's knack of understanding organisation and of an
approach to society anchored in perspectives of personal
development has been of intense value to me; and thanks
also to his wife Vera and his family.
During the time I was running Flux, I had a number of
university contacts, but the chief principle, starting
with the first Flux magazines, was that institutionalized
knowledge isn't as good as free knowledge, which summed
itself up in a lecture I gave at the University in 1996,
entitled, "Why the University of Oslo should close down."
(Nevertheless, on occasion, I did in fact complete some
studies both before and after this period, but never
identified myself with the concept of a 'student' there.)
To the delight of Henrik and me, Arne Naess was
in agreement that, as he said in the first interview I
did with him in Einar Skjaeraasens vei, "Artists are
more important than professors." Flux, then, had the
subtitle, "Magazine for life, lust [lyst] and science";
it had a role in Norwegian cultural life in 1996 which was
recognised as both philosophically, culturally and
scientifically fairly strong; I then quit our new Flux
Foundation to pursue the development of physics, own
writing skills, programming and a wider form of social
life not determined by being an editor. To mark the
transition, the final issue I edited contained just one
photo--that of the dancer and ballerina Monica Emilie
Herstad, and it had a changed logo, the "fluX" word with
big "X" to indicate change (Flux#13, 1996). (I did the
layout of #3 up to the number #13, after which I quit it,
with assistance of the danish co-editors Jens Hvass and
Anette Krumhardt for some of the numbers; Siri Berrefjord
did #2 and Sonia did the first issue.) Henrik, I am very
glad to say, has managed to recreate Flux into a prolific
publishing house that is a strong voice for a
nonmechanistic vision of the human being and society, with
a number of both original titles and translations on its
quality publishing list, regularly conducting also
seminars, and is a force in Norway, cfr flux.no.
Thanks also to the publishing house Dreyer and the role
they had in promoting the best part of the philosophy of
the christian mystic seer Marcello Haugen.
To go on: I'm grateful to the support that Johannes
Hansteen and Ladislav Kobach, both professors of physics
at the University of Bergen, and professor Tordis Dalland
Evans, also at the University of Bergen (who also enabled
me to give talks at the University) gave me and my work at
the time Henrik and I sought to present also, in part,
some of David Bohm's take on quantum theory to a Norwegian
audience (not that these eminent professors necessarily
agreed with me, but they provided some backing when some
physicists were attacking anything 'bohmian'..); and I'm
grateful that my contact with David Bohm was extended even
into his last seasons, when he was ill. The latter is also
due to my friendship with Georg Wikman of Swedish Herbal
Institute--he, with Paavo Pylkaanen, Francis Frode Steen,
etc, have done work also on philosophy of the implicate
order concept of Bohm. And I'm grateful for a couple of
hours with Basil Hiley after Bohm's death talking over a
number of themes in a way that made me rethink many
aspects. A thanks here also to Sarah (Sarel) Bohm for many
good impulses, esp. after the Bohms (with P. Garret, D.
Factor & their wives) were in Oslo on the invitation by me
on behalf of Sven Bjoerk/Forum2000, Henrik B. Tschudi and
Nadia Maclaren; this happened after I had privately
visisted Bohm three times, 1986, 1987 and 1989, at his
office in Birkbeck College, where also Erik Damman
visited him (before writing his "Bak Tid og Rom"), besides
meeting him and Sarah at Birkbeck College once.
Acknowledgments for a variety of greatly important
impulses (briefly, or in depth, w/anglification of some
letters): Ari Behn, Bertrand Besigye, Truls Lie, Erling
Bonnevie Hjort, Ole Swang, Camilla Coucheron, Ane Graff,
Stine Dahl, Teddy Reyes, Therese Ellefsen, Margaret
and Leonard Hemsen w/all their family, Lars Monrad Waage,
Lene Oeyestad, Camilla Claussen, David Hauer, Isabel
Watson, Eva-Lotta Sandberg, Gry Dreyer, Trine-Line Boing,
Liv Flaate and all her family, Lene Torgersen, Noredin
Elazamoori, Gry Nyborg, Ulrikke and Geir Heivoll, Paal
Finstad, Pil Cappelen Smith, Andreas Cappelen, Thomas
Heggedal, Sandra de Zilwa, Angelisa Hanson, Andries Kroese
Per Espen Stoksnes, Ken Friedman, Joan Frost Urstad,
Marie Arneberg, Christopher Hansteen, Sverre Sjoeblom,
Ida Nathalie Kierulf, Nathalie Radina Holland, Anne Marit
Austboe and Christian A. Dahle, Julie Breines Oredam,
Heidi Devik Ekstroem, Live Slang, Per Stangeland, Tor
Bjerkman, Tiril Bryn, Per Pedersen, Roger Olsen, Benedicte
Hagland, Jostein Oddland, Ingar Roggen, Ingrid Solbjoerg,
Jens Heggemsnes, Oeystein Parmann, Stephan Granhaug,
Gro Fagerlund, Vera Kvaal, Elisabeth Harbitz, Hege
Brenden, Anniken Naess, Ingvild W Karlsen, Marie Alnaes,
Anne-Lise & Nils Ebbesen, Anne-Berit, Knut, Ellen & Kille
Toeyen, Monique & Torbjoern, Andreas Heldal-Lund, Knut
Roethe, Nina & Jann Bjoerne & family, Gridzel & Ernst-
Magne Johannesen & family, Kristin Aronsen, Anna
Oftebro Aronsen, Anders Dunker, Gerd, Gunn & Yilmaz Dagzi,
Sigurd Vangen, Peter Behncke, Henrik Sundt, Kristin Gjems,
Thor Endre Lexow, Thea Gundersen, Rune Amundsen and
his family, Lakshmi Chayapathi, Sophie Olsen, Sverre
Sjoeblom, Thomas d'arcy Shephard, Anne-Lise, Konrad, Nina,
Elisabeth & Helene Magnus, Jeanette Mortensen, Jon-Erik
Broendmoe, Cathrine Nygaard, Sverre Sjoeblom, Torunn
Ystaas, Fred Nordland, Helge Waahl, Kuja Bae, Laurie
Feinberg, Svein Svege, Berit Lie, Simen Myrberget, Mats
Nordheim, Sonia Wagn de Zilwa, Eline Ulfsen, Cathrine
Bryhn, Julie & Zaad Braglie Eckhardt and their children,
and Janken and Einar Sletsjoe, Marius Bragile, Lene
Braglie, Kirsten and Per Engelstad, Tore Hammerlund,
Mari Midtstigen, Erika Rieber-Mohn, and people I've met
also through their professional capacities, including:-
linguist Bjarte Kaldhol, nature doctor Andreas Bjoerndal,
stylist Anita Farstad, technical expert Petter Noklebye,
artist Siri Berrefjord, journalist Charlotte Bergloff,
editor Truls Lie, author Kari Bu, artist Cathrine Muyrin,
film makers Karine Huseby, Per Hauk and Simen Myrberget,
IT experts Kenneth Walls, Kolbjoern Braa, Espen Angermoe,
CEO Oeystein Moan, Kim Nergaard, artist Ferdinand Finne,
composer Arne Nordheim, shipping executive Leif Terje
Loeddesoel, rare books dealer Helge Roennevig Johnsen,
gallerist Ben Fria, artist Alexandar Rasulic, author
Robert Pirsig, butoh dancer Min Tanaka. Acknowledgements
to the many who have and who are attending my fairly
regular book releases, first in 1999 with the pen name
Henning W Reusch for the "Sex, Meditation and Physics."
My big family--I have already mentioned my father's
essential role--has been of value in various phases of
development of this complex work: mother Else R Braten,
sisters Kristin Elisabeth Braten and Marianne Braten
Cappelen, Joergen Cappelen, Katharina Naess, Johan Chr.
Naess, Christine Maria Naess, Jan Andreas Naess, Karin
Naess, Dag Henning & Aashild Braten, Jan-Reinhardt Naess,
Kathinka Cappelen, Joergen Cappelen Jr., Joachim Cappelen,
Randi and Thorleif Braten, Hedvig Johannesen Reusch.
Those who consult the tens of thousands of written
material freely available and as written by me which is at
the Internet--in my various sites and inside the various
forms of programming languages (& operating approaches)
due to me should find in them yet more acknowledgements to
people and to books. Many books have been as friends to
me; and also old articles about physics in the voluminous
university libraries. But above and beyond the written
material are, as said, conversations with thinkers and
the many angels-in-human-form that I have had, and have,
the fortune to know, and who have given also my physics
work muselike impulses. As art and thinking goes together
the contact with the artist Frans Widerberg, first during
a Flux interview, then in the years before and after year
2000, has been instrumental in creating (as Henrik would
put it) 'more movement into the thinking'. In particular,
Widerberg shares with Jiddu Krishnamurti, the thinker, the
healthy distaste for giving references when direct talk is
possible (except, of course, when references are in due
order in order to show origins). Also gratefulness to the
wife of Frans, Aasa, and to the rest of their family.
Then let's talk about Internet and its various effects:
I find that Wikipedia comes up at present when one
searches about most themes, in most search engines, when
the theme touches on anything with knowledge. Sometimes,
without looking for it, I see the most severe mistakes
there: at other times, I'm surprised about its in-depth
and reader-friendly coverage; and though I totally
disagree in most of their pompous declarations about
physics there, I have to concede that they are also
reaching out and charming somebody like me when they
provide a reference to my excerpts of de Broglie works,
at the yoga4d.org page, from the main page of Louis de
Broglie. I mean to say--I put it in there myself, so I
wasn't surprised that it was there; the charming bit was
that it kept on and on being there; also, the addition I
did to the page on L.E.J. Brouwer, including a quote of
his, was left untouched. I still don't like the overall
tone of what is said either on the de Broglie page nor on
the Brouwer page, but it could be much worse, after all.
What is most rewarding, in addition to the best bits of
Wikipedia, are reprints of whole articles or even books
provided generously by the author on their websites; and
so I have been able to quickly remind myself of stuff I
haven't read for a while.
But at the same time, it's fairly clear that a lot of
people--especially in that which is called 'forums'--are
showing off with healthy bits of arrogance to cover up
the shallow thinking they've done at home about these
things. One gets the feeling, at some of the forums
devoted to physics, that the universe is one big
calculator, and it is THEIR calculator, and they are
calculating over it, with ease and perfection: which is,
since most of what is said by these folks is at best
justified by the fact that it is implications of theories
pushed to ends they have never been measured at, rather a
disgusting thing; and it is to be hoped that many people
do find the arrogance on behalf of reductionistic,
math-oriented, machine-oriented, so-called physics on the
Internet as repelling as it really is. People who have--as
it seems--never read Einstein's texts in any depth make
fancy, colored cartoon-like presentations of physics in
which they propagandize such notions that for Einstein,
it was always "math first!". By this they try to say that
Einstein was ahead of some measurements, which gave some
confirming instances of his theory (thanks to Arne Naess
for that type of statement, which again he derived, I
suppose from Rudolf Carnap and others). But to Einstein,
it was MIND first, and formalism SECOND, and empirics only
third. This is just a touch of all the hastily put
together phrases that float around in great masses on the
Internet: when that is said, I wish also to acknoledge
the good of the potential compassionate anarchy in these
forms of technology, and what it has opened up of
increased personal and less institutionalized publishing
possibility.
My own extensive use of the Internet and the production
of a range of websites has been significant in my personal
work, and highly practical for a range of purposes,
including having a proper background to write this new
'having-come-of-age' form of super-model theory, and this
requires good dialogue with a web domain and hotel company
of superb quality, and by its leader Jon Eivind Malde the
Norwegian ProIsp A/S has had and has this role for me.
Many more acknowledgements come to mind--list continues:
A meeting with Rupert Sheldrake prior to his publication
of his "Seven experiments that could change the world" and
with Erwin Laszlo, in Paris (with A.K. Evans); and with a
number of thinkers at a seminar on reductionism in
Cambridge (arranged in much the same spirit as Scientific
& Medical Network chaired by David Lorimer) gave great
impulses; as did talks there with Nicholas Hagger, some
of which finding their way into his book "The Universe
and the Light", with a reference to Henrik and me.
During the aforementioned seminar, I had brief but
inspiring encounters with thinkers including Margaret
Boden, Patricia Churchland, Brian Josephson (who got the
Nobel prize also for the invention of the Josephson
Junction, and one of those who have explored quantum
theory as a pathway into new worldviews), and many
others; and later on, I had interesting conversations
over the nature of the human brain with Norwegian brain
scientist Per Andersen--also over the proposals by
Penrose and Hameroff, proposals also discussed at that
seminar at Jesus College, where Penrose was one of the
lecturers.
For a recent summary of what may become parts of the
future Quantum Biology field, I can recommend the book
"Life on the Edge--the coming of age of quantum biology"
by Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili. Apart from what it
says about quantum computers--which isn't any necessary
part of it--it lays out important developments in how the
original cut between subatomic and macroscopic/biological
is now beginning to be sewn together. There are good
reference articles on the subject in the mainstream
magazine Nature if one wishes to know what mainstream
biology makes of it all, at present, which should be read
together with the book; easily found on the Internet.
Books also of importance: "Speakable and Unspeakable in
Quantum Theory", by J.S. Bell, and his collection of
classical papers in physics; metaphors over the various
interpretations of quantum physics in the book "Quantum
Reality" by Nick Herbert; and the thoughtfulness over
time and timelessness in the philosophical fairy tale
by Michael Ende entitled "Momo"; a book which could be
read together with the ancient aphorisms of Lao-Tse in
the Chinese tradition, on the Dao or Tao.
As background for a study of super-model theory, I
would also advice some personal experimentation with the
type of geometry people from all walks of life have been
doing with the Fibonacci series relative to the golden
ratio, as long as this is read in the spirit of an open
impulse (for there is much pointless dogma written about
the golden ratio). When one begins to look for the golden
ratio and other features such as inspired by the theory of
fractals in beauty photos and also ballet studies and art
in general, one will gain in insight and appreciate how
tremendous (and nonreductionistic) the field of esthetics
really is. It is to be hoped that super-model theory
contributes to depth in this exploration, without closing
any of it it in.
As for my explorations of Kurt Goedel's incompleteness
theorems, I am grateful to Dagfinn Follesdal, Herman Ruge-
Jervell and Aage Aanderaa. Super-model theory ties in
with forming a programming language inspired also by
features of quantum theory, and I am grateful for talks
with Kristen Nygaard in Oslo around year 2000, and on some
occasions earlier on. (Nygaard, who authored, with
Ole Johan-Dahl, the first object/class/inheritance type
of language, collaborated with my father when my father
made the first social simulation model of voting,
influencing the shaping of the final form of the Simula
language, when it was called Simula-67.) I'm grateful also
to Kari Dybwad for teaching me programming at school, and
to Roman Bieler, Helge Jensen, Kjell Bugge and some more
people around them for creating the Datashop environment
where Bieler in particular gave me a passion for thinking
in terms of making general languages before doing concrete
things. Conversations over philosophy at Brockwood Park,
when I worked there for a week or two were very valuable,
also with Radha Burnier (and later with Mrs Burnier in
Oslo); also contact with Kit-Fai and Arne Naess and his
family including Tore Naess has been of priceless
importance.
Now, I am sometimes using strong words about how some
people talk about physics--but, I hope, this will not
create a barrier from listening to the content. As Therese
Ellefsen (one of the angels-in-human-form I talked about)
once said to me, "What you need is a flower that is
protected by an iron glove." There's a flower in here, but
there's a need to open up a pathway for attention to it;
for if one lets oneself by hypnotised even for a moment by
the typical thinking in the physics communities, one is on
a path that leads to just a re-iteration of the past old
ideas no matter how incoherent they are when seen
together, just because they are pumped up by the fancy
equations that some people handle so masterfully. There's
a lot of content in the following work, which is justfied,
whether you like formalisms or not, by the fact that it
brings a great number of different fields of life into one
thinking process where there's openness but, I think, a
sense of harmony throughout.
Oh yes, for those who wish an introduction to some
features of quantum physics--but with a very scanty
treatment of nonlocality, and few attempts to separate
between what is a numerical technique and what corresponds
to reality--check out the rather non-mathematical but
somewhat 'algorithmical' book QED by Richard Feynmann.
Though one can discuss how right some of the examples are,
they will provide many examples of how one might use the
pathfinder numbers in the G15 PMN formalisms that are here
briefly introduced in some of the chapters. (The PF or
pathfinder numbers are much like Feynmann's rotating
'clocks' that are added to one another in 'sum over
possible paths', and which make it redundant to bring in
a specific wave equation or another heavy mathematical
object like that.)
I have to conclude this entirely disorganised series of
names, so it will be finished at all--but I am aware that
it is incomplete; more names will appear in my mind later,
and corrections of name spellings, etc--apologise, then,
for all incompletenesses about this list.
CONTENTS THAT FOLLOW
* About proofreading
* INTRODUCTION
1. Why Einstein's View In One Sense Was Wholly Right
2. What's Wrong With Bohmian Mechanics
3. A First Hint Of Formalisation Of Super-model Theory
4. Beginnings Of Formalisation Of Particle
5. Beginnings Of Formalisation Of Movement
6. Double Slit Waves With Rotating Quantum Vectors
6.A. Classic Water Waves Through Double Slits
6.B. Rotating Vector of Super-model Mapping Double Slits
6.C. Quantum Process Of Particles Through Double Slits
7. Super-Model Coherence, Entanglement, Tunnelling and
first discussion of PMW
8. Special Relativity In Super-Model Theory: Or,
the Relativity of the Measurements of Speeds of Light--
a new nonlocal interpretation of the famous
Michelson-Morley experiment with the new concept of
nonlocally activated flashback light
9. General Relativity In Super-Model Theory: Or,
the Relativity of Duration--time dilation in fields of
acceleration and gravitation not needing riemannian
spacetime, but with the new concept of duration piloting
by super-models
10. The Non-Algorithmic PMN And Discussion Of Future
10.A. Principle of Movement towards Wholeness
10.B. Machines don't have intelligence: Goedel resume
10.C. Working with robotics without being reductionistic
10.D. Concepts of time in super-model theory, and views
on actual future
10.E. Summary of super-model theory and possible
relevance for biology and human living
ABOUT PROOFREADING, PECULIAR SPELLINGS, AND FORMALISMS
Proof-reading has been done on the normal principle
applied by S.R. Weber: when meaning comes through, and the
flow of language is for the large part good enough, then
spelling and grammatical issues are tolerated just as,
when one is painting, a painting shouldn't be entirely
'photo-perfect'; its peculiar features are part of its
life. I will go further, and say that if you find that the
language is cluttered, then try reading it another day,
with another frame of mind. When you read it fast enough
in the right attitude and having a sense of perspectives
that fit it, it has fluency enough. This fluency is then
something one must work to get hold of; to proofread a
nonfiction text may do something to the semanics that is
quite unintended, as long as the chief things have been
hammered away. And in this text, the chief errors have
indeed been chiseled away. As for formalisms, of course,
the PC has helped doing the proofreading by compiling them
and displaying the results and letting you interact with
the models. So there you find the crystallized rather
errorfree syntax, a treasure of order.
A handful of words are spelled in a way that isn't
canonical. In particular, "quantum tunnelling" (two ll's)
seems to this bigoted author to be way this has to be
written. A tunnel, after all, has to have some space in
it. By having two ll's there, like in parallel, we get a
sense of tunnel by looking the word. In addition, there's
something to be said for the UK/US difference in syntax.
For those who wish to go into the formal content here:
The programs or formalisms in this series of chapters
outlines the super-model theory, which bridges an
understanding of the whole range of phenomena covered,
broadly, by both quantum and general relativity physics,
(and in a way that can be coherently visualized) are all
tested programs. They perform well in my own programming
language, G15 PMN. All the relevant formalism is included
with the G15 PMN app called TF, app# 3,333,333, and
available at norskesites.org/fic3/fic3inf3.htm. The
formalism included within this app should be consulted in
case any spelling issue has arisen as regards what is in
this booklet--run the programs there. And in case that the
comments here are not clear enough, there's always other
sources from same author on the super-model theory, also
as online articles on the net; and there's in addition
the documentation for the G15 PMN language and its
modules to be consulted to clear up any question.
The distinction between the text as included as part of
the TF app and the text when in paper format, or an online
format related to the paper format, is as follows: similar
illustrations in the paper format are meant to be
GENERATED by the reader when it is read within the TF, by
following the simple instructions connected to each
formal example. The G15 PMN programming language will then
produce a live version of the graphics that is represented
on paper. Sometimes the live version conveys very much
more information than that seen on paper.
If you are new to programming, please don't waste time
staring at the letters in the code--that's all trivial and
explained in the programming manuals for G15 PMN. Rather,
when you have time, START UP THE PROGRAMS. That leads to
experiences and insights instantly into what we are
talking about here. And then, to learn to extend the
super-model theory yourself, start changing these bits of
code; learn programming by changing existing programs.
The G15 PMN is the most human-thought friendly
programming language in existence, is my own opinion--and
if another language of this sort had already existed, I
would gladly have used that one instead of having to put
this one together over many years.
INTRODUCTION
I've had the great privilege of, during the years, meeting
quite a few physicists. I have always regarded a person
who has a full-fledged classical mainstream physics
education as someone bestowed with a kind of halo.
However--now that that is said, and now all nerves are
calmed, and I have proven that I'm not prejudiced--I have
to say that, with the exception of some of them--such as
Basil Hiley, Ilya Prigogine, Roger Penrose, David Bohm,
Chris Dewdney, John Polkinghorne, Astri Kleppe, Oeyvind
Groen, Holger Bech Nielsen, Gunnar Loevhoiden, Kristoffer
Gjoetterud, as well as Karl Popper's ph.d. student and
assistant Joseph Agassi and those mentioned in the broad
acknowledgement above (and some more!), I have noticed a
rather peculiar correlation:
the more education in conventional mainstream physics a
person has, the more the person is intrinsically unable
to focus attention on any of the real questions of
physics.
It is as if they have been vaccinated. Most, that is.
For a while, I considered that this was due to strain--
the strain of having to learn too much formalisms relative
to what's good for a young adult individual.
But that's too simple. It can't be merely that. However,
the raw fact of the matter is that the mathematics of
contemporary physics is absolutely horrible; and there is
no true peace of mind to have to rely on computers to work
out equations that are meant to be solved on paper. But if
it isn't the main reason of the 'my-mind-is-closed-to-all-
deep-questions-of-physics' attitude that, as far as I can
tell, dominates by far most of all the very many people
with physics education, then what is the real reason?
Nor can be that money is not in philosophy as much as
the type of physics that lends itself to engineering and
technologically innovative projects. Money is a powerful
factor and while it's an ideal that money shouldn't at all
influence thinking, it does do that; but this sticks
deeper than that. And yet we can say: money is a factor.
Also, a factor on the list, is that nobody really feels
that Niels Bohr really won the discussions with Albert
Einstein, though Bohr and his group set the tone for most
of the dominant physics work a century hence. So if one
argues against the underlaying assumptions that has
characterised much of physics for nine decades or more,
then one risks entangling oneself in a discussion between
giant minds, a discussion that apparently led nowhere.
Einstein's own works stand, in a way, stronger than ever;
that means that his reputation, in a way, is untarnished;
and yet the funny hidden wierd features of quantum physics
has become just about infinitely more manifest than it
seems Bohr ever dreamt of. They are now making headway
into biology: not just is quantum tunnelling considered
central in DNA mutation, but complicated forms of quantum
entanglement are considered to be utilised in what could
be rather fantastic ways all over nature and even in the
functionality of neurons--the latter is an emerging theme,
after it was found hard to avoid the implication that some
species of birds have a quantum sensitivity for magnetic
fields in their brains.
And so, in this way, Einstein--who spoke against all
sorts of 'ghostly action-at-a-distance' has been proven a
little bit wrong--'in spirit', although not in equation;
while the equations heralded by Bohr's group, although
still more hotly discussed than ever--and given, of course
--a zillion new forms in the past century of work--
equations that in fact Einstein helped lay the foundations
for, also by his support of the young Louis de Broglie--
these equations are considered fantastic pieces of
science, or art, or at any rate, something of the most
marvellous stuff humanity has ever encountered.
What with all that, Einstein did not (as we discuss in
a little detail in the first chapter) consider the
equations inside quantum physics, and the loose ideas
around them, as a proper theory. Now that is a key point.
Einstein did not see this as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
And so, since he maintained this point--with the most
celebrated completion of the unsatisfying discussions
taking place in 1927--after which we got the econonic
depression, then the World War II,--to oppose Bohr is to
automatically associate oneself with an Einstein that
appeared never to really stand on the side of quantum
physics. Now for those who are dedicated to the study of
gravitation and such between planets, it matters not so
much what Bohr felt about microscopic quantum phenomena:
except that the quantum phenomena appear more and more
macroscopic with each decade of developments, right?
But for those who are interested and educated in quantum
physics, they haven't got a promise of getting anywhere
if they challenge Bohr. Add to that, the well-known
association between David Bohm and, through some of his
friends, communism; which led Bohm to be given the advice
by his teacher Oppenheimer to ditch the seeking of a
career at Princeton--and which, in the McCarthy years of
persecution of communists, stamped the pathway of trying
to visualize a bit of quantum theory as, peculiarly, a
rather communist thing to do. Basil Hiley told me that he
was once--when he picked out a book by Bohm in the library
as a student--stopped in his tracks by a professor who
plainly told him that going along with that type of
physics could put an end to his career. Yet Hiley is of
course now considered a very respectable physicst, one who
collaborated with Bohm in putting the finishing touches to
that which by many is now called 'bohmian mechanics'.
However this 'bohmian mechanics' is, according to by far
most of the well-educated physicists you can meet all over
the world, merely the same as quantum physics, only that
it is a little bit more complicated, and provides not one
tiny inkling more predictions.
And if one voices objections--saying, for instance, that
there are other things than predictions that are the marks
of a good theory--they may nod but they have already done
their listening. They are vaccinated. "Don't bother me
with philosophy," they seem to say, or indicate, "for I am
an educated physicist."
So I'm back to the question: how did it ever get that
hard? What is the core of the resistance? Surely there is
no secret brainwashing machine that every student is
exposed to before being admitted into the final exam.
I got a clue as to what this is when I most recently, in
connection with trying to get a full overview over what
the mainstream science journal Nature and some authors
call "Quantum Biology", looked through a full set of books
presented to physics students at all levels at the
University of Oslo. Let us first note that such as de
Broglie's books, while available, were safe in a celler,
behind locks. At display, then, I looked quickly at about
hundred books, at core of the curriculum for physics.
Every one of these books had at least one equation on
what seemed to be EVERY PAGE; or at least, there was a
graph there, with a reference to an equation. I did not
find one single chapter with a discussion on the thoughts,
more broadly speaking, of the worldview implied or in any
way indicated by such as quantum physics in any one of the
very many books I looked through.
So, to take such views as K.R. Popper wrote about, and a
student of his, Joseph Agassi, an educated physicist, told
about (when I was running a magazine called Flux, which I
had created together with H B Tschudi), I would say: not
on any page was there a THEORY. It was number crunching;
or the crunching, on a more abstract level, of a formal
expression into other formal expressions--sometimes with a
description of how a computer can help or how a graph can
show something of what the equation says.
So I asked myself: how would I feel, if I looked at this
set of about one hundred books, and, as a teenager, would
decide to spend roughly a decade getting to master all
these books well enough to pass adequately at university
exams with them? I would have to turn off most capacities
of the brain, in order to develop the type of very
abstract imagary coupled with vast memorization efforts on
the formal symbol level for year after year. With luck,
such a person would be able to go out in the weekends,
have some drinks and connect to some interesting members
of humanity in a social and sensual way. But it would be
requiring a super-human effort to balance all these
hundred or more balls in the air of a formal type while
ALSO going into philosophy.
Add, then, that money is "not in philosophy" but in the
engineering type of physics. Add, also, that even Einstein
wasn't able to argue well enough to convince the quantum
physicists to do more theory-as-thinking. And add that it
can even be a career risk to be associated with off-
mainstream branches of divergent interpretations in the
physics community, which is a tight community, with rather
few jobs not dedicated to purely technological aims, such
as to exploit nonlocality for rediculous purposes of
encryption, or worse.
So after having seen all these books, which to my mind
were all the more disgusting due to their exciting covers,
and realized: these folks, having had to spend time with
this inhuman, nerd-oriented, extremely dry and totally
formalistically wedded books, for year after year, and
finely got through the final examination, could not, would
not have done so unless a core motivation had been twisted
to fully suit the purpose of going through the all.
At the essence level of their psyche, so, there exists,
in each one of these people, no matter how much a 'halo'
they might possess due to contact with the physics
phenomena, a motivation structure in which philosophy and
the informal and the questions of text and discussion and
visualization have been sharply put aside, militantly.
This militant motivation is necessary, I realized, to go
through the type of things a physics student is required
to go through. He or she must not be a human being: but
a formalistic machine, who ditches all other forms of life
than the permutation of formalisms. And the justification
is: quantum physics is a list of equations and loose ideas
are more than enough, thank you, even the great Niels
Bohr said so, that 'further analysis' is not necessary.
So, if one attempts having a thoughtful talk with a
physicists, one is, to them, implying: your education, my
dear follow, may be junk, for you have really not thought
about these things, have you? You have just calculated;
you had spent the best part of your life calculating; I'm
so so sorry, but you have at best got an open door into a
boring physics lab; you have not yet started out on the
journey, as part of philosophy, which is properly called
PHYSICS--a word derived from a root related to the
concept of 'birth', for it relates to the PHYSIS, or
essential processes, the birth of all general energy
patterns in the universe.
And this explains also--a point I even discussed with
David Bohm once--why I have had such great resistance in
myself, even with a fair amount of capabilities in that
direction, and much energy--to venture into mathematical
physics at the University Level. He said, at first, well,
maybe, mathematics is not for you; but then he said, far
more interestingly I thought,--mathematics is very
limited. Very limited.
Interesting. He had worked with math for--fifty years &
more, at the time when he said that. Very limited! If
mathematics is very limited, then what isn't that
limited, if one wishes to work seriously with the
questions and phenomena reported in the physics
laboratories? Well; my father had always insisted that
programming languages, such as the Simula that he worked
with and influenced a little before it was in its object-
oriented form, due to his friendship with Kristen Nygaard,
could provide a form of modelling that mathematics
typically provides in a more statistical way.
Ilya Prigogine, much later, suggested that statistics
isn't quite what it seems to be: it can hide a rather
mechanical attitude; and, in an interview I did with him
(also for the Flux magazine), he claimed that quantum
physics was too mechanical because of the form that its
statistics had locked it. (One of my conversations with
Ilya Prigogine, where I used the pen name Henning Braten,
is listed in a full overview over Prigogine's publications
made by his associates.)
The Norwegian poet and physicist Astri Kleppe didn't
seem to object to the possibility that some fresh ideas
in physics ought to be formulated; that some of the ideas
about coherence I had could be something I should try to
work on further; and that programming language could be a
way to do it. And many others as well urged me on to this;
also my friend the postiivistically inclined philosopher
Arne Naess, who I spent time with at Hardangervidda and at
Hvaler,--and, half a century earlier, had been the only
one Niels Bohr wanted to walk in the woods with during
a lecture Bohr gave in Oslo.
So the rest of my own story is fairly obvious, as to
this stuff: I gave the Flux work to others in 1996 so as
to get far more time to develop myself in the fields I
were interested in, and to realize the thoughts I already
had, given my playing around with compilers and
interpreters since being a kid. So I worked with the
physics thoughts--compiling the very many impressions,
having conversations with lots of more people about it,
also while spending all in all a frightfully creative
year in New York,--and pursued development of skills in
areas from writing to painting, photography and dance. At
the same time, I tried to get a grip on personal economy
and eventually also took up currency trading. Painting
leapt after years of conversation with a well-to-do
Norwegian impressionistic-style painter, Frans Widerberg.
Holger Bech Nielsen, whom I interviewed inside the Bohr
Institute, suggested that many physics folks considered
Bohm's Implicate Order concept a suitable worldview, in
order to give quantum physics a cosmic role. Then he went
on to sketch some ideas which involved the view of past,
present and future which he felt was derived rather
directly from Einstein's theories. I argued against the
fixedness of the dimension of time; but he argued back
that this is the very definition of time, and he set me
thinking about the time concept.
I did a brief attempt at the University of Oslo to get
a bit formal degree, in cognitive science, rushed through
a number of exams there and qualified, but then got into a
sweet and intensely fruitful quarrel about the coherence,
or lack thereof, of--put simply--Cantor's diagonal
argument. In contrast to Bertrand Russell, my months of
doubt of it (as he also had), led me to doubt it more,
rather than less, and the way I put it to the professors
there gave them hickups (again, put simply). I have since
streamlined clear ideas about how to deal with whole
numbers and sets of them in connection to infinity
questions so that this has become ingrained in the whole
approach even to programming--and, I'm happy to report,
the core of my objection to the cognitive science folks at
the University I regard as still formally entirely
correct--though I have much more refined language for it
today; and many more examples of how my own approach is
coherent; and how this, more clearly, is related to only
one bit of L.E.J. Brouwer's work on the same, but
introduces insights he didn't seem to touch.
The discussion with Bech-Nielsen led me, however, in the
first informal formulatiosn of the supra- or super-text,
or, as I called it, super-model (or supermodel) theory, to
consciously avoid using the word 'time' and instead speak
of something roughly like a 'process dimension', so that
a greater degree of freedom could be implemented as for
change; and the sense of time is consciously left free to
exist beyond our visualizations of dimensions.
So that was summed up in the 2004 book [see info on
top with links].
Here, of course, we have what I take to be even more
ripe insights, after one programming language completed
and this one, the G15 PMN, completed after beginning on
scratch again, but with impulses extracted from the
previous one.
With G15 PMN, we do here what I believe physicists
can do: to engage in formally illustrating some aspects of
a theory. Here, of course, we agree with Einstein that the
human process of thinking is where theory arise and where
theory must be considered, so that the formal comes
afterwards.
The formal illustrations of this and that bit of the
super-model theory also opens up new questions. There are
things about the physics phenomena that are not at first
invoked in the visualization, in the theory itself, but
which must be mentioned, discussed, thought about, or
declared to be something that one might discuss more later
--and which comes directly from looking at the very many
reports from physics laboratories as to quantum and
special and general relativity phenomena.
In a word, then, this is physics the way physics can be
done if we start designing the field without insisting on
continuity from what that which calls itself "physics",
rightly or wrongly, has come to. This is physics that, on
its own, is so demanding, that a FULL study of it, would
require, no doubt, maybe as many seasons of dedicated time
as the mainstream types of physics studies one finds in
society nowadays. But one can't do both. That's very clear
to me. What I come with is presented also as part of a
dance, art and philosophy book, because THAT is its
context, just as when I first presented super-model theory
in 2004.
I would like, then, to suggest to anyone who has a
profound interest in philosophy: here's something for you,
something that can, with work, take you more deeply into
real physics than that which the university studies in the
present societies can, given a similar amount of years.
If you have an interest in reality as such, and a willing-
ness to apply intuition as to how to select theories over
the sets of data we have from physics laboratories, I
think you will see that super-model theory is correct; and
I think you will find that it can be fruitful to know
about no matter what you are doing in other fields of
life. Study it only briefly first, if that's all you have
time for--but it's always good to know that simply by
learning one essentially simple programming language, the
same as a kid can use to make ultra-simple games of a
sort, the same as controls robots, you can get into all
the formal aspects of super-model theory as much as you
want. This, then, is something one can stretch towards;
and, in that spirit, I offer this work as a rather
completed whole, as far as it goes at the present level.
For those working with technology, I do believe that the
organic sense of the universe and mind--or, more precisely
the multiverse and the minds--that this style of physics
as I present it does clearly suggest, implies that we
can need to protect the language of life from being
invaded with mechanical concepts. The last chapters in
this booklet--or in this part of the published paper
books--suggests how and why such as robotics must be done
with sensitivity as to not name them so as to give them
an illusory sheen of the organic; and why they shouldn't
be made 'in the image of man'; and how we can, positively,
use a concept of FCM, or First-hand Computerised Mentality
--instead of any such nonsense concept as "artificial
intelligence". FCM is part of what we can call "open
robotics". For this, also cfr genifun.com/openrobotics.
Although quite enormously more could be done in the
realm of super-model physics at this level, the main
point is to show that it makes both logical and intuitive
sense to summarize all essential reports from physics
laboratories and astronomical observations according to
such a theory; that it is simple in its overall
visualization aspects; that it permits consistent
formal illustrations at all empirical points; and that it
can infuse us with a sense of wholeness no matter what we
do, in all areas of life. This, to me, is important; and
it is also important to state that I feel that the level
of technology in humanity BY AND LARGE is now fully
mature. Just as the ancient Chinese empire ruled out
credit cards because the Emperor saw it as a 'dangerous
invention', so it is an ethical standpoint, an point of
view we all can work towards, that we soldify what is
meaningful of human technological developments and insist
that reckless further inventiveness too easily can become
something that has too costly countereffects to be worth
it.
It is coherent with the super-model theory to regard any
theory that depends on an idea of 'randomness' to be
essentially wrong (more about this in the last chapter).
We have often seen, in the history of societies, that just
those societies which in the largest extent propagate a
mechanical view of humans, their bodies and minds and
feelings, also use science and its child, technology, most
recklessly and destructively, both commercially and in
terms of closed military projects. Often, also, the large
companies are partically united with these projects,
they seldom admit it. This also concerns chip design.
Therefore, physicists should unite in declining to feed
militant engineering projects and indeed also contribute
to put an end to the still-existing hype around the idea
that 'technology will save the planet'. It is moderation
--with wise use of existing technology--that will save it.
This moderation involves a raise of the insight that,
globally, technology should be used rather than developed;
and given forms that are humane and that respect privacy
and which are conducive to an organic worldview in which
life and humanity constantly get the upper hand.
The super-model theory, therefore, as presented will
essentially just be re-presented in this way, aside from
more artistic applications of it which I have, in other
writings (eg yoga6d.org/economy.htm archives), named
"q-fields". The upcoming predicted surges in 'quantum
biology' is something that probably, for just these
reasons of moderation, should be considered meaningful
only in the intuitive sense--of not believing anymore in
reductive darwinistic biology of random mutation--rather
than in a technologically realized sense, which can be at
least as disgusting as anything we've so far seen in the
realms of militant technology. Life is not mechanical and
whatever we see of evolution doesn't work according to the
principles of a machine, but something more subtle. Once
that lesson is learned, in a logical, rational as well as
visual and also intuitive way, we don't need a
crystallized 'quantum biology'. Indeed, the super-model
theory, first launched in the 2004 book in the chapter
which uses the phrase 'macroscopic nonlocality', is a
proper context within which to understand biological
processes, also.
Fig. 1
1. Why Einstein's View In One Sense Was Wholly Right
Q. What is physics? Or do you perhaps find that question
too simple?
A. No, it is not too simple at all. In fact it's very
complex. May I ask you something first, though?
Q. Go ahead.
A. Why do you think Albert Einstein, presumably the
most influential physicist ever, never regarded quantum
theory as a proper theory?
Q. Is that official?
A. Couldn't be more official. Einstein's texts are all
over the place. You find it stated by him in several ways,
each one of them unambigious and clear. And with no
reduction of force towards the post-World War II writings
of his. He never regarded quantum theory as a proper
physics theory. To him, it wasn't a theory. Look up the
quotes yourself. There can be no doubt about this point.
It's absolutely and clearly a part of the history of the
field of physics.
Q. Well, why did Einstein not approve of quantum theory as
a theory? Perhaps because he didn't understand non-
locality, as it seemed to be something to contradicted his
speed of light limit.
A. Good try, but wrong answer. What you say concerns
Einstein's preferences--it is true he himself would very
clearly prefer to have a physics theory that had in it no
serious challenge to the speed of light. Both his special
and general relativity theories are all organised, and
very successfully so--as far as their realms go--around
the speed of light as what I myself call an 'organising
factor'. But even though the idea of the speed of light in
vacuum sounds neat, light is a complicated phenomenon--
indeed highly complicated, and its velocities and its
various effects aren't neatly summarized. We have the
effects, that Feynman pointed out also, of some form of
diffraction on the speed of light measurement; we don't
know much about what vacuum really is; the speed of light
in water is slower; and light has so many features. So,
all in all, we need two concepts here--the L-speed, and
the concept of light, which in future physics may be found
to be a group concept for several different phenomena.
But I ask again: why was it that Einstein absolutely did
not accept that quantum theory is a theory--in contrast to
Niels Bohr and his followers. It was something far more
deep than preferences as to speed of light--which we will
clarify more deeply when we come to how we radically
reinterpret the Michelson-Morley experiment and introduce
the novel notion of "L-speed", which is not the speed of
light exactly, but derived from that general idea. So you
see we don't agree with Einstein all the way. As Bohm said
when we had him in Oslo for a weekend a couple of years
before he died, at the Soria Moria conference center in
the woods in Oslo--"Einstein couldn't be right every
time."
But we totally agree with Einstein's accurate criticism
of quantum physics at a certain general level. Why do you
think he didn't see quantum physics as a real physics
theory?
Q. Okay. You give me some more clues. Now why was it? I
have no idea.
A. I give you one more clue, then. If you look up the word
'theory' in a large dictionary, you'll find that it is
related, in its roots, to such ancient Greek words as
'theorein', which means to see or view, but is also common
in root to the word 'theatre'.
Q. Aha!
A. Say it. What did you think?
Q. That Einstein objected to quantum theory because it
wasn't a theory that offered a view of reality.
A. That's exactly it. You see, this is a very fundamental
issue: to Einstein, he felt that Bohr's work on creating
what Bohr and his followers called 'quantum theory' was
a wrong step for physics: not because the theory was
wrong--he never really claimed exactly that--but because
the theory wasn't a theory proper. It was a list of
equations; some ideas, loosely connected to each, as to
how to apply them; and with some metaphors that had to be
dropped during more involved work with these equations.
Q. So, in other words, Einstein didn't for instance claim
that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was wrong?
A. No, he didn't. He considered that the equations and the
ideas associated with how to apply them had something to
them, with no direct mistake inside them. But he found the
THEORY lacking, he saw in them not a THEORY OF PHYSICS.
Now let us put this into perspective: when he worked with
his relativity theories, he was visualizing a lot. He was
into visualizing also a fourth dimension, as we know very
well. He was visualizing curvatures, stretchings; he was
considering correlations; he was applying the principle of
MIND FIRST, FORMALISM SECOND.
Q. But Bohr seemed to disagree.
A. Well, Bohr agreed to special and general relativity as
far as these theories went. But Bohr suggested--much to
Einstein's dismay--that from now on, a different type of
theory must take the place of the earlier types of
theories, one in which human imagination doesn't have a
primary role. Einstein said that he knew of no empirical
findings that could justify such a change in epistemology.
In retrospect, Bohr sensed that the quantum phenomena went
beyond the speed of light limit--though it took nearly
forty years after the Solway Conference in 1927 before
J.S. Bell proved that point--and Bohr wanted to protect
what Einstein had created as theories, but create another
set of theories for microphenomena, wanting these to sort
of cancel out as we move up in sizes and in energies. You
see, Bohr was a subtle thinker, and his arguments were
subtle--Louis de Broglie, one who, after reading the works
of David Bohm in 1951, broke with Bohr's group completely,
see the yoga6d.org/debroglie_vs_bohm text that has
excerpts from the de Broglie book of the 1950s--anyway,
what I wanted to say is that Louis de Broglie called the
arguments of Bohr sometimes for 'nebuluous'. de Broglie
also named several of Bohr's followers as 'disciples'.
Q. Well, this is the early twentieth century history of
physics. But then, in the latter half of twentieth
century, we had a number of physicists coming with
statements like, 'quantum theory' (or mechanics) 'is the
most successful scientific theory ever'.
A. But success isn't proof whether of truth nor of
content. The theory that 2 plus 2 equals 4 is being
applied daily in all humankind with great success, but
this success factor doesn't show that it is a great theory
of numbers; it is merely right in some very practical ways
--and about as devoid of deeper inner content as quantum
theory. Let us be clear about it: we can never let physics
be judged according to technological success, although we
can let it inform our future judgements, as one of very
many criterions--we can say, 'this and that and the other
technological success, for instance in semiconductors,
lasers and the phenomenon of supermagnetism, are
incidences that add up to confirm that we have got some
right equations,--but these do not prove the equations,
nor do these incidences show that we have a real good
theory.' You follow? If Einstein was right, then it may
be that--and this is the line I'm taking--very little
physics has been done since the last quarrels in 1927.
Q. You mean that all physics education..
A. Is pseudo.
Q. That the whole field of physics..
A. ..has become frozen. It is in the freezer. Nobody is
working on it. And certainly not the formalism cruncher
professors that teach what they so very wrongly call
'physics' to young students. They don't know the first
thing about physics. I doubt if anyone of these professors
would even be able to follow our argument so far as this.
They would choke if they see even a single page of text
without one of their integrals or differentials or sine
curves or matrices. They can't think anymore, only throw
equations around. And so the socalled 'physics' field has,
with some notable exceptions here and there, in terms also
of some mainstream journals that, on rare occasions, make
comments involving ideas rather than equations,--this
field has become subservient to engineering. Which is to
say, theoretical physics is hardly existing anymore, for
the flame of theoretical physics isn't kindled; it has
become obsessed with number correlations via stale
formalisms. Thinking has gone out of fashion; and physics,
which is really part of philosophy--what was called
"Natural Philosophy"--has become that corner of the
infinity-ridden field of mathematics that aims to deal
with the numbers of laboratory experiments on general
energetic processes in the universe. These experiments
are not approached so as to be understood, they are not
approached so as be theorised over, rather, they are
approached as bundles of numbers, and a person who is able
to apply the worn-out silly equations once more to
correlate these numbers go around proudly and call herself
or himself a 'physicist'. But, in Einstein's view, and in
the view of a lot more people, these physicists aren't
physicists.
Now let us be clear that my own personal formal capacity
is in computing; and that my own personal interest in
physics is in terms of the philosophy of worldviews. It is
on this background I took contact with David Bohm, some
years before he died. It is on this background I have
gone through the most interesting philosophical writings
on physics during the last hundred and twenty years. (My
contact with the empirics of energy is chiefly through the
hints that my extensive work with electronics have given
me.) From this, I have built up a theory--it is a theory i
the sense that Einstein would call a theory, even though
it doesn't not respect his preference of getting the
speed of light into the core of absolutely everything. It
is a theory that is of the physics kind; and, according
to world-wide appreciated theoreticians of science, such
as K R Popper, a theory should be evaluated not according
to who comes with it, but according to what it says and
how well it does in standing up to meet reality.
In that sense, I am proposing that I have a theory--even
if it is, partly on purpose, put forward in rather vague
terms--that is a good piece of work in the field of
physics; and that is a good deal more work than what I've
seen that physicists have done, speaking of the last half-
century or more, as for the vast majority of them. There-
fore, I claim that my contribution must be seen as a
contribution to physics, and by a thinker who by self-
education and intent and intelligence should be called at
least as much 'physicist' as anyone with a doctorate in
the field as it is being commonly taught at the best
universities.
Q. You are speaking of your super-model theory.
A. Yes.
Q. You came with it in 2004, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Has it got any attention?
A. Very little, but perhaps some.
Q. Is your present formulation, using your G15 PMN
formalism and programming language, finished just last
year in its most complete form, new relative to it?
A. Much has matured.
Q. In what way?
A. I have, for one thing, gone far more deeply into what
de Broglie said relative to David Bohm's work, Bohm's
theory, by some called 'bohmian mechanics'. And I have
also more consciously anchored this theory of physics in
a larger worldview of a more philosophical kind, vaguely a
bit like Spinoza, perhaps. Also, the formalism G15 PMN is
lending itself enormously well to the purpose, and I have
worked so much with questions of infinity since 2004 that
I know better how to limit the roles of formalisms so that
these infinities don't lead to contradictions. And there's
a clear-cut handling of both special and general
relativity, bolder than in the original approach, and
also quite simple once the foundations of the super-model
theory is understood.
Q. Very well. How concrete is the theory? Does it somehow
compete with quantum whatever-we-call-it, quantum
mechanics?
A. It is a theory, whereas I totally and absolutely agree
with Einstein that quantum theory, whether in 1950 or in
2016, is not a theory proper. So in that sense there is
no competition, for quantum theory never was a starter. It
was never more than a list. It wasn't a view.
Q. But how concretely do you go into such as the double-
slit experiment, entanglement and all that?
A. I don't go concretely into these situations if you by
'concretely' mean that I list up every detail of how to do
the calculations, for the simple reason that I regard them
as trivial and quite obvious once you have grasped the
essential concept. I only outline the broad aspects of how
one might begin to use this formalism of G15 PMN to
account for all these things. But more importantly, the
whole spectrum of phenomena, not just in the branch of
empirics called 'quantum' or 'gravitation' or the like,
but also so that it is relevant for biology and psychology
and more, are effortlessly incorporated.
Q. For the first time?
A. Well, it depends on the level of resolution so to
speak. I think one can give an interpretation of
something such as A N Whitehead's Process and Reality, for
instance, or David Bohm's Implicate Order philosophy, so
as to broadly encompass all these phenomena as we are
discussing. And a lot of writers have proposed further
metaphors of a variety of sorts. But Bohm's Implicate
Order is as vague as Process and Reality, and the theory
I am proposing is not at all equal to bohemian mechanics.
It is moving in a different direction. It is taking some
elements of de Broglie's work, after de Broglie learned
something from David Bohm's work, into a broader theory,
less formal, but the formal features are far more
promising, for they are not steeped in the complexities
in conventional mathematics, which doesn't do any job
concerning holistic fields or ensembles of particles of
more than about a handful very well. You don't have to
take my word for it: look for instance to Richard Feynmann
and his criticism of mathematics in physics. It's a
severe criticism, and never more so when it comes to how
infinities are 'normalized'. At this point with him, I
totally agree. Mathematics is a mess. It never was a good
servant to physics. This is also a point of departure away
from bohemian mechanics.
I would like to present the super-model theory in the
more ripe perceptions and insights I have now, twelve
years after the 2004 publication, but first let me point
out that when we listen deeply to what Einstein wanted of
a scientific theory in physics, he did not say anything
about conventional mathematics having to be part of it.
Rather, he saw formalisms as a tool, in which some parts
of a theory could be spoken about--but not as
'representing' the theory. I prefer the expression that a
formalism can 'illustrate'--not the theory, but illustrate
some features of the theory. And I propose a formalism
that is, as such, more HUMBLE to the human mind. In this
sense, I think Albert Einstein would have, after thinking
it through, conceeded that the super-model theory is the
first real theory of physics proposed after his general
relativity theory. And this I mean when I read the words
of Einstein: because Einstein was a thinker, who could use
words, he could think with words, he wasn't a bit like the
formalistic nerds that pride themselves with the 'physics'
work-title nowadays. He was a master of the formalisms
that he had chosen to learn, but at the time, they still
had such as Kurt Goedel's incompleteness theorems ahead of
them, they hadn't learned about computers, about finite
algorithms, about the beauty of formalisms that don't
pretend anything about infinities; about distinguishing
between rote procedures and leaps of intuition, such as
Alan Turing was forced to think about, when he conceived
of the Computer notion, abstractly. And, in addition to
all this, we have empirics of a kind that is wildly beyond
what Bohr and Heisenberg and so on had at the time they
were laying out the dogmas that still totally penetrate
and infiltrate all of mainstream university physics
education and higher-level journal thinking--an empirics
that speaks of findings of plausible quantum coherence in
the brains of some birds and in the leaves of green
plants, and quite possibly in a range of other phenomena.
In short, we are faced with a radical new set of tools
and experiences, but we have no activity in physics of the
type that Einstein wanted. This activity, I offer, not
modestly but in honest and fair faith, is only taken
further by the super-model theory. And, in order to wake
up more fresh good thinking in the long term, I have
undertaken to do this re-presentation of the ripe form of
super-model theory, illustrated by my G15 PMN formalism,
but so that the formalistic nerds, who try to make fancy
and also military technology by applying their cunning to
quantum phenomena, won't understand a bit.
Q. How lucky that I am no formalistic nerd.
A. Yes. I mean to say, everyone who is a philosopher--that
is to say, one who loves Sophia, the muse of wisdom--must
realize that applied physics is applied misery, when it
comes to making things that are unfriendly to the human
mind or even to human life. The ethics of all this implies
that we curb all formalistic attempts so that they remain
at the vague level, with only enough technology to re-
produce the technology we have at present. Any more stuff
in the scifi directions that some have proposed is likely
to finish humanity off. It is a legal responsibility for
humanity to curb self-destructive activities and too much
formalistic crunching of energetic processes correlations
is in the category of self-destructiveness. That's why any
such enterprise as this must be vague, but not so vague it
says nothing at all; it must speak to the heart, and give
elements of insights and perceptions so as to encourage a
benevolent development in the long run--Bertrand Russell
said we should always think in terms of half a millenium
ahead whenever we do anything--and perhaps that's as good
time-perspective as any other. I hope also to contribute
with a voice in the direction that physics realign itself
to be seen, in future education, as part of philosophy and
that philosophy must have the upper hand--not anything
that lends itself to engineering, or to mindless dumb
manipulations of abstract symbols. For physics is the work
of human minds to understand energy as such, also enquire
into its origins--beyond the measurable.
Q. Then where shall we begin?
A. With mind. At the beginning. With worldview. And at
each point I will come with a bit of formalism so that we
can engage that aspect of the human mind also. And, as we
will see, the G15 PMN formalism is all the formalism we'll
ever need, no matter how philosophical our theory is, and
no matter how concretely we wish to make any part of it.
Q. One more question before we end this introductory
conversation: do you expect that anybody will pay
attention to this?
A. Yes.
2. What's Wrong With Bohmian Mechanics
Q. As I understand you, you are putting forward a theory
in physics that include the quantum phenomena, and also
the relativistic effects.
A. Yes. My theory is however very general. What I am
saying is that it is plain enough, for anyone who cares
to elaborate the theory in such a direction, to include
all the numerical correlations put forward by Einstein
in his special and also his general theory of relativity
and the same with quantum mechanics. I'm not interested
in doing so in detail but what I provide is a theory
that allows both visualisation and formalisms, and that
is comprehensive, meaningful, and understandable.
Q. What's wrong with David Bohm's work to produce an
alternative quantum theory?
A. When we appreciate what is right about it, then we can
bring into focus what is wrong about it. He was right in
wanting to visualize more, including such as positions of
particles, rather than letting the whole visualization
vanish in a hailing of equations. But instead of opening
the field of visualization, he attributed reality to his
own formalisms. Instead of seeing his work as merely a
pointer toward a new landscape of thinking about quantum
theory, and in that way truly honoring the role of mind in
making theories of reality, he kept on repeating his own
equations and attributing reality to various features of
these. And this despite that Louis de Broglie pointed out
that while Bohm had done valuable contribution in the area
of measurement--and in fact pointed the way for a nonlocal
version of quantum physics--there was an unlikeliness
about the attribution of reality to such intricate
mathematical fictions as involved in the probabalistic
equations of his quantum theory. This unlikeliness de
Broglie had addressed and he suggested that the picture of
reality should be still further analyzed, where these
types of equations can be seen as emerging out of some-
thing different. This different reality may not be in
alignment with what the later de Broglie himself proposed,
but the general sentiment is one in which I agree to. Even
though Bohr was wrong, it doesn't automatically follow
that one of the most obvious alternatives are right. The
real physics work lies in coming up with a truly holistic
perspective on all energetic phenomena in general. Bohm
didn't do that in his physics work. The bohmian mechanics,
as it stands, doesn't have in it the greatness that some
of us saw in Bohm's work as a philosopher. And that can be
attributed to the limits of mathematics, but it is some-
what more serious than that: it is a lack of willingness
to say of his first equations that they are crude, very
crude indeed, and that something radically different than
these are called for, with a different reality picture
altogether. Had he listened to de Broglie, and closely
worked with de Broglie--who lived into the 1980s--they
could have started on entirely new work. As it was, Bohm
stuck to his equations from early 1950s, and never really
connected these to the most fascinating aspects of the
philosophy of the implicate order. That's what's wrong
with bohmian mechanics: it has nothing of the greatness
of seeing all physics as a whole. It is merely more of the
attitude of formalism manipulation.
Q. Is bohemian mechanics not a theory either, in the same
way that quantum theory, according to Einstein, is not a
theory?
A. Bohmian mechanics is slightly more a theory than
quantum theory. For it offers slightly more visualisation.
But it sticks to the idea of particles with positions and
velocities as for electrons, for instance, and has in it
some superstructures that aren't motivated in a holistic
theory of the universe at all. Rather, they are standing
as equations that, in much of Bohm's work around them, are
hailed in a manner that remsembles much how Bohr's group
hailed their equations. It is not truly nonformalistic in
spirit. It is more of the 'physics as mathematics'. And
even the Bohm of the past few years of his life kept
saying things that supported such a rediculous view. For
instance, in his book together with D F Peat, they write
about seeing mathematics not as 'paint' on top of a theory
of physics but rather as part of its content. That's
exactly the whole downgrading of mind that we must warn
against, if we are going to have a real physics theory.
Bohmian mechanics is missing it. There is no doubt in the
world that Bohm pointed out important things, that led to
the unravelling, more and more, of the role of nonlocality
in entanglement, quantum tunnelling, and quantum coherence
--but the fact remains that bohmian mechanics isn't having
a good clear picture of reality in which formalisms are
invoked to illustrate some points. Rather, it is a
formalistic, mathematical physics all over again, just
with a change of equations and with a little bit more
visualization involved than in the case of the Copenhagen
Interpretation as according to Bohr.
We haven't talked of the other interpretations of
quantum theory, or physics, such as the many-worlds
interpretation; nor of the formalistic attempts to bridge
with gravitation physics such as string theory; but these
aren't at all holistic views of reality; these are merely
a result of hacking around with formalisms--very cleverly
but not in the form that physics theories can take.
Q. In your view, then, despite the apparent glamour of
such words as quantum tunnelling, entanglement and
quantum coherence, these do not at present have any good
theoretical content behind them?
A. Obviously not! And so it is more to be pitied than
condemned when people who have this mathematicalized
pseudo-physics education behind them try to be bold and
propose such as 'quantum computers'. These folks haven't
the least understanding of what the quantum phenomena are
all about in this world. And so they talk of engineering
feats of the future without having the slightest grasp of
how far away they are from comphrehending the energy
processes of this universe. They don't know anything about
coherence, and so cannot manipulate it. And it follows
that when quantum biology is getting more and more a
reality, there is no preparedness at all to understand
what's going on. The biologists haven't got much clue
about physics, to begin with; and then the socalled
physicists haven't got any clue about physics, either. All
they have are computer-generated curves and fancy symbols
and some half-baked ideas applied to their symbol-
shuffling as a kind of verbal ornamentation. We are
instead facing a reality which, as I take it, is
infinitely more characterised by pervasive quantum
coherence than it is characterised by anything else. And
those who study super-model theory will always be at the
aventgarde in the important development work--a work that
has to do with human collective consciousness also,
obviously--in connecting to such insights and perceptions.
Q. Suppose I am an outsider to all this; perhaps educated
in this mathematical physics or non-physics, as you
describe it, and I listen to your words here, and watch
the formalisms you are suggesting one can look into, and
I'm a little bit fascinated, at least; but I don't know
how to continue to work with it or indeed whether I should
--for it may be just another whacky idea.
A. Just so. It is like selecting a Foreign Exchange, a
"forex" broker on the Internet. They have all sorts of
fancy homepages, with awards--'Best Forex of The Years'--
and so on--and, since at present this business has no
official price for the exchange of such as U.S. Dollars to
Euro, it is an area that is almost infinitely open to
manipulation. Crooks open up homepages of this sort and
invite people to get rich if only they pay them a mere
five thousand dollars or so; they register themselves in
some off-center country with weak laws; operate under
false names; and yet they do not break the laws, when they
operate on the principle that there are always some fools
willing to give them money for nothing, for nothing, that
is, except scripts that make the odds of earning anything
by their so-called 'forex' next to nil. At the same time,
there are fairly high-integrity companies offering what
appears to be the same thing. Fairly honest people are
driving honest companies where customers actually can get
richer and richer if they have a steady, good hand at
doing forex, knowing how to analyze waves and how to
sense, or perhaps intuit, how it is going. These companies
want to grow WITH their customers, instead of growing off
their customers. So how do you select? And remember that
these folks who manipulate are not really breaking laws,
as the laws are at present.
Q. Well, you have to guess. You select by intuition.
A. Exactly. By intuition.
Q. You mean that the same principle has to apply when it
comes to working with a physics theory?
A. What with all the factors involved, yes. You apply all
the analysis you can, within reason, and with a sincere
effort not to be prejudiced, not to be biased about it,
and you put clingings, personal friendships, fears of
career developments, fears of loyalities, and ethnic
belonging ideas, on the side, as much you are able to--for
you want to be friend with facts. So you go through the
alternatives, then go for a walk. Or a swim. You sleep on
it. You empty your mind of them. And in that silence you
will get a sense of overview of what you have,
intellectually, just been through. If it doesn't come at
once, you do some more work, and put the question to your
silence, and work on something else, like painting. You
give it quietude. What comes up eventually may be right or
it may be wrong, but in any case it will be fruitful to
follow it up for a while. Then you can ask again later,
perhaps having your intuition fortified by the additional
work that came in the wake of such a questioning process.
Intuition is hard work.
3. A First Hint Of Formalisation Of Super-model Theory
Q. What, then, is super-model theory?
A. As long as we keep in mind what we already have said--
in particular that this is a 'mind-first' approach, as
must be the case of any THEORY proper, I think that the
time has come to do a bit of formalism work. It's
tempting for me to spell out a lot more of how to
visualize this, but since we have been talking a lot
already (and since this isn't the first presentation of
the super-model theory), let's bring in G15 PMN. Is that
fine with you?
Q. Splendid. Is this the same as the programming language
G15 PMN, which any computer can start?
A. Well, just about any. When we program in G15 PMN we
usually do it with a number of standard programs loaded.
The most complete set is that which we call tf (Third
Foundation). This you fetch from the app page if you don't
already have it. It's app# 3,333,333 of course. You can
then mount it by the MNT command, and it will then open
straight away so you can click on CTR-W and click with
the mouse on f/1, since it is loaded on the F-disk. You
can copy it to other disks and so on, but this is an okay
starting-point, and we can put our formalism for the
super-model theory let's say at disk i, card i:1. All this
is standard procedure for anyone doing G15 PMN programming
and we will now show how to illustrate a range of features
of super-model theory in it. In this way, we'll introduce
the theory at the level of mind step by step.
Of course, inside the Third Foundation, all the longer
examples are included at k:2000, k:3000 etc.
Any such can be performed by typing, inside TF, the two
lines:
^k2000
cc
And the source viewed by typing 'car' instead of 'cc'.
Q. Alright. What's the first step?
A. To make use of the inbuilt network of nodes that in tf
is called FCM. The acronym 'FCM' is connected mostly with
applying such a network to programming of robots, which
G15 PMN also is for (there, it means, 'First-hand
Computerised Mentality'). But this node network is of a
highly general form. We will next use it so that each node
(by and large) is a super-model. And the first task is to
allocate a number of them in RAM, suitable for our task of
illustrating various features of our theory. This is, you
see, in refreshing contrast to how things has been done
in mathematical physics, where one rarely begins by
setting limits, and so one quickly gets into the confusion
which starts when one assumes limitlessness. Here, we use
a limited quantity of nodes each time just as a sketch
with pen on paper unfolds on a limited peace of paper. And
each node has a limited set of positions, numbered, so
natural meanings apply to these positions within the
formalism, as we shall see.
<i1>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<i2>
fundnet
lk
thisfcmnet
kl
<i3>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<i4>
1000000 1
setfundlevel 50
adjustfund
|link to x1pos
1 1
^x0position 47
fneasy adjustfund
<i5>
1 2
^x1position 51
fneasy adjustfund
|link to x2pos
0
50 2
adjustfund 47
|link to x0pos adjustfund
<i6>
1 1
^x2position 50
fneasy adjustfund
|link to x1pos
1
47
adjustfund
Q. So what are X0POSITION, X1POSITION and X2POSITION here?
A. These are three positions in the simplest space
possible, a one-dimensional space. On these, we can put a
particle and have it to move from one spot to the next.
Q. The code has comments, with the | sign first, talking
about links. Are the positions linked to each other?
A. Exactly. We have here three nodes, and each node links
to the neighbour that's nearest to itself. That's often a
useful convention when having more dimensions also. Each
dimension involves at most two new links, except for nodes
at the edges. So here, X1POSITION is in the middle and it
has two links. With 2d, a position could link not just to
right and left, but to forward and backwards as well. In
3d, we have two more directions, such as up and down. And
in this way we can go on to such a number as 8 dimensions.
Q. In conventional mathematics, one would perhaps have a
symbol instead of a numbered position such as 50 for the
first link.
A. Yes, but by Kurt Goedel's work in the late 1920s we've
learned that every symbolism can be reflected upon whole
numbers. When we work with computer languages, we do so,
of course, on the premise that it is all converted into
binary, or digital, numbers, like 00001111 for 15, in any
case. So when we work with whole numbers, in movement, we
are working with, in a way, the essence of what formalisms
are all about--and this is also the G15 PMN algorithm. In
the next chapter, we'll bring in the idea of a particle.
After several rounds with this, we'll get to visualize how
gravitation and the whole spectrum of possible quantum
phenomena fit within this theoretical framework of the
super-model theory.
4. Beginnings Of Formalisation Of Particle
Q. As I understand it, we created three nodes in the last
chapter in order to represent three positions in a very
simple form of space. When we are going to put in a
particle, are we then going to have yet another node? Do I
anticipate correctly?
A. You anticipate perfectly correctly. And already a key
feature of super-model as launched in the privately
published book in 2004, and as continually available at
yoga4d.org/a.htm (as well as inside the Firth platform
from 2006, with the first forms of the programming
language work that eventually became G15 PMN), can now be
said to be illustrated by the formalism: a supermodel grid
or network of such is space, and super-models are also
what such as particles are about. These things aren't
divided up: we do not propose that we have a physical
space first and then go on to place energy in it. Rather,
we have the immense flexibility and beauty of having the
same type of concept both constituting space and also
matter. This is obviously something that the young Albert
Einstein, had he been part of our conversation, would
have nodded eagerly to.
Q. Why, again, the name 'super-model'?
A. I also thought of calling them 'texts', super-texts,
supra-texts (my friend Henrik B Tschudi suggested though
that the word 'super' is more to the point than 'supra').
By the word 'text' I thought of a way to suggest the
importance of algorithms. But by the word 'model' I felt
that the function of these algorithms or processes--which
in important cases sort of 'sum up a situation', or
'model a situation', were pointed out, and in a manner
that spoke to our imagination. The word 'super' means, of
course, 'above'--and that is because these models, or
nodes, can stand in a relationship to each other so that
some of them are above others, influencing a whole
spectrum of other models. This idea I also sought to
convey by the phrase 'active models'. All this is in the
very long chapter entitled something about macroscopic
nonlocality for I wished at once to point out that this
theorizing lends itself graciously towards thinking about
life and its much larger structures than the subatomic
ones. And obviously, what we see in 2016, this year, is
that, in contrast to previous decades, for the first time
there is in mainstream science a collective approval of
the notion that immensely complex quantum structures
calling, indeed, on some form of nonlocality or another,
are involved in living processes including brains. As
mainstream sees it, nothing is definite yet, but the
arguments from research add up towards this interpretation
and so the most sceptical of journals consider, in general
that the quantum interpretation is the plausible one. And,
as soon as that process has begun--I mean, as soon as one
has begun to realize the pervasiveness of these wierd
quantum features in life, there may be an ocean of new
empirics to find when one wades into the territory armed
with new measurement technologies and new theoretical
concepts. But I am letting enthusiasm carry me away. Let
us now go to the formalism again. We must bring in a
particle. In the first examples, we will do it in the
simplistic manner of simply getting it there, then getting
it to move about. We'll come to appreciate how this whole
G15 PMN formalism as associated with super-model theory
easily can encompass all the extremely complex nuances of
the calculation machinery of quantum physics and also of
general relativity theory. But we need to start somewhere.
And, as said, we won't illustrate the details; we are
simply here showing that all these numerical correlations
can be implemented here, with suitable G15 PMN work, and
without any change of the underlaying concepts. It's all
still one unified theory with one set of fundamental
concepts. Anyway, here's a particle, associated with the
first position, as an extension of the formalism we had
in the previous chapter. We begin straight at card <i:7>:
<i7>
990000 0
setfundlevel 50
adjustfund
|link to x0pos
1 1
^p1particle 47
fneasy adjustfund
<i8>
1010000 &fcm&
setfundlevel
1
|act#:
27
1
^completenode
fneasyact zz
Q. I think I can see that a new node, P1PARTICLE, gets
connected to the X0POSITION node. But I have three
questions.
A. Come with them. Note, by the way, that we have not
yet associated any energy with the particle. We are just
outlining it in round figures.
Q. Okay, that answers one of the questions--what about the
energy of the particle. The two others are: what's going
on in the last card, <i8>? And what is the significance of
these 'fundlevel' numbers, around a million?
A. The last card is just to provide feedback from the PC
when you type in the formal stuff into the G15 PMN tf
terminal. FCM is a loop that goes on and on unless it gets
a signal that all is done. We want it to perform, once,
and then provide a neat, sorted listing of the names and
a little more of each node. So we make an extra node, that
has as sole significance to signal to FCM that there's not
more to the formalism as yet. After performing the FCM,
we can type in the command EASYFNLIST, to see nodenames.
As for your second question, the nodes are divided into
levels which indicate what sequence, broadly speaking,
they are considered within the algorithm. So there's a
level number associated with each node, also called 'fund'
or 'fn' or 'foundry' inside the FCM programs.
Q. So this level number can be freely chosen?
A. One of the things that matter is that we're consistent
about it. The most manifest reality ought to have about
the highest level numbers. In our formalism, so far, we've
given it level number one million. And so this illustrates
a feature of super-model theory: that the super-models are
organised in levels.
5. Beginnings Of Formalisation Of Movement
Q. We got in some sort of particle in last chapter. Can we
furnish it with some movement also?
A. That's the plan. We start really simple, knowing that
the formalism has all sorts of flexibilities. We first
want to ensure that the formalism, the numbers, talk about
themselves. In order to get the particle to move, we want
a print-out of just how much energy of some sort is
stacked up at each position. Just what type of energy this
is, and how many flavours it may have, is not our concern
at the moment, rather just to watch that there's some
change of a suitable parameter.
Q. Explain how this can be so flexible.
A. Well, each node has a number of free positions. Only a
bunch have definite roles. For instance, there's a number
in each node that tells whether it has algorithms attached
to it; if so, a range of numbers, when nonzero, are meant
to link to a list of ready-made algorithms. We'll make one
or two right now and apply them, so we see how that is
done. But to store a bundle of numbers in a node, or in a
set of nodes, we may get more compression by not having
algorithms assigned to them. And so we can vary this flag,
or number--that's #9 in each.
Q. When are we going to focus on the visualisation of the
whole flow of energy processes in the universe, through
the super-model theory?
A. Let's see. I have a sense that there's a thirst for
some formalism at this point. There has been much talk
already, not just here, but in previous writings of mine
on the theory. We'll take up the question of the whole
theory in informal terms when we feel that we have got
some more ground covered with formalisms; a couple of
chapters ahead, I guess.
Q. Alright. Where do we find the energy measure?
A. We do the simplest thing to begin with--to vary the
first free number. That's the #10 in each node. It is also
called (as you can see on the tf documentation) 'the 1st
number in the 1st triplet', for we have ten times three
free numbers. Now since we will want the positions to
report (to the computer screen) what quantity of energy
is there, we'll have to make some code and attach it to
the positions; we also should have an option to click eg
lineshift to have another round, where we can see that the
particle moves, and the <esc> button to leave the loop.
This, too, is an algorithm. And of course the movement
itself involves, somewhere or other, an algorithm. For
convenience, we put it right in at the particle itself
this time. This involves a little bit copying and pasting
of the stuff we've already written, and putting in some
new formalism here and there. The code at k:2000 begins
just like the three first cards, i:1..i:3 above.
Then we let the positions tell their main values.
Having done so, we distribute some quantity of energy
associated with the particle from one position to the
next; and we can then have several loop cycles where we
can check that the particle does move by pressing ENTER
after each cycle:
<k2000>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<k2001>
fundnet |up a fcm
lk |network with
thisfcmnet |a good amount
kl |funds; here:
|for super-
|At previous |model theory
|and next |formal
|card, we set |illustrations
<k2002>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<k2003>
fnact1001= ^:
|display mnval prtcont
wtofnnum ix
sx fnmainval
sh prtnumcont
prtsuspend
ix & &
prtnumcont prtcont.
<k2004>
&fnact1001& ^x0position
1001 fneasyact
fnactcherish 1
1000000 50
setfundlevel adjustfund
1 1
1001 47
1 adjustfund
<k2005>
1 0
1001 50
1 adjustfund
^x1position
fneasyact
2 2
47 51
adjustfund adjustfund
<k2006>
1
1001
1
^x2position
fneasyact
1 1
47 50
adjustfund adjustfund
<k2007>
fnact501= s9
|prticlemotion i9
sx ix
sh 50
50 kw
ix 10
wk ix
up wk
<k2008>
t8 ex
|energy
j8
i9 j8
fnaddmainval ts
i9 i9
n? dc
se fnaddmainval.
<k2009>
&fnact501&
501
fnactcherish
990000
setfundlevel
<k2010>
1000000 |particlenergy
501
1
^p1particle
fneasyact |Before x0pos:
1 !1
47 50
adjustfund adjustfund
<k2011>
fnact279= ^enter or esc?
|In:tr#, fnwrp prt
|<esc>=exit ki
sh 27
sh eq
&& n?
prt fnloopcont
prtrelease kl.
<k2012>
&fnact279& 1
279 |act#:
fnactcherish 279
1
^completenode
1010000
setfundlevel fneasyact
<k2013>
&fcm&
zz
Q. Alright, so I type ^k2000 and then, on the next line,
cc, to compile this after having started up the Third
Foundation.
When I run this, and press ENTER several times, the PC
says:
0:1000001 1:1 2:1
0:1 1:1000001 2:1
0:1 1:1 2:1000001
Is the large number the particle moving from position X=0
through X=1 to X=2?
A. Yes.
Q. 1000001? What sort of energy is this?
A. Any sort. All we're interested in here is the principle
of getting some movement across some nodes or SM's (super-
models) of the type we have associated with positions. We
are going to bring in the particular features that are
necessary to deal with quantum phenomena already in the
next chapter. Here, we are simply equipping the positions
we lined up earlier with some sort of classical movement.
Q. Alright, let's bring in the quantum features!
A. We'll do that, and then also bring in both special and
general relativity features. All this, remember, is done
in a way that shows vaguely how it could be done, where
our emphasis on how this formalism helps us to visualize
the whole theory, as well as showing, without doubt for
anyone who has an understanding of this formalism, that it
has, without doubt, the adequate complexity and elegance
to handle the whole range of the type of phenomena in
modern physics. The G15 PMN is for this purpose unusual,
but it should be remembered that after Dirac's reworking
of Schroedinger's wave equation, unusualness sort of
became an accepted part of the formal aspect of physics.
Dirac reworked it into matrices that looked like nothing
of the original format, which Schroedinger had derived by
modifying formalisms over such as classical water waves
to handle Planck's constant as a sort of 'minimum energy',
and by bringing in an extra, rotating element of the
numbers by connecting it to the complex number type. In
other words, classical waves plus Planck's constant plus
two-dimensional rotating numbers make up Schroedinger's
equation; but this equation in term equal entirely
different formalisms--not just such as Dirac's, but also
such as Richard Feynmann's "sum over possible histories"
approach to the very same numerical results.
However, with each new branch of mathematics invoked by
the physicists, a new series of complexities were also
introduced; and every one of these branches had in them
questions about what happened at or near infinity and at
or near the socalled "infinitesimal".
In contrast, G15 PMN is a uniform formalism that glides
from the set of numbers and letters used to handle a
classical type of movement to a quantum type of movement
without sharp cuts. This formalism isn't formulated on the
premises of handling infinitely many numbers. It is, in
contrast, deliberately formulated so as to illustrate some
features of our thinking in ways that are as finite as can
be, thus by and large escaping the riddles associated with
Goedel's Second Incompleteness Theorem and other issues
with the infinite that just about every branch of
classical mathematics is beset with.
Q. You mean that even if G15 PMN is wholly new for the
scientists who wish to work with physics, it is well worth
learning?
A. Objectively, they have been hardly making any much
progress at all since all these forms of mathematics were
brought in to help them. Very little has happened each
decade since they begun with it, after the late 1920s.
It's time for those interested, deeply, in science to stop
celebrating stagnation as if it were progress and start
thinking afresh, getting hold of pictures of reality again
and getting to grips with a formalism like G15 PMN, which
truly make sense when you work with it. The computer helps
you to check it but the program is entirely in the mind,
and we don't have to make 'approximations' over programs
as computerised mathematicians have to make approximations
over equations they can't solve--and in that way also we
move on. We are again doing science. We are again thinking
about reality and having space to be philosophical about
it instead of spending time in quarrelling over
interpretations over a handful of dense equations.
Q. That sort of sums it up, the physics debates of the
past century, doesn't it?
A. It does. Now let me add that I don't really mean to
condemn anything. I merely point out that since Einstein
was left more or less alone with his premise that physics
is a science of visualisation first, and formalisms
second, physics--apart from a series of engineering
successes--hasn't had a great time. But as soon as physics
comes up with something new, militaries run after it and
greedily tries to make the most of it in their many secret
laboratories; and so--and this was very clear to most
prominent physicsts after WWII--it may be as well that
physics don't evolve all that fast. At the moment of
writing this, thousands of people are going to their daily
work in secret military establishment where the core folks
make experiments in how to harness quantum coherence and
such to hide and steal data and to make stronger bombs.
In addition, an even larger number of people are engaged
in presumptiously more humane and more commercial
enterprises doing exactly the same thing--trying to
harness quantum features for their own purposes, and also
making research reports in the public in the process.
However, they are not getting anywhere. Quantum physics
may be harnessed by our sense of smell, by our methods of
breathing, and quantum tunnelling may be behind most of
the DNA cell mutations, but Nature does these things
effortlessly whereas the manipulative type of scientist-
slash-engineer doesn't seem to make head or tail of the
process.
Q. Will the type of understanding offered here help them?
A. The work we do in physics can assist those who wish to
understand the greatness of life and get a glimpse of some
of the vastness of what isn't understood, but seen in
vague features here and there, of the energetic processes
of this universe or multiverse. This is, then, the science
of physics as part of philosophical work with worldviews.
It will help the physicists-slash-philosophers only.
Q. One thing before we begin. What's the role of the
Planck constant in super-model theory, and how does it
appear in the G15 PMN formalism?
A. The role of that constant is roughly as in the typical
thinking around such phenomena: it's an organising whole
factor when any energy is manifest, anywhere. The fact
that Planck's constant is a principle is shown rather
clearly by the phonon experiments, in which one finds that
even the waves that move through a manifest medium like a
crystal arrive, when they do arrive, spotwise and in spots
related to the size of this constant.
In the G15 PMN formalism as here presented for
elementary quantum physics experiments, we aren't
concerned with trying to transcend this constant (though,
theoretically, it is just a level). Instead, we regard it
as to be understood throughout, for the entire set of
experiments and all those which are related to them, that
any measurement of energy involves a whole multiplum of
Planck's constant, and that the de Broglie relatiionship
relating frequency to energy with Planck's constant as
factor for pilot waves apply.
Q. And what are these pilot waves again?
A. If you look at the de Broglie vs Bohm text [mentioned
in the intro text up front], we suggest there the
following usage of the phrase: any interpretation of the
quantum physics phenomena that involves giving a some sort
of reality to something underlying the probabilities that
can be are calculated by 'quantum calculus'. It will be
noted that de Broglie called for going beyond initial
simplisitic identifications of this reality with what the
equations show as they stand. He then went on to sketch a
pathway he called 'Double Solution'. We apply his general
idea--at a general level--but stick to the established
language of using the word 'pilot wave' for whatever-it-is
that underlies the probabilities, whether along one set of
ideas or another set of ideas.
Q. Okay, that was the answer to the scholastic folks. What
is the intuitive picture we can have of pilot waves?
A. Intuitive picture? A pulsating field of something more
finely woven than any particle and any bit of measured
energy that surrounds and penetrates and guides and is
guided by all particles. And sometimes this field, this
pilot wave, is guided by a higher pilot wave, and informs
this higher pilot wave.
Q. Is this the super-model?
A. Yes and no. Yes, a pilot wave is a super-model, or, we
can say, an SM field, or a super-luminal organising field,
--SOF, we can call it also. But the pilot wave idea is
from bottom up. The super-model theory starts with the
idea that what we have is a moving mesh of super-models,
some taking the role of space, some taking the role of
particles, some taking the role of pilot waves guiding
the particles, and a whole host of others taking the role
of providing a complex organisation at higher levels of
all the processes herein. So a super-model is a much more
general concept than the pilot-wave.
Q. Is the super-model concept beyond or confined to
Planck's constant?
A. At the level we explore it here, Planck's constant is
absolutely dominant. There is another level of physics in
which we go to several more, several subtler levels.
6. Double Slit Waves With Rotating Quantum Vectors
6.A. Classic Water Waves Through Double Slits
6.B. Rotating Vector of Super-model Mapping Double Slits
6.C. Quantum Process Of Particles Through Double Slits
6.A. Classic Water Waves Through Double Slits
Q. If we are going to model double slits, we're going to
need a lot more positions than just a handful, isn't that
so?
A. Absolutely. We need at least something like 900
positions, to have a chance of watching waves and stuff.
Now, when water waves pass through two slits, and the
wavelength of these waves are in proper relationship to
the size of the slits and their distance, we get the
interesting so-called 'interference' patterns--the small
ripples that come as a result of the interactions of the
two branches of the waves, as it were--that are so
appealing to the senses. When we speak of quantum
phenomena, everything about the waves are subtly more
complex, both in theory and in how we formalize even the
simplest case of them, and in how they relate to the
particles--and this touches of course enormously upon our
whole picture of the reality. So all this we go to in part
B of this chapter. But first we have a look at how more
classical waves can be given a formal illustration--for
instance water waves, as said.
Q. How do we line up all the nodes?
A. We make a loop for them. We have to have a strategy for
showing the positions. Shall we have a graph?
Q. Let's have a graph. This is about visualization, after
all.
A. Right. Then, let's have the completing node showing the
graph. In the latter part of this chapter we'll have it
to show both wave and particle. The graph we can show can
be a simple matter of lines from one position to the next;
with small filled squares for the particles in next part;
and with some broad lines where the barriers (in which we
have two slits cut) are to be; these thick lines reflect
that the energy is so high that the graphing algorithm
interpret it not as wave, but as a wall of some sort. We
can then have a 30 times 30 type of loop, and find a way
to represent some energy levels by some sort of raising
of the curve up, and slightly to the right, with the
hightest-numbered positions to the right somehow.
Sounds good enough?
Q. Very much so. Where, by the way, will we store the info
in the nodes about the quantum type of waves and such?
A. We'll look into it. You're right in assuming that we
should make allowances for more stuff associated with each
position. We can do each formalism in more than one way
but that's one approach. At present, we are using the
first value of the first triplet for energy. It could seem
natural, in this case, to use the second and third value
also. (In the case where algorithms are used in the node,
we can use second and third triplet and such.)
A bit of programming is done here. Eg, a loop for making
the positions and making the barriers with the two
openings also. These loops aren't using any card access;
they're only about setting up a RAM structure, and so it's
fine in the FCM context to run them while the program is
being compiled in and performed.
So here we go: classical water waves through two slits
illustrated formally; in prep for the quantum version of
double slits in latter half of this chapter.
By the way: whereas some form of classical waves are
incorporated into the code of the Third Foundation, we
spell out much more explicitly when it comes to waves of
a more quantum kind. This is because we wish to see more
of what is going on in the computer, since this is nearer
to the core of the scientific theory in question. That's
why there's a lot more formalism in the next half of the
chapter--but it's mostly a plain rewriting of the
classical wave functions, just as Schroedinger's quantum
wave equation was a rewriting of the classical wave
equation.
Alright! Here, then:
<k3000>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<k3001>
fundnet |up a fcm
lk |network with
thisfcmnet |a good amount
kl |funds; here:
|for super-
|At previous |model theory
|and next |formal
|card, we set |illustrations
<k3002>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<k3003>
mkdbleslit= ll:35
|double slits fundlevel
49 dancebeneath
t4 |We need only
1000051 |y to 35 here;
setfundlevel |At display
1000000000 |here, y is
tx |rightways
<k3004>
ll:30 m1
|Double slits: 9
| 10,9 #1 eq
| 18,9 #2
|startwave: m2
| 14,0 #1 10
|wavetag:pos40 eq
400000 n?
<k3005>
m2 sh
18 jx
eq f
n? |Carrywave:
an 1234
an 0
n? ^smposition
d2 fneasyact
<k3006>
|Medium wave 4
|value, 47
|normal adjustfund
|wave height
|is 400,000; m2
|2nd triplet: dc
13 m1
adjustfund pos30x50
<k3007>
50
adjustfund
i2
m1
pos30x50
51
adjustfund
<k3008>
m2 m2
m1 i1
dc pos30x50
pos30x50
52 53
adjustfund adjustfund
<k3009>
m1 m2
34 1
eq le
|Handle edges! or
m2 |Here, y to 35
28 |and x to 30
ge
or n?
<k3010>
d3 1
basis 40
j4 14
adjustfund 0
lo put30x50
lo 1
|tag the 40
|spreadnodes: 10
<k3011>
9 mkdbleslit
put30x50 995000
|doubleslits setfundlevel
2
40
18 &startwave&
9 3140
put30x50. fnactcherish
<k3012>
0 0
3140 pos30x50
1 50
adjustfund
1
^fnstartwave 47
fneasyact
14 adjustfund
<k3013>
1200000 0
setfundlevel 2300
0
&graphsomefns&
2300 ^fnshowgraph
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k3014>
longtxt* cliptrail
Symbolic view
of classical w
ave 'interfere
nce' through d
ouble slits
fcmheadertxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k3015>
longtxt* cliptrail
Fig. 2.A: The
divided wave '
self-interacts
'. FCM
Loop#
fcmlooptxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k3016>
&fcm&
zz
[In paper form, a sample of output is reproduced as
an image. In the TF, the FCM comes alive on the screen
when you type ^k3000 and, on the next line, cc. Press
then <ESC> button when you've seen enough of it.]
Q. What if I say: I cannot make head or tail or this.
A. Then I can say: just work with it, with the type of
programming G15 PMN is all about, and with the type of
programming that the FCM part of it is all about--and it
will become more and more clear. It's just a question of
many small steps. No giant leaps are necessary; and it's
not a question of having to push through some five or
eight years with memorization of formulas--in that way,
it's entirely unlike mathematics.
Q. How important is it, say, if one is an artist or a
philosopher or merely interested in these fields, to get
to grips with this kind of code?
A. Follow your interest. I would suggest that it is a
bonus (if that's the word I want) to get some contact with
G15 PMN even 'from a distance' both for art and philosophy
--including for the art and philosophy of dance. It's a
dancing, poetical way to organize some thoughts.
Then, it's surely a motivating factor to know that if
you simply gave it more time, you could also approach
themes in physics and do so very seriously and beautifully
by the very same language as you can write a simple game
in.
Q. Good. Now explain, in as simple words as possible, how
the funny waves and their ripples, the interaction or
'interference' or whatever we call it, arose in this
example.
A. Right. We set up nodes here, 30 times some 40 or 50.
(We can use the 30x50 concept even though we need somewhat
fewer here--also in the naming of the functions.)
Each one of these has some storage place for whatever
wave and wave direction that passes it. So it can allow
two waves separately to cross the point.
These waves are but numbers going up and below a medium
level--in next chapter we get a kind of rotating numbers
enabled, what we in TF call 'pathfinder numbers'; these
are the types of things that the conventional equations
use socalled 'complex numbers' for.
If there's only one slit, the wave spreads after that
slit and that's that. With two slits, one wave will as if
split into two separate 'fans', spreading out and the
interaction arise when waves add on top of each other at
some points, and cancel each other at other points.
So when we have quantum experiments, it's something of
a kick that waves do arise when one would think, if one
starts with a yet earlier form of physics, that we have
mostly only particles. So the fact that one can push small
bits of particles towards two slits and get a wave pattern
when one counts up the arrivals at some distance on the
other side--given a lot of premises--is a fundamental
experiment showing the importance of the quantum-type of
processes in reality--even if the experiment itself shows
finely little about what the theory of the situation
should be.
In the simple illustrations of a formal kind that we
provide to our super-model theory, which we will spell out
more about as we go along in the next chapters, we use
nodes very simply; but it should be understood that such
simple uses of the FCM nodes, or 'funds', or 'foundries',
as it is called within the program, is capable of much
more refined expressions.
In the simple illustration, we tag each slit with the
function that the slit is to spread the wave; we tag each
node with up to two wave directions; and divide the wave
directions into four general directions forward (and, if
called on, four general directions in reverse).
Q. Is that why the waves are a bit jagged?
A. Yes. They are jagged because we have implemented here
only as much directions as necessary to see the core form
of wave interference; and only as many nodes as to see
some kind of wave--not smooth at all, and made jagged also
because of the few directions, and such--rather than
adding up so many nodes that the resolutions get so high
that the picture won't say anything. It is by lowres we
get the picture to tell us something quantum.
And this is a typical characteristic, I think, of doing
suitably successful theorizing in thought--where we
naturally easily imagine smooth waves and so on--and wish
to invoke a finite, consciously and beautifully limited
formal illustration of some features of this theory. The
mental image is smooth, continous, and hints of infinity;
the formal element illustrates some features more
mechanically.
6.B. Rotating Vector of Super-model Mapping Double Slits
Q. All right. You have talked of 'pathfinder numbers', in
the previous part of the chapter, promising that they'll
make their entrance in this part of the chapter, where we
come to quantum processes more closely. Now what are these
and why do they come in here?
A. A pathfinder number is a rotating arrow or vector that
can be added to any other such in a way that is similar to
how water waves can add--or sometimes cancel--each other,
but a little more complex. Water waves, when they are
smooth, when the waves don't break, are complex enough;
but clearly, they have an up-and-down-and-up finesse about
them when it comes to adding and substracting them. So
two crossing waves may add up or cancel or both may be
below and become doubly so.
The same happens with PF numbers, pathfinder numbers,
only that these can move sideways as well. So they have
an extra dimension. They can, in this rich world,
organize things a little more richly; or provide a more
tight structure around rather complex events.
The way we do PF numbers is not by means of strict
addition of the type found in branches of conventional
mathematics, in which a sense of infinity is associated
with the very definitions of numbers such as the radius of
the unit circle. The approximations used in conventional
mathematics are so as to strive forever more towards some
illusion of absolute continuity and perfection in how
things are added.
In contrast, the PF numbers are simple whole-number
algorithms that take a whole number version with just a
handful of digits of the trigonometric sine, cosine and
square root, and the reverse of sine and cosine, so as
to provide some degree of rotation without pretending that
it resembles any 'continuity' idea at all. Rather, it is
consistently rather low-res, as we can put it. But the
point is that it has some two-dimensionality about it, and
it is consistent, and a simple algorithm, easy to decode
and no more complicated to look into than such as the
formula used to look into the length of triangles.
You ask 'why' they come in. That has two levels of
answer to it. Empirically, the phenomena needs some stuff
like this, otherwise we won't get around to do any clear
setup of any formal stuff that can have correlations as
found in all the quantum cases, mostly. Theoretically, in
the super-model theory, it makes sense that some type of
number--in this case, the pathfinder or PF numbers are
stored as 0..1000 as for intensity, and 0..6282 as for
rotation factor (6.2832 is twice 3.1416 and this is about
the size of the radius in the unit circle; but the unit
in G15 PMN is ten thousand instead of one), should be a
coin of interaction between these vastly different types
of super-models. It makes sense that this plays on the
ideas of the circle and the triangle for we are oriented
towards gestalts, shapes, wholes when it comes to a more
advanced level of super-model theory. This is the simplest
way it can play on it. But we have to remember that the
super-models can relate to one another in quite complex
ways in addition; and then other factors, not reduced to
such a number, are more significant.
Q. In quantum mechanics, the equations at some points lead
to probability densities, as they are called; the density
is then converted to conventional probability also by
means of squaring it. Does this apply to the pathfinder
numbers, the PF numbers?
A. Yes. Empirically, this is one of the patterns found to
apply all over the place. We find that 'squaring' arises
in various places,--the multiplying of a factor with
itself--not in the least where energy gets manifest. In
super-model theory in its present form, we satisfy our-
selves simply by asserting that squaring, as a simple
arithmetic idea, plays a role several places when we deal
with the numerical correlations as measured. The light
speed factor, Planck's constant, and some other factors
and features like this, are part of the wholeness of the
manifest universe; so also with the squaring of the speed
of light in correlating energy and matter, and the
squaring of the rotational two-dimensional numbers to go
from the internal form of the probability density--or PF
intensity--to a measurement probability.
Alright, let's begin discussing code. The code at k:5000
is, fundamentally similar to all quantum code in the
remaining chapters in this physics text. It is explained
simply as this: it is all the code in the TF platform for
classical waves but with the necessary changes to get the
PF numbers to do the work instead of ordinary numbers.
The PF numbers are defined by operations PH, AP, PA, and
PW, which are in source code in the predefined (PD) part
of G15 PMN for the Third Foundation.
When we come to the features of light and gravitation as
in Einstein's work we import the numerical correlation
ideas he proposed but this is clearly a 'neo-einsteinian'
theory in that although we appreciate Albert Einstein's
notion of the theoretical view as central and core in a
physics theory, we have different ideas as to the role of
the speed of light. So we suggest how correlations of a
similar kind can be exhibited without going into exact
details, just showing that it is a plain numerical job to
fine-tune, if one wishes, the FCM loop to produce whatever
exact correlations that he produced.
Q. Why, again, didn't you include the quantum types of
waves with the core FCM set of functions? When you have
the classical waves there?
A. Because the introduction of the pathfinder numbers--to
actually put them into a loop--requires first-hand
attention. It's not a question of pre-done work. It's
something to be done with the utmost care of the careful
scientist and the enthusiastic programmer. Besides, we
want to see the formalism spelled out. What's the point of
just calling on an inbuilt function in a library and say,
"That's it! That's quantum?" That's not the way of doing
first-hand science. The way of doing first-hand science is
to spell it out--in the "low resolution" of real code--and
say, "Here, that's something quantum for you--see those
PF numbers there, how they interact to produce this" etc.
So if we suspend further questions for now and look at the
code as best we can. The part C code, you should notice,
has two features not in part A of this chapter: here,
have a particle, not just waves; and we also have a
measure of the arrivals of particles on the right side of
the image generated as you run it, or view a sample run of
it when you read it in a book. This code, in part B of
this chapter, is the bridge to the code with particles.
So, in the programs that follow, the TF code for classic
waves has been modified--eg a phrase like 'pwav' is used
to remind us that pathfinders are used. In the first
program using this, for clarity, we have not yet put the
super-model wave to use: it merely 'maps' the territory,
ready to do its subliminal guiding of a particle should
it enter. This, you notice, is a discussion of particle
that fits with the principle of both Einstein and de
Broglie of talking about reality and visualizing it. But
it breaks with the assumption Einstein sought when it
comes to locality. Yet, since we are doing this as
algorithm, we are getting a locality at another level, we
might say: not at the surface level of our dimensions and
our experience of process or duration, but at the level
where all this is modelled. And so we have rationality
intact, it is only that the reality model is much more
complex than that originally postulated by Einstein. In
that sense, then, we can say that this is a kind of
neo-einsteinian reality picture, informed more by the
quantum phenomena than by the first interpretations of
these phenomena as according to Bohr and his group.
As the broader picture we have here, we've particles which
are not only guided by usual background field fluctuations
and their own position and momentum, but also by the
pilot wave. Each particle is a super-model; the space-
matrix are supermodels; the pilot wave also; but only
some of these are associated with manifest energy. In
informal terms, we are having a theory in which a great
deal of what goes on is underneath, so to speak, the
manifest level; but the fact that it is one and the same
kind of thing both at the manifest and the subtle level
means that we have a simplicity of a kind that, although
clearly different from Einstein's idea of the continuous
field, has a resonance in the conceptual ease.
Since the code using the pathfinder numbers is spelled
out in much detail, we wait a moment before introducing
the particles--that comes in the code at k:5000. First,
we simply let the pathfinder numbers, which are but
length and angle, do their work through the double slit
and very symbolically, in a low-res way, we get a sense
of there being some kind of wave interference here--though
it has a very different feel to it than in the classical
situation.
Let's bear in mind that the waves next shown are not
directly measured by the type of measurements associated
with today's physics. They are assumed to underlie the
patterns of energy, while being themselves of something
more subtle than manifest energy. The assumption of such a
kind of subtle energy is a simple one when you see that it
not only solves a number of questions in quantum physics,
but in a wider spectrum of questions we might have about
reality. The notion of 'simplicity', then, is highly
dependent on the context and scope of domain and network
of other understandings with which we wish to weave our
theory. To my mind, it is a very simple and obvious
assumption; but I have read works by bohrian physicists
who stick to the idea that their foggy ideas of reality is
all in all a more simple one because they 'assume less'.
But the complexities coming from assuming less of content
to reality should be obvious when we widen the scope of
enquiry and actively seek coherence also in mind:
<k4000>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<k4001>
fundnet |up a fcm
lk |network with
thisfcmnet |a good amount
kl |funds; here:
|for super-
|At previous |model theory
|and next |formal
|card, we set |illustrations
<k4002>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<k4003>
pwavfactor= 8
1. rd
|The pathfind ts
|nums have |Toggle sign
|angle->6282 |so motion
|and length |clockwise
|up to 1000 ^pwavfactor
6283 setfastvar
<k4004>
startpwav= get30x50
|In:tr#,fnwrp
tx
sh
|Uses node 0,0
42
0
0 ap
<k4005>
w
pwavfactor
ad
w
ps
pa
t5
<k4006>
j5 50
42 jx
0 wk
0 fnwarp
put30x50 s5
<k4007>
j5
10
i5
kw.
|A billion or
|above is
|graphed eg as
|a boundary
<k4008>
bringpwavon= s3
|In:angl pfnum s9
|triplet# fn# s6
|pwav=pfnumber
|wave
fnwarp jx
tx 10
tripletpos wk
<k4009>
1000000000 i9
ge
jx
se i3
ad
ex pw
<k4010>
42 |'pw' is a
0 |the same as
0 |'pf'--to add
get30x50 |pathfindnums,
i3 |only that pw
jx |does it in a
ad |stored
pw |address, warp
<k4011>
i6
|Angle#
|into it
i3
u2
jx
kw.
<k4012>
carrypwavhere= i9
|In:tr#, fnwrp u2
|Via carrypwav jx
tx wk
sx |i4 is angle#
ix
tripletpos
s9 s4
<k4013>
i4
1
8
isnotwithin
se
ex
<k4014>
i9 ap
jx 2
wk di
t1 pa
|Pathfindnum
|in j1; next, i9
|easing jx
j1 kw
<k4015>
jx m4
wtofnnum
fund30x50
s2
s1 dh
<k4016>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
f1 f1
i2 f2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k4017>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
i1 f1
f2 f2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k4018>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
m1 i1
f2 f2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k4019>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
m1 m1
i2 f2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k4020>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
m1 m1
i2 m2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k4021>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
m1 i1
m2 m2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k4022>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
i1 f1
m2 m2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k4023>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
f1 f1
i2 m2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex.
<k4024>
spreadpwav=
|In:fnwrp
|via
|carrypwav;
|only when
|luxuryvalue
|#40 has
|triplet#;
<k4025>
tx wtofnnum
40 fund30x50
jx
wk
tripletpos
sx up
s2
jx s1
<k4026>
10 i1
jx u2
wk i2
pos30x50
t5 s5
<k4027>
f1 m1
i2 i2
pos30x50 pos30x50
s6
i1
i2
pos30x50
s7 s8
<k4028>
j5 1
ix ix
u2
i5 i5
fnsetval fnsetval
<k4029>
j5 2
ix ix
u2
i6 i6
fnsetval fnsetval
<k4030>
j5 3
ix ix
u2
i7 i7
fnsetval fnsetval
<k4031>
j5 4
ix ix
u2
i8 i8
fnsetval fnsetval.
<k4032>
carrypwav= 1000000000
|In:tr#,fnwrp ge
tx
sh se
10
jx
wk ex
<k4033>
40 d3
jx
|pos #40
|shows
|spreadpoints jx
wk spreadpwav
n? ex
<k4034>
ll:2 &carrypwav&
i1 1969
jx
carrypwavhere
lo. fnactcherish
<k4035>
graphpwhere=
|in:v1,v2,x,y
s4
s1
t9
t1
<k4036>
j1 i1
1000000000 i4
graphboundary
lt
d4 ex
<k4037>
i1 w
i4
|'ni' converts sh
|quantum |square it:
|prob density ni
|to probabilty |permille:
j1 500
ap pm
<k4038>
w
sh
ni
500
j9 pm
ap graphfnval.
<k4039>
graphpwavfns= s5
|Fnact shows i5
|pwav funds n?
tx
sh
10 se
jx
wk fcmdrawintro
<k4040>
i5 mo
up ye
10
jx se
kw
i5 ex
fcmgraphloop
lk freshsketch
<k4041>
i5 ll:35
makenumber ll:30
m2
860 m1
668 pos30x50
f
fnmainval
rp
<k4042>
w lo
fnnextval lo
approvesketch
m2
m1
graphpwhere
<k4043>
fcmshowpause
lk
activepause
ck
se
fcmmaybepause.
<k4044>
mkdbleslit= ll:35
|quantum ver fundlevel
49 dancebeneath
t4 |We need only
1000051 |y to 35 here;
setfundlevel |At display
2000000000 |here, y is
tx |rightways
<k4045>
ll:30 m1
|Double slits: 9
| 10,9 #1 eq
| 18,9 #2
|startwave: m2
| 14,0 #1 10
|wavetag:pos40 eq
basis n?
<k4046>
m2 sh
18 jx
eq f
n? |Carrypwav:
an 1969
an 0
n? ^smposition
d2 fneasyact
<k4047>
4
47
adjustfund
m2
|2nd triplet: dc
13 m1
adjustfund pos30x50
<k4048>
50
adjustfund
i2
m1
pos30x50
51
adjustfund
<k4049>
m2 m2
m1 i1
dc pos30x50
pos30x50
52 53
adjustfund adjustfund
<k4050>
m1 m2
34 1
eq le
|Handle edges! or
m2 |Here, y to 35
28 |and x to 30
ge
or n?
<k4051>
d3 1
basis 40
j4 14
adjustfund 0
lo put30x50
lo 1
40
|spreadnodes: 10
<k4052>
9 mkdbleslit
put30x50 995000
|doubleslits setfundlevel
2
40
18 &startpwav&
9 3140
put30x50. fnactcherish
<k4053>
1 0
3140 pos30x50
1 50
adjustfund
1
^fnstartpwav 47
fneasyact
14 adjustfund
<k4054>
1200000 0
setfundlevel 2300
0
&graphpwavfns&
2300 ^fnpwavgraph
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k4055>
100 |for
400 |startpwav
pa
42
|Luxurypos#42
0
0
put30x50
<k4056>
longtxt* cliptrail
Rotating quant
um vectors in
supermodel map
ping double sl
its
fcmheadertxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k4057>
longtxt* cliptrail
Fig. 2.b: path
finder-numbers
are used as v
ectors. FCM
Loop#
fcmlooptxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k4058>
10 &fcm&
fcmgraphloop
kl
zz
[In paper form, a sample of output is reproduced as
an image. In the TF, the FCM comes alive on the screen
when you type ^k4000 and, on the next line, cc. Press
then <ESC> button when you've seen enough of it. In this
code, it's also possible to press <SPACE> to pause it.]
Q. I have noticed that when you write about physics, the
word 'coherence' comes up quite often. Before we go into
this quantum double slit experiment--or super-model double
slit experiment--can you say something about how you use
that word? And is, for example, the pilot waves or super-
model waves in this example coherent, in some sense?
A. Yes. Now--and this is a point I once discussed a lot
with a Norwegian physicist, Astri Kleppe,--physicists have
perhaps never gone deeply into the definition of coherence
and I think this is a challenge (although some might argue
that it is a too essential thing to be ever 'defined').
One of the most industrially well-known uses of the
word is in the definition of laser light--laser light is
defined to be 'coherent light', in contrast to light that
has all sorts of wavelengths and phases. So, in that
context, coherence means that the wave in question is, so
to speak, attuned to itself; that there's a smoothness and
a togetherness so that it acts as one, belonging together
with itself. And this touches on the natural understanding
of 'coherence' in the dictionary. Sometimes, in natural
language, coherent refers to a persons sound, sane, normal
state of mind whereas a phrase like 'incoherent babble'
refers to a break-down of intellectual clarity. But when
we go to philosophy, coherence may mean wholeness and
freedom from deeper inconsistencies in patterns of
thinking. So it's quite a concept.
The way I feel it is making most sense to use the word
is to state that the super-models in question are acting
so that their effects aren't going to cancel themselves
out at all points. And, so, yes, the simplest case of
coherence is then that we have a double-slit experience,
in which the wave interference presupposes a degree of
coherence of the initial wave and that the envinonment
isn't too full of factors of noise and fluctuation, as
seen from the perspective of the initial wave; also, the
sizes and relative distances of the slits must be in
alignment with the frequencies involved--all this is also
a question of coherence. But we'll see that a vast
expansion of the range of phenomena covered by the concept
coherence makes sense--in the next chapter.
Let me add that it is quite typical of people doing
rather fragmentary thinking that they try to fragment the
very concept of 'coherence'. It happens all the time. It
is the lack of understanding of the deeper significance
of coherence that has led physicists to speak of three
groups of 'quantum wierdness' as three distinct groups,
instead of as various forms of quantum coherence: you see
this when they divide 'entanglement' from 'tunnelling' and
divide both these from 'coherence' (each word prefixed by
the word 'quantum').
Q. All right. Another thing, before we look at the code:
I have been thinking about what you said about Einstein's
insistence on visualisation. It seems to me that some
could argue that, as it were from an industrial viewpoint,
science doesn't need more than equations and some rules of
thumb for how to apply them. What do you think?
A. An empty-minded science? Surely, when we do programming
then as long as the programs work out in the contexts in
which we employ them, we don't have to change them: we
don't even have to understand them, we just use them. But
once a program doesn't suit the environment, it must be
worked on, and this must happen according to understanding
and understanding requires some degree of clear
visualisation of what the program is doing, at each step.
If we don't have such visualisation, we have a second-
hand approach to the program. Factories which produce
transistors don't have to understand transistors, only
know how to treat the silicon and the boron and so on, but
science is, per definition, about knowing, and it is by
knowing, which includes visualisation, we're able to say
that we have knowledge for real; and this knowledge for
real is necessary when it comes to checking the wholeness
--and indeed also coherence--of our formalisms.
Q. Right. And, with Kurt Goedel's famous work on
incompleteness, it would seem strange to try to soldify
anyone set of formalisms. We must always develop more; and
apply our intuitions.
A. Exactly, and this is a theme we'll return to in the
last chapters in this physics booklet. As long as we are
giving the human mind a role in science--and I think most
people will clearly agree that the point of science is
that it is an input to, and exists, and is developed by,
the human mind, or our minds,--then understanding of the
wholeness of what underlies our formalisms must have a
grand priority. And in understanding, some degree of
visualisation, even if rather abstract, is natural and
essential. This is science; and if physics is part of
science, as it is supposed to be, then what applies for
science must apply for physics. Without visualisation,
there is no physics. And that's an objective statement of
fact given all the most considered philosophies of science
that do exist.
Q. As for the code. I have some quick questions.
A. Go ahead.
Q. How exact is this pilot wave relative to actual double
slit quantum experiments?
A. The formalism is only meant to illustrate some features
of the theory, how it could be done. It admits of all
sorts of tweakings to fit with the enormous many
variations of empirical studies. The formalism shows the
type of algorithms and the type of connections between the
components of the matrices involved that are to be
expected if you wished the code to correspond to empirics.
Any concrete situation may be radically different in many
ways, and yet, when worked on, the claim is that this is
the main formal features that are needed.
Q. In the next part of this chapter, we bring in particles
--but here we only have the underlaying pilot wave or
underlaying supermodel. Why is it changing? Shouldn't it
be static?
A. No, it shouldn't. Very few things connected to the
subtle energies of this universe are in the least static.
It is true that the numerical predictions of conventional
quantum theory just suggest a probability density wave for
such a situation, and leaves it at that; but one cannot
infer from that scarcity in its formalism that the
underlaying reality behaves that way.
Q. How, then, do we go from it to a particular prediction
of arrivals of particles?
A. Before I answer, let me say that the word 'prediction'
is, in my opinion, used too quickly in conventional
science. It is a word brought in to make it sound as if
the scientist is always working out of general, pure
principles and then only later on looking at empirics. In
actual fact, there's a rich interplay between the many
levels of theory working, formalisms, and empirical
studies. And then mostly, when a scientist say 'predict',
it would be more proper to say, 'we would perhaps expect'
--given the theory and many additional assumptions.
Because the pathway between theory and empirics is always
a long and winding road.
One of the natural assumptions when working with hidden
variables or pilot wave theories of any sort, is that the
universe is full of quantum fluctuations. In programming
languages, we can speak of RFFG--relatively free
fluctuation numbers, which aren't in any way 'random'
(although in conventional computer science that has been
the typical word). Quantum fluctuations permeate the
background, and subtly alter the initial conditions when
particles are arriving on a scenery. The supermodel may
be relatively static, but it doesn't have to be built up
that way--it can rather be understood to settle, after a
certain number of permutations, so as to yield directions
to the particle. This we'll see in the next part of this
chapter, part C, with the code at k:5000.
Q. When I look to the left of the double slit, when, for
instance, the FCM loop# is 120, it seems like there's a
wave pattern already there--not just to the right of the
slits.
A. You are right: and in some cases, in some empirical
setups, with some particles or bits of matter, given
certain energies and sizes of slits and distances, we
could get such a pattern. Yet, at all points in this setup
we have several uses of the rotating vectors, the quantum
vectors, the pathfinder numbers, and so it isn't strange
that we get wave patterns of several kinds and so a less
obviously organised impression than in the first classical
wave symbolic example we looked at in an earlier chapter.
Nevertheless, there is some interference that is driven by
the two slits, also related to the pathfinder numbers, and
this is the type of thing the theory says goes on in
reality--this is part of how super-models organize
themselves. But in order to match some empirical setups,
one would vary this or that part of the formalism so as to
match other types of double slit experiments--perhaps even
drastic variations, and yet the G15 PMN approach to the
FCM matrix very roughly as indicated here will still be
right.
Q. It is much code, but I suppose one can argue that every
bit of it is simple in itself.
A. Yes, exactly. Less quantity of code wouldn't convey the
adequate complexity of the situation empirically involved.
But there isn't any 'magical' symbol introduced here. It's
just more of the same type of stuff that we had in the
beginning; and indeed, the pathfinder numbers themselves
are just more algorithms of the same type also--combining
simple whole-number forms of square root, inverse cosine
and such to get an easy way of adding vectors and cause
them to rotate. There's nothing in this code that a plain
programming manual doesn't explain. What it means, what it
signifies, is another question: and our framework, then,
is that of a comphrensive, complex informal theory of
super-models on which we wish to shed some light by
illustrating some features of it formally in this way. It
could be done in very different ways, or by means of a
heavily modified FCM-like type of code. But this is what
comes natural and easy given the presence of a first-hand
algorithmic programming language like G15 PMN. And the
fact is that we are, by it, able to discuss more of the
content of the theory than if we had invoked any esotheric
mathematics and its funny symbols. Given the fact also
that modern physicists are rarely discussing any of their
intricate mathematics without relying on computer
approximations and permutations, it's also an approach to
physics that is more first-hand, direct, frank and honest
than the reliance on the worn-out, little-understood
symbols of mathematics conventionally used to illustrate
theories of quantum phenomena, such as the Hamiltonian
function.
Q. Agree. Shall we bring in particles, then?
A. Let's! Here, we follow the convention of dividing
particles into two main classes, in the usual cases. These
are named after physicists. One class is light-like, the
bosons: they can, as seen from a certain resolution of
measurements, occupy the same positions in space (although
we shouldn't take this too literally). The other class is
matter-like, the fermions. The latter don't accumulate in
the same positions, but want more space for themselves. In
our next illustration, which is purely abstract and merely
meant to elucidate some more features of the super-model
theory, we display particles that sometimes occupy the
same position in the matrix. For convenience we call them,
then, bosonic.
6.C. Quantum Process Of Particles Through Double Slits
Q. The next formalism is much larger than the previous.
Why?
A. It isn't really prolonging the overall set of functions
all that much, when you recall that the classical wave
stuff is all incorporated into the FCM, which is part of
the G15 PMN through the Third Foundation. It is true that
it is larger than the previous code, but that's just
because we not only have to introduce particles, as new
nodes, new super-models, that relate to the existing
wave-like pattern of the super-models, but also because we
are wanting to graph a measurement of the results. That's
simple stuff but clearly it requires a few dozen extra
cards of code here and there.
Now, let's bear in mind that to create an empirical
situations showing an interference pattern of the very
symmetric kind that has been shown much in connection to
classical quantum theory, requires a lot of fine-tuning.
Since we are here operating without the idea of a
continous space--rather, space itself has a resolution--
and since we here show only a few such space-nodes at a
time--in the hundreds, or thousands--and since we
introduce only the barest minimum of algorithms to show
some ideas inherent in our much more comprehensive
theory, we do not try to impose a perfect smooth curve
symmetry of any kind.
What is to be noted here is this: the particles, when
moving in a super-model field, having fluctuations of
some kind--and here we have manually tuned these
fluctuations to provide some degree of symmetry--do show
patterns that would not be expected simply if particles
were fluctuating a little bit and then getting through two
little holes. Rather, there's a tendency that they are
at several places, and less tendency that they are at
several neighbouring places--rather than such a spread-out
curve with just two wave-heights that one would expect
if there were no pilot wave or super-model here.
Q. So you are saying, the key point here is that the
particles, though they arrive individually at the spots on
the right where they are measured, in fact act as if they
are representing some kind of wave that interacts or
interferes with itself.
A. Yes, something like that. The formalism merely shows
how this sort of thing MIGHT be done in the super-model
theory. Our emphasis is, number one, the meaning of the
theory in our minds, and, number two--after all this
meaning has been clarified and structured and talked about
and enquired into--that we have, at our disposal, a type
of formalism that lends itself eminently to displaying
this or that abstract feature of reality as indicated by
the light the theory gives.
Here, the measurement instrument is not introduced as an
object with which the particles nonlocally interact--we
are simply checking out how they would proceed if the two
slits are there, from the god-like standpoint of having a
model of them. In actual fact, the placement of a
measurement device, made at the same Planck level of
manifest energy as that which it measures, into a
measurement situation, creates of course a strong change
of the super-model mapping the situation, and it will
affect the particles nonlocally. But we don't need to
spell this out in our formalism in order to get a hold on
the fact of there being some kind of interference of the
particle waves through the two slits (and in that sense,
the formalism we are working with is far easier, more
pliable and almost infinitely more flexible than that
which characterised Bohm's measurement theory, and which
is an integral part of that which some refer to as
the de Broglie-Bohm theory).
There is in the code as follows some fluctuation--this
is shown by the predefined two-letter word AF, which can
more or less short for 'a fluctuating number'--for the
initial position. Due to how we have lined up the code,
there's a little bit tendency of the map to favour the
slit that is beneath the other one; so we have introduced
a tendency, just a slight one, that the initial position
is at {13,0} rather than {14,0}. In addition, as each
particle moves, it looks to the field up front, the field
left up front, and the field right up front, and to each
of the intensities found here--after squaring the field by
the PD function NI--we also find the AF function.
When you want to see the curve in this program, then,
you start the graph, see how the particles move when each
FCM loop# is shown, then click ENTER several times and
wait. That gives it a chance to spin ahead to a much
higher loop-number. When it is into the thousands, the
curve begins to reflect something of pattern of the
guiding super-model.
Q. But the influence of the guiding super-model is not due
to a conventional type of force acting on the particle. Is
it, rather as Bohm did in his equations, added to the
classical forces?
A. I beg to differ from how he did it there: for in the
super-model theory, there is only, ultimately, one force,
and that we call PMW--the principle of a tendency of
movement towards wholeness, and we discuss in upcoming
parts of the text. But broadly, the PMW is so to speak the
justification for all the structure here. And whatever is
here, is also a super-model. So we don't add something
very quantum to something very classic. Rather, we have
various super-models acting upon each other, modelling
or mapping one another, and relating this data to one
another. This is is the general framework of thought which
I propose is the right one to map the thoughts and
insights we have gathered in the two thousand years of
physics work since Aristotle began it.
Now, in this particular code, it is true that there is
some formalism that is suggesting itself to an
understanding along the lines of classical or 'newtonian'
forces, which in this case are getting the particles to
move right, and keep on doing so until they either are
absorbed in the boundary or slip through a slit and are
absorbed in the measurement area. And it is true that to
this which can be interpreted this way, we add something
which is more quantum-like. So there's an afinity to Bohm,
but notice very clearly that we have at no point asserted
that anything of this is a conventional, newtonian force.
We have simply provided an illustration regarding some
movement patterns in which there's a momentum that's sort
of understood.
This shows an interesting feature of this formalism
relative to conventional mathematics used in modern
physics, and it is that the G15 PMN formalism, as used
here, has a new and unique level of abstraction. One would
easily have thought that things get more concrete when one
brings in the idea of algorithm, but, as it turns out,
they get more general and more open to interpretation.
Having said that, once we would like to apply this to a
highly concrete situation, say, with a magnetic field--
a classical field, rather--acting on something like free
electrons in vacuum--then we would have to make it all
more concrete at several points, if we wanted to do it all
formally. And yet, we would then have the same type of
FCM nodes, which are super-models, to structure the
presence of the magnetic field and the properties of the
electron including its momentum in this model. And then we
would find that the electron has fluctuations; that these
fluctuations aren't measurable all the way without acting
on these fluctuations so as to change them nonlocally--
thereby HUP, the Heisenberg Uncertainty (or Indeterminacy)
Principle, in our form of it--and that these fluctuations,
significantly, are not quite free but forced alongside the
pathways of the guiding super-model. That is to say, the
concept of the 'random quantum fluctuations' (if there
ever were such a concept) becomes instead the notion of
'relatively free but also relatively coherent quantum
fluctuations'. These are the presumed background activity
of anything we theorize about here, and the forces of the
more classical kind are merely strong super-models acting
on top of these fluctuations.
Q. But then, if I understand you correctly, you are saying
that the classical forces need not, in some situations,
always rule the day. Because the coherence could be too
strong for them.
A. Which is empirically, in a way, entirely compatible
with what classical quantum theory says: that there's
never zero probability--something may be extremely
unlikely (given the conditions they operate with) but it
isn't impossible; and if these 'unlikelinesses' are
suddenly made coherent then Newton and his forces would
have to yield altogether (while we bear in mind that the
later Newton believed as much as mysticism and its
possibilities for acting on matter as in the forces he had
studied numerical as young).
We could go on and on with this theme, and provide
pathways to concrete examples, also; but for now, let's
just understand that in super-model theory, coherence is
the way in which the patterns of super-models can make
themselves present more directly in manifest energies
incl. matter. And so, in the context of painting
ballerinas, or dancing, or meditating, or doing anything,
including sex, which involves what we intuitively feel to
be wholeness, harmony, resonance, rhythm and indeed also
coherence, we are at liberty to explore the philosophy of
super-model-inspired theoretical thinking and consider, as
possible, that the intuitive experience of coherence is
no other than at least some of the forms of coherence we
talk about so technically here.
Q. More of this talk!
A. Ah, speculation is much more fun when we have the
foundations in order. Let's work through all the hard
things, including the general relativity stuff, and the
goedelian stuff, and then, with a highly abstract clear-
cut sense of it all, we do the philosophy of mind, feeling
and soul, and all that, with much greater ease. Now, then,
the code. It's long, but consider how much it does--
particles, the field of super-models, the mapping of the
slits, the fluctuations, the measurements, the graphing of
the measurements, and even some function-keys to make it
easier to study the FCM model.
<k5000>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<k5001>
fundnet |up a fcm
lk |network with
thisfcmnet |a good amount
kl |funds; here:
|for super-
|At previous |model theory
|and next |formal
|card, we set |illustrations
<k5002>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<k5003>
pwavfactor= 8
1. rd
|The pathfind ts
|nums have |Toggle sign
|angle->6282 |so motion
|and length |clockwise
|up to 1000 ^pwavfactor
6283 setfastvar
<k5004>
startpwav= get30x50
|In:tr#,fnwrp
tx
sh
|Uses node 0,0
42
0
0 ap
<k5005>
w
pwavfactor
ad
w
ps
pa
t5
<k5006>
j5 50
42 jx
0 wk
0 fnwarp
put30x50 s5
<k5007>
j5
10
i5
kw.
|A billion or
|above is
|graphed eg as
|a boundary
<k5008>
bringpwavon= s3
|In:angl pfnum s9
|triplet# fn# s6
|pwav=pfnumber
|wave
fnwarp jx
tx 10
tripletpos wk
<k5009>
1000000000 i9
ge
jx
se i3
ad
ex pw
<k5010>
42 |'pw' is a
0 |the same as
0 |'pf'--to add
get30x50 |pathfindnums,
i3 |only that pw
jx |does it in a
ad |stored
pw |address, warp
<k5011>
i6
|Angle#
|into it
i3
u2
jx
kw.
<k5012>
carrypwavhere= i9
|In:tr#, fnwrp u2
|Via carrypwav jx
tx wk
sx |i4 is angle#
ix
tripletpos
s9 s4
<k5013>
i4
1
8
isnotwithin
se
ex
<k5014>
i9 ap
jx 2
wk di
t1 pa
|Pathfindnum
|in j1; next, i9
|easing jx
j1 kw
<k5015>
jx m4
wtofnnum
fund30x50
s2
s1 dh
<k5016>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
f1 f1
i2 f2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k5017>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
i1 f1
f2 f2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k5018>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
m1 i1
f2 f2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k5019>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
m1 m1
i2 f2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k5020>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
m1 m1
i2 m2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k5021>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
m1 i1
m2 m2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k5022>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
i1 f1
m2 m2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex
<k5023>
i4 i4
j1 j1
ix ix
f1 f1
i2 m2
tn pos30x50
pos30x50 bringpwavon
bringpwavon ex.
<k5024>
spreadpwav=
|In:fnwrp
|via
|carrypwav;
|only when
|luxuryvalue
|#40 has
|triplet#;
<k5025>
tx wtofnnum
40 fund30x50
jx
wk
tripletpos
sx up
s2
jx s1
<k5026>
10 i1
jx u2
wk i2
pos30x50
t5 s5
<k5027>
f1 m1
i2 i2
pos30x50 pos30x50
s6
i1
i2
pos30x50
s7 s8
<k5028>
j5 1
ix ix
u2
i5 i5
fnsetval fnsetval
<k5029>
j5 2
ix ix
u2
i6 i6
fnsetval fnsetval
<k5030>
j5 3
ix ix
u2
i7 i7
fnsetval fnsetval
<k5031>
j5 4
ix ix
u2
i8 i8
fnsetval fnsetval.
<k5032>
carrypwav= 1000000000
|In:tr#,fnwrp ge
tx
sh se
10
jx
wk ex
<k5033>
40 d3
jx
|pos #40
|shows
|spreadpoints jx
wk spreadpwav
n? ex
<k5034>
ll:2 &carrypwav&
i1 1969
jx
carrypwavhere
lo. fnactcherish
<k5035>
graphpwhere=
|in:v1,v2,x,y
s4
s1
t9
t1
<k5036>
j1 i1
1000000000 i4
graphboundary
lt |Same graph
|method for
|particle
d4 ex
<k5037>
i1 w
i4
sh
ni
j1 500
ap pm
<k5038>
w
sh
ni
500
j9 pm
ap graphfnval.
<k5039>
graphmeasures=
|In:fn# for
|measure;
|via
|graphpwavfns
sx
<k5040>
ll:28 f1
ix
fnay
i1
ix t5
fnay
t3
<k5041>
j5
0
j3 25
0 makefit
25 t5
makefit
t3
<k5042>
j3 14
sl ad
75
ad j5
sl
75
i1 ad
sl
<k5043>
14
ad
255
f1 shapelines
sl lo.
<k5044>
fnhighval= fnwarp
|in:fn# tx
|gives:highest
|in a fund of
|1st value in 28
|triplet#1, jx
|#7, #8 and wk
|#9
<k5045>
31 maxof3
jx
wk 10
jx
34 wk
jx
wk
maxofthis.
<k5046>
fcmactonkey= n?
fnloopcont
ki kl
sx
|Esc: fcmpausekey
ix lk
27 ix
eq eq
<k5047>
n? ix
13
d2 eq
n?
ki
se
sh ex
<k5048>
50
fcmgraphloop
ku.
<k5049>
graphpwavfns= s5
|Fnact:pwavs & i5
|particles etc n?
tx
sh
10 se
jx
wk fcmdrawintro
<k5050>
i5
up
60
10
jx i5
kw gt
<k5051>
i5 se
fcmgraphloop
lk ex
mo freshsketch
50
ye jx
wk
or s9
<k5052>
i5 ll:21
makenumber ll:30
m2
860 m1
668 pos30x50
f
rp fnhighval
<k5053>
w lo
fnnextval lo
i9
graphmeasures
m2
m1
graphpwhere approvesketch
<k5054>
fcmshowpause
lk
activepause
ck
se
fcmactonkey.
<k5055>
mkdbleslit= ll:35
|quantum ver fundlevel
49 dancebeneath
t4
1000051
setfundlevel
2000000000
tx
<k5056>
ll:30 m1
|Double slits 9
| 10,9 #1 eq
| 18,9 #2
|Init wave&prt m2
| 14,0 #1 10
|wavetag:pos40 eq
basis n?
<k5057>
m2 sh
18 jx
eq f
n? |Carrypwav:
an 1969
an 0
n? ^smposition
d2 fneasyact
<k5058>
4
47
adjustfund
m2
|2nd triplet: dc
13 m1
adjustfund pos30x50
<k5059>
50
adjustfund
i2
m1
pos30x50
51
adjustfund
<k5060>
m2 m2
m1 i1
dc pos30x50
pos30x50
52 53
adjustfund adjustfund
<k5061>
m1 m2
34 1
eq le
|Handle edges! or
m2 |Here, y to 35
28 |and x to 30
ge
or n?
<k5062>
d3 1
basis 40
j4 14
adjustfund 0
lo put30x50
lo 1
40
|spreadnodes: 10
<k5063>
9 mkdbleslit
put30x50 995000
|doubleslits setfundlevel
2
40
18 &startpwav&
9 3140
put30x50. fnactcherish
<k5064>
1 0
3140 pos30x50
1 50
adjustfund
1
^fnstartpwav 47
fneasyact
14 adjustfund
<k5065>
1150000 |This is where
setfundlevel |we store the
|measurement
|of arriving
0 |particles;
^measurearray |we use fnya
|and fnay w/
fneasy |range 1->30
<k5066>
1200000 0
setfundlevel 2300
0
&graphpwavfns&
2300 ^fnpwavgraph
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k5067>
1 |Link to the
47 |measurefund
adjustfund
thisfund
lk
dc
50
adjustfund
<k5068>
qfieldmanage= 10
|In:tr#,fnwrp wk
tx 60
sh eq
50 n?
jx se
wk
fnwarp ex
<k5069>
ll:21 ll:3
ll:30 i1
m2 50
m1 ad
pos30x50 jx
relaxfn wk
lo selfactivefn
lo lo.
<k5070>
|This fnact
|assumes links
|to fcmloop#
|and to
|particles
&qfieldmanage&
1492
fnactcherish
<k5071>
1160000 4
setfundlevel 47
0 adjustfund
1492 thisfund
0 lk
^toggleactive dc
50
fneasyact adjustfund
<k5072>
thisfund thisfund
lk lk
up up
51 up
adjustfund 52
|#50 has link adjustfund
|to fcmloop#; |particles
|#51-53 to |1-3
<k5073>
thisfund
lk
up
up
up
53
adjustfund
<k5074>
energyclass= 50000000
|In:fn# i5
|Gives:value fnmainval
|up to 1000; nilzabove
|re:subtle ap
|piloting of ni
|manifest ener w
s5 sh
<k5075>
50000000 ad
i5
fnnextval
nilzabove
ap
ni
w 2000
sh rd.
<k5076>
particlefnact= j1
|In:tr#,fnwrp tripletpos
tx t2
t1 |uses rffg
|j1=tr#: x,y j2
|stored here;& up
|where energy up
|is in 30x50fn t4
<k5077>
j2 0
jx j2
wk ix
sx i9
j4 put30x50
jx
wk
s9
<k5078>
|Tuned 350
|fluctuations gt
|in init pos:
se
13
up
1000
af t5
<k5079>
10 dh
ix
i9
get30x50
2000000000
|boundary?
lt |reinit:
<k5080>
j5 i9
sx j4
basis jx
s9 kw
ix tn
j2 tn
jx tn
kw tn
<k5081>
50 i9
jx 20
wk
|measure?
lt
t3 dh
<k5082>
ix ix
up j2
j3 jx
fnarrayup kw
j5 i9
sx j4
basis jx
s9 kw
<k5083>
0 j4
20 jx
|y up:
1 pn
<k5084>
h9 ix
ix dc
i9 i9
pos30x50 pos30x50
energyclass energyclass
350 350
af af
ad ad
<k5085>
ix
up
i9
pos30x50
energyclass
350
af
ad
<k5086>
which3 2
f eq
se
3
eq
se
hx qx
<k5087>
ix 1000000000
j2
j2
jx ix
|X result also i9
|of supermodel
|guidance
kw put30x50.
<k5088>
^particlefnact
1777
fnactcherish
<k5089>
1160020 |Init:x,y=14,0
setfundlevel 14
28
1 adjustfund
^particle1
fneasy 0
|triplet#7 30
|is at pos 28 adjustfund
<k5090>
1 |Fnact:
47 1777
adjustfund 29
adjustfund
^measurearray
fnam
50
adjustfund
<k5091>
2 |Init:x,y=14,0
^particle2 14
fneasy 31
|triplet #8 adjustfund
1777 0
32 33
adjustfund adjustfund
<k5092>
1 ^measurearray
47 fnam
adjustfund 50
adjustfund
<k5093>
3 |Init:x,y=14,0
^particle3 14
fneasy 34
|triplet #9 adjustfund
1777 0
35 36
adjustfund adjustfund
<k5094>
1 ^measurearray
47 fnam
adjustfund 50
adjustfund
<k5095>
100 |for
400 |startpwav
pa
42
|Luxurypos#42
0
0
put30x50
<k5096>
longtxt* cliptrail
Particles goin
g through doub
le slits in Su
per-model theo
ry
fcmheadertxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k5097>
longtxt* cliptrail
Fig. 2.c: Part
icles {bosonic
} move & are m
easured FCM
Loop#
fcmlooptxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k5098>
now= ^add 50 to
ce b9
^FCM STARTING! ^variable
b9 b9
^<ESC> quits, ^determining
b9 b9
^<ENTER> will ^displayupdate
b9 b9
<k5099>
^and <SPACE> ki
b9
^to pause*** sh
b9
^Press any
b9
^key to start!
b9 ce
<k5100>
1 fcm.
fcmgraphloop
kl
100
fcmshowpause &now&
kl zz
[In paper form, a sample of output is reproduced as
an image. In the TF, the FCM comes alive on the screen
when you type ^k5000 and, on the next line, cc. Press
then <ESC> button when you've seen enough of it. In this
code, it's also possible to press <SPACE> to pause it; and
<ENTER> to add 50 to variable that determines how often
the routine should update the display.]
Q. Why this particular curveshape? Why doesn't it look
more like the symmetrical result we modelled as for the
classical waves?
A. Because we have just thrown in the pathfinder numbers
here, at low resolution, with just a few possible angles
of movement, and we aren't interested in replicating any
abstract ideal of what interference ought to be. We simply
want to show SOME WAVE-PROPERTIES of stuff that in itself
can fruitfully be regarded by particles when subjected to
an inner piloting of SOME SORT OF INTEREFERENCE pattern,
in which, in this case, two slits have played a role. You
take the code and work it around to make something fitting
something empirical: the points is that with these
formalisms, which after all are extremely simple compared
to what is assumed inside the little symbols used in
conventional mathematics--we assume less than a permille
as much, as a rough guess, with these whole number
algorithms--with these formalisms, then, we are showing
that we consistenly are getting all the TYPES of patterns
we are finding with quantum laboratories. The detailed
patterns are different in every study; but the super-model
work lends itself to formalisms that have an intense
calculational simplicity able to encompass all the sort
of GENERAL phenomena numerical correlations found there.
We will find that we get the same with regard to the
results that Einstein termed 'relativity', and yet at
those points we will, entirely unlike our agreement with
Einstein as regards theory of science, find that we must
take a radically different route in interpretation of the
Michelson-Morley experiment and so on and so forth.
Q. What would happen if we wanted to set up double slits
more or less like this with a measurement instruments at
one or both of the slits, to determine which slit a
particle gets through? I mean, as a physical, manifest
experiment?
A. A physical manifest experiment with physical manifest
measuring devices have to be handled as a situation which
is mapped by super-models afresh, in which the measurement
instrument is mapped over. At what we can call this our
"Planck level", we cannot get beyond the resolution
imposed by the size of Planck's constant on the energies
involved. So, when a particle moves and is then measured,
it is measured by means of an energic interaction. This
will entirely upset the inteference pattern. And so, this
shows something of what is meant by HUP, the Heisenberg
Uncertain Principle. It refers entirely to Planck's
constant. Planck's constant is necessary not when we do an
abstract modelling of a situation, but it is necessary
when we wish to compare this to an empirical situation,
and de Broglie's formula, speaking of manifest energy as
proportional with frequency of the pilot wave times
Planck's constant, tells us of the sensitivities here.
Let's at once state that there's more to HUP than just
a level of resolution--it is also that any introduction
into a situation of something that might potentially
interact with any of the energies there changes the whole
super-model mapping. In <k:5000> formalism, the FCM loop
begins by a super-model mapping the situation (during the
first 60 loops), before the particles are unleashed. Any
introduction of a new physical element in the situation
must lead to a total remapping. And in physical terms, it
means that the situation is, in a sense which
transcends the speed of light, changed: the pilot wave,
or q-field, or super-model, or what we call it, is changed
and so the resulting measurements will be changed. Not
just due to the limit of resolution, but due to that which
is also called 'nonlocal effects'. Bohm spoke of a
'mutual transformation' between measurement instrument and
that which is measured. But it is not just measurement
instruments, but anything that the energy can interact
with.
Q. You say speed-of-light-transcending. Nonlocal is a word
that seems to imply absolute instantaneous effects. And
at the same time, we're modelling this in computers, when
we run the formalism at a computer. Explain something of
the time element here.
A. Yes. The super-model theory, informally speaking, can
only be fairly complete if it is also intensely vague as
to all subtler levels. At the most manifest level of the
universe, we have the Planck constant, and there is no
empirical evidence of a reliable sort available to the
sort of physics humanity has got of the subtler levels.
However, empirics suggest that we infer that something
goes on beyond the level of resolution--indeed this is the
big argument of Bohr, de Broglie, Bohm and so on. Now,
Einstein laid out some relationships between energies,
time, acceleration and so on that presupposed that there
is an unfoldment in which no signal travels faster than
the speed of light. Here we do seem to have that. This
was conceptualized by a negation of what Einstein called
'locality'--thus 'nonlocality', after his article together
with Podolsky and Rosen, commonly called the EPR paper.
We will work out some more apt and precise concepts when
we get into Einstein's relativity theories and how we
reinterpret the phenomena he sought to describe there
within the super-model theory. Then we will talk of
"L-speed", because we need to distinguish between light as
an energetic phenomena, subject to redships and blueshifts
and with many particular properties, and the somwhat
magical organising factor we associate with its speed--
but which really is a different thing than light, and
which opens the door for clearer discussions of things;
also for the possibility of light not always going at the
same speed. We will see.
Basically, it's typical for immature phases of science
to regard things beyond all past findings in a simplistic
either-or fashion. Most things in life, on a closer look,
are nuanced. Yet, when it is so hard to study something
like 300,000 kilometers pr second, which is roughly what
the speed of light is, then it is no doubt just about
infinitely harder to study speeds which could be
trillions and trillions and yet more, almost countless
trillions of times faster than that. We cannot deduce from
any finding in science that all that transcends the speed
of light is necessarily one thing. So 'nonlocality' is a
word that must be used with caution--even after we have
resolved the conceptual problems inherent in the rather
absolutistic notions of Einstein as regards the
relativity of all things to the speed of light.
What is to be taken as an inference from the physical
experiments of the quantum sort, however, when we look at
it in light of super-model theory, is that phenomena of
some sort definitely do involve information activity not
respecting the speed of light limit--and, in particular,
the super-model mapping a situation so as to pilot
particles is best assumed to happen incredibly faster than
the speed of light.
Now, any algorithm modelling anything on a computer will
have to be crude--remember all the time, we are never at
any point fully representing the theory in a formalism.
We are only illustrating ideas inside of the theory, and
sketchily, at that. Which is what the proper role of
formalism relative to a good scientific theory ought to
be: then it is is a help, rather than a reductive factor.
So the computer time, its seconds or milliseconds, its
pauses, all that, is for a large part irrelevant: it has
nothing to do with the theory or with the empirics that we
measure. The mappings and remappings of super-models are
taking computational time but for all practical purposes
in the type of physics humanity has got, it takes no time
at all. It's just there. Thereby they say, 'nonlocal'.
When it comes to the question of the algorithmic versus
the organic, super-model theory is entirely on the side of
the organic. What can be shown algorithmically are just
some situations which are extracted and, as it were,
'frozen', and these may, after suitable additional
variations, be found to match with some experiments
sometimes. But never at any point is the whole theory
assumed to match anything algorithmic. It rather contains
the possibility of algorithm within itself rather like a
bottle of iced green tea which is near the freezing point
contains some elements of ice without being all ice. We'll
talk more about this when we comes to that which is
perhaps the most lively and organic feature of the
super-model theory, the PMW.
7. Super-Model Coherence, Entanglement, Tunnelling and
initial discussion of PMW
Q. Finally we got to talk more about coherence and such.
A. Yes, and this is related to what we call the "PMW",
which is the organic, noncomputational Principle of a
tendency of Movement towards Wholeness in super-model
theory. Here, it is boldly--yet vaguely and in a sense
metaphysically--asserted to be a kind of prime mover, if
that's the expression I want. In one way or another, but,
granted, in a highly philsophical manner (hard to even
begin to show in terms of formalisms) we wish to say that
if anything happens, it bears, in the ultimate analysis,
a relationship to the PMW and that's how it come to happen
at all. And that also means that if any structure--which
is what we term recurrent happenings of many sorts--exists
then again the PMW is the ground cause, in a necessarily
loose sort of speaking. But we'll return to that, which
ties in with coherence.
Q. So, to summarize what we pointed out earlier, you are
saying, aren't you, that coherence is more or less found
everywhere where we find that things that are
'quantum-like' arises? Or shall we say,
'super-model-like'?
A. Yes, super-model-like. So there are two main situations
--I remember I phoned David Bohm (something I was lucky
enough to be allowed to do by Sarel and him) and asked
specifically about why the quantum features of reality
don't manifest more clearly, more often. He said, as I
remember it, that the quantum potential--he liked that
word--was "factorised", is factorised in certain
situations. It has to be not factorised for the quantum
effects to come through. Now think of a mountain of sand:
compare that to a mountain of stone. The real difference
between sand and stone is that the stone, when it is
sand, is broken up. And so if you shout into a heap of
sand, it's like talking into a pillow--the information
gets lost. But if you talk to, or better, take a hammer
and strike a little on a stone, the whole stone conveys
the information--because of its wholeness.
By analogy--and let's be quite sure that the above was
merely analogies, or metaphors more precisely--we go now
into looking how super-models cover a situation, how they
map a situation. You can see that they do so coherently,
in which case we get a chance to view the particular
super-model features at a macroscopic level, or they map
it in a factorised way, in a cut-up way, divided in many
small fields, like going from rock to sand, from a cake
to sugar. The many small fields means that we easily get a
sum effect which is mechanical. The sum effect is that we
have something resembling classical, newtonian physics.
Q. Why? Because the little fields collide?
A. Well, that's again a metaphor. When we have many small
supermodels and particles moving in such a territoriy,
there are many influences. A super-model offers a guidance
one way, but then the next super-model, covering the area
next to the present position of the particle, may offer a
guidance towards another way. When the super-models don't
act coherently it follows logically that we get a relative
cancelling of their effects in a certain sense, and then
the most enduring, most persistent, and most powerful
feature of the particle becomes such as its momentum and
its positions and the type of patterns associated with
these--also when they meet and bump into each other.
However, let's bear in mind that in super-model theory,
there aint any such thing as not a super-model. So the
particle and its momentum features are also super-models;
but with the crucial difference that these are, in the
situation of what Bohm called a 'factorised' field, not
consistently influenced by any mapping of the whole
situation around the particle.
Q. If I can introduce another metaphor, water is flowing
but ice is bumping.
A. Yes. The water acts more holistically. And so coherence
is, in super-model theory, a pointer to situations where
there's a more holistic action of the speed-of-light-
transcending super-model mapping a situation rather than
the more local actions of the super-model mapping the
nearest surroundings of the particle and leading to a
number of rather contradictory impulses so that such as
position and momentum become more the determining
features.
So, coherence is running through super-model theory. We
are, then, taking a strong stance against the fragmenting
tendency we've seen in some mainstream physics at present
which speaks of coherence as one thing, entanglement as
another, and tunnelling as a third. Entanglement involves
that something such as for instance particles are subject
to a mutual influence of the speed-of-light-transcending
super-model. Tunnelling involves that something is, when
guided by such a super-model, moving not just step by step
from one local position to the next, but also skipping
steps and in some cases, skipping many steps, perhaps half
across the galaxy, and certainly across any near boundary.
Q. How can this skipping happen?
A. Well, we haven't introduced continuity in the manifest
positions, have we? So even in our ultra-simple examples
that we have earlier looked at, the sense of jumping from
one position to another was indeed part of the FCM loop.
Now, all we have got to do is to say that the jumping of
just one position is a special case of a more general
phenomenon, and the more general is that when a particle
is at one place, it has some probability of being at any
other place the next moment, although this probability may
be vanishingly small for most positions. So, in terms of
the super-model, the question is here: do we have a
coherence of the super-model guiding the particle so that
it actively relates to greater distances, also beyond any
immediate boundary? Only by a coherence which is in the
situation, and by a suitably big enough super-model, do
we get tunnelling. The coherence is necessary. Together
with the concept of the super-model and the PMW, it is, in
a way, sufficient, also, to talk about the phenomena.
Q. What determines when the tunnelling type of super-model
arise?
A. The same as determines when any super-model arise. We
come to that theme more and more in this little booklet
Q. Ok. Then entanglement, that's also a form of coherence?
A. In our theory it is. Entanglement is just simply that
we have coherent super-models guiding such as two or more
particles. In Bohr's original formulations of quantum
theory, one was led to consider such situations when we
had a known situation of unity with little interference of
anything, and certainly no measurement, while a sort of
gentle movement apart from that unity situation were
introduced--say, some sort of magnetism or the like
dragging particles apart which before engaged in a tightly
related form of spin or the like.
The trouble about all that which Bohr did there is that
he sought to make all depend on human measurement and what
had not been measured and not been interfered with, which
is a negative approach, without the presence of any sense
of theory of what goes on. We need a theory for what goes
on. And Einstein used the phrase "tranquilizer philosophy"
never more harshly than when we spoke about just this
aspect of Bohr's theory or, as he would have it (and we
agree), his non-theory. Or his very partial theory.
Entanglement, then, seemed to be a technical peculiarity
but then it became empirical and by the end of the 20th
century it was one of the most magical and wierd and
startling phenomena of all quantum theory, and, whether
the bohrians liked it or not, rather a defining
characteristic of it. And still there's no theory of it in
any of the mainstream camps.
We have a theory, and the theory is this: this is just
a super-model hooking up to more than one particle; and
how it arises is due to PMW, and this needn't have
anything whatsoever to do with an initial condition of
such as local contact and spin and so on. So we don't have
to do such boring stuff as the EPR-related examples of
entanglement. We can go straight into entanglement of two
(or more) particles, and it can be of other features than
that which traditionally has been most natural to expect
from the normal theory. To illustrate this important
feature of super-model theory, we have simply let the
part of the formalism representing the super-model guiding
one particle also do the same with another, but each has
a separate quotient of RFFG, of AF, the Free Fluctuation
stuff--which is the typical case, for all the universe are
full of the Planck fluctuations. Here's <k:6000>:
<k6000>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<k6001>
fundnet |up a fcm
lk |network with
thisfcmnet |a good amount
kl |funds; here:
|for super-
|At previous |model theory
|and next |formal
|card, we set |illustrations
<k6002>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<k6003>
rffgpf= af
|In:maxlen
|Gives:pfnum 6282
|Action:makes af
|a pathfindnum w
|with rffg len
|from 1->max
|& rffg angle pa.
<k6004>
pwavfactor= 8
1. rd
|The pathfind ts
|nums have |Toggle sign
|angle->6282 |so motion
|and length |clockwise
|up to 1000 ^pwavfactor
6283 setfastvar
<k6005>
mainput30x50= 10
|In: value,
|x, y
|Action: sets
|1st num of
|1st triplet i3
s7 i7
s3 put30x50.
<k6006>
makespace= ll:35
|Two areas for fundlevel
|two entangled dancebeneath
|{nonlocally}
|particles ll:30
basis
3500000 ^smposition
setfundlevel fneasy
<k6007>
4
47
adjustfund
m2
dc
m1
pos30x50
<k6008>
50
adjustfund
i2
m1
pos30x50
51
adjustfund
<k6009>
m2 m2
m1 i1
dc pos30x50
pos30x50 53
adjustfund
52 lo
adjustfund lo
<k6010>
ll:35 twobillion
29
twobillion m1
mainput30x50
0
m1
mainput30x50 lo
<k6011>
ll:30 twobillion
m1
twobillion 17
mainput30x50
m1
0
mainput30x50
<k6012>
twobillion
m1
34
mainput30x50
lo.
<k6013>
5500000
makespace setfundlevel
<k6014>
particleact= 12
|in:tr#,fnwarp jx
tx wk
sh t5
10 basis
jx j1
wk j5
t1 mainput30x50
<k6015>
13 twobillion
jx i1
wk i5
s1 mainput30x50
15
jx
wk
s5
<k6016>
i1 i1
10 j1
jx su
kw
i5 13
12 jx
jx ad
kw ku
<k6017>
i5
j5
su
15
jx &particleact&
ad 1444
ku. fnactcherish
<k6018>
|Startpos:x |Nextpos:x
25 24
|Particlefn: 13
1444 adjustfund
|Startpos:y |Nextpos:y
2 3
^fnparticle1 15
fneasyact adjustfund
<k6019>
|Startpos:x |Nextpos:x
25 24
|Particlefn: 13
1444 adjustfund
|Startpos:y |Nextpos:y
33 32
^fnparticle2 15
fneasyact adjustfund
<k6020>
entangleact= i5
|in:tr#,fnwarp ap
tx w
sh
10 pwavfactor
jx
wk ad
s5 w
<k6021>
ps 250
pa rffgpf
i5
ph
ap
10 ni
jx s6
kw sh
<k6022>
250 50
rffgpf jx
i5 wk
ph fnwarp
ap
ni
t6
sh t1
<k6023>
51
jx
wk
fnwarp
t3
<k6024>
i6 j6
100 100
rd rd
9 9
pm pm
6 6
su su
sx s9
<k6025>
1 1
28 16
ix ix
13 15
j1 j1
pn pn
<k6026>
1 19
28 33
i9 i9
13 15
j3 j3
pn pn.
<k6027>
8000000 785
setfundlevel 250
pa
|Start pfnum
4500
&entangleact& 0
4500 ^fnentangle
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k6028>
2
47
adjustfund
^fnparticle1 ^fnparticle2
fnam fnam
50 51
adjustfund adjustfund
<k6029>
longtxt* cliptrail
Symbolic view
of Super-model
Entanglement
involving two
particles
fcmheadertxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k6030>
longtxt* cliptrail
Fig. 3.A: Quan
tum fluctuatio
ns & nonlocali
ty unfold FCM
Loop#
fcmlooptxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k6031>
9000000 0
setfundlevel 4900
0
&graphsomefns&
4900 ^fnshowgraph
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k6032>
1 &fcm&
fcmgraphloop
kl
100
fcmshowpause
kl zz
[In paper form, a sample of output is reproduced as
an image. In the TF, the FCM comes alive on the screen
when you type ^k6000 and, on the next line, cc. Press
then <ESC> button when you've seen enough of it. In this
code, it's also possible to press <SPACE> to pause it.]
Q. The experience of partially linked synchronous
movements when one watches the FCM onscreen makes a strong
impression, I find.
A. Yes, here it is much more meaningful to see it unfold
step by step rather than just seeing a summary on paper.
Q. The entanglement is partial, right? For they don't
always move synchronously.
A. The fluctuations, which we bring in here by the AF
operator, are acting not necessarily in the same way on
the two particles. We also have a pathfinder number, which
acts consistently; but the fluctuations may be so that
this is sometimes masked. In this case we also use the
RFFGPF notion, which produces a pathfinder number of the
RFFG (relatively free fluctuation generated) type, and add
it to the rotating pathfinder number. You also notice that
this is relatively compact formalism compared to where the
whole situation must be mapped and then that map is used:
here, the node handling the entanglement has the mapping
of the situation as part of it, as part of its algorithm.
Q. As I understand it, in the super-model theory of the
universe, we have super-models relating to one another--
represented here by these nodes, or foundries, in the FCM
type of G15 PMN program--and these have algorithms.
A. That's right: first-hand, whole number algorithms, just
as G15 PMN is a first-whole, whole number oriented
programming language and CPU concept.
Q. And what we show here is that this is adequate to cover
a variety of situations--soon we'll also see how it works
in that which Einstein called 'relativity' situations.
A. Exactly.
Q. And we also have the PMW. Are you saying that the PMW
is somehow the origin of the very particular algorithms
that are part of the nodes?
A. Yes, in one way or another. But let us be entirely
clear that in our theory, we have proposing a holistic,
process-oriented unfoldment of a universe--or a multiverse
more precisely (in the larger perspective), in which we
have a very general thing, neither particle nor wave,
neither confined to three nor four or eight dimensions,
but able to be structured both so as to lay out dimensions
--of any number, including two, as here, and obviously
three, and any meaningful limited number higher than
these--and also they are able to convey both particle and
wave attributes. An algorithm in this context is merely a
pattern of numbers. Every bit of the super-model theory
to which we create illustrations of a formal kind, has in
it the possibility of a great variety of G15 PMN program
alternatives in so doing, where we use FCM all the way.
For instance, we could in some situations create highly
general nodes, with highly general algorithms embedded in
them, that merely require a fixing on some matrices to
exhibit a set of highly differing activities, each fitted
to a particular space matrix. How we do this is part of
our exploration of the essential infinity of the meaning
associated with any good, embracive, first-hand, informal
scientific theory, the way we have structured what we
call 'neo-popperian science'. This is the end of the
identity of a theory with a formalism. We are equating, as
Einstein did in his theory of science, theory with an
action of visualization on the part of the human mind. The
formalism is then conjured up to illustrate some features,
but never all, and never in an absolute way.
With this as background, we are also freer to create
formalisms in this way and in that way, as long as we
relate partially to some empirics and as long as we
constantly relate the whole thing to the informal theory
and emphasize the priority of the informal level.
Now, when all this is perfectly clear to us, let us
say that the PMW is regarded as a structuring source,
beyond any structure which we perceive with our senses or
through our instruments, empirically. This structuring
source--how it works, what is behind it again, and so on,
and how it works to dissolve and create in different ways
the structures that have got to be changed, and how it
upholds that which have got to be upheld, is, in our
present formulation of super-model theory, regarded as
questions inherent in the most subtle, and also MOST
INFORMAL part of the theory, namely the PMW. We do not try
to make an algorithm of the universe: rather, we say that
a certain type of algorithms, structured in a certain way,
allows the type of general phenomena structures that we
do empirically note to be part of all modern physics. And
so, yes, we do speak of PMW as something that can give
rise to either algorithms or to something that modify the
activity of these algorithms penetratingly.
Q. This is very different from newtonian physics and from
most theorizing in physics since, too.
A. It is. But remember that Einstein called for a
debunking of the central role of the notion of cosmic time
or process. That's bold but perhaps not right. Bohr called
for debunking of the traditional role of the notion of
visualization in scientific theory. So though Einstein and
Bohr widely disagreed about the implications of quantum
findings in modern physics, they agreed that something
pretty big, conceptually, has to be turned around in order
to make a good theory of it all. We are merely saying that
their initial attempted revolutions of thought didn't
quite work out--yes, we need new concepts of time and
space but not quite like Einstein said, yes we need a new
way of doing visualisation of physics phenomena but not
quite like Bohr said. And then of course, since their time
a number of physicists have played with a variety of
concepts, and the idea of talking about the universe as
possibly 'one big computer simulation' has arisen again
and again, and you'll find it, in different terms, even
in philosophical texts dating centuries back. And yet, we
are definitely NOT saying that the universe is a
simulation or that the universe is an algorithm. We are
saying that the universe has an algorithmic aspect to it,
through the super-models, but also a non-algorithmic
aspect to it, through the PMW and quite possibly in some
features of how the super-models in actual fact do their
work. Running through our whole approach is a clear-cut
sentiment that no formalism can ever capture the theory
of the universe proper--not a single formalism, nor a set
of formalisms--in principle. The theory must be
entertained in our minds, and if it appears complex, then
it may be a question of habituating ourselves to think
about the universe in a different way, so that a sense
of simplicity can grow upon us. Rather than childishly
looking of 'simplicity' at once, as if it is perceived as
clearly as the digits on dollar bills. That's also why the
ideas of 'shaving away everything unnecessary' from a
theory along the lines suggested in the phrase "Occam's
Razor" doesn't really work unless we take in, over a long
enough time, the vastness of the different phenomena we
are seeking to systematize in our minds. If reality isn't
always simple, isn't always symmetrical, then also our
theories must have adequate complexity or else they won't
have any chance of being with us into the forthcoming
centuries. But Occam's razor shouldn't shave away space,
time or the human mind, at any rate!
Q. I can see that. There isn't any foolproof technique for
evaluating scientific theories.
A. No. No technique. It's ultimately an artistic piece of
work, and the ultimate check is the gut feeling, the type
of qualified intuition we get after years of chiselling
away all rubbish and of strengthening insights into the
logic of things while we take in the vastness of our
existence. For we are, after all, with super-model theory,
making a theory that is pretty much all-encompassing at
the most general level.
Do you have more questions? Remember, as Bohm and others
pointed out, each with the various words--the scientific
attitude involves not just making a strong case for ideas,
but also making ideas vulnerable.
Q. Well, yes, I have a very general question, of a kind
that we may have touched on before.
A. Come with it.
Q. Suppose I realize that there's hard work and
rationality going through super-model physics (as we can
call it). But since it is also taking a radically
different stance on many subjects than that which is
conventional physics, then..
A. ..how can you check it? As a whole?
Q. Yes, but initially, the first question would easily be:
could it not be that this is just crackpot quasi-spiritual
nonsense?
A. Of course, that is a possibility. One cannot vehemently
deny that and at the same time claim that we are doing
something scientific. This may be quasi-spiritual or, from
the scientific point of view, even worse, quasi-scientific
--and the scientific atitude is to consider such options
calmly.
Q. Well, is it? And if not, how can such a sentiment be
refuted?
A. My friend over some years, the philosopher and logic
expert Arne Naess, whose worldview was pretty terse and
much on the lines that Einstein suggested (and he even
shared something of Einstein's view of Bohr's approach to
physics), had a type of general solution for this type of
question with regard to anything. That was: list up the
assumptions involved. Then, in front of each assumption,
remember that it is possible to write the word 'not'. When
you then multiply the quantity of possible related
viewpoints we can generate that way--two times two times
two times..you follow? Two options for each assumption,
since the word 'not' is there--you can, if your list of
assumptions are long, get an enormous list of alternative
viewpoints, or alternative theories if you wish. In other
words, he argued against treating theories as a whole
thing, and he argued in favour of looking at individual
assumptions inside the theories, and each one critically.
Now, I would suggest that you quietly did that first
with the mainstream physics theories we have today. We
have already mentioned a number of the assumptions in both
quantum and relativity theories. Sometimes the assumptions
are a bit hidden. For instance, when Einstein puts forth
the relativity theories, one of the postulates was that
the laws of physics governing physical change are the same
for each reference system (a reference system being here,
roughly, something in continuous nonaccelerated motion).
Put simply, he postulated:
* there is a law of physics, and it is this:
* all other laws of physics are the same in the
reference system.
And so that's quite a big, absolute concept he implied
thereby. And by laws of physics in 1905 or whenever he
phrased this, he certainly didn't include many of the
developments to come. Furthermore, the definition of
reference system depends on certain assumptions about
space and time. By saying such a thing he hoped that he
would be able to make people go beyond what he regarded
as the old concepts of absolute time and space as for the
laws of physics. (This 'political' motivation of Einstein
is well documented in a number of biographies about him--
he saw the decline of belief in absolute time as socially
and politically important, as I read it.)
In connection to his statements, which are perhaps
poetically rather beautiful, but chock-full of assumptions
that can and should be looked at individually, we find
that many people regards it as clear-cut that since the
Michelson-Morley experiment didn't detect a difference in
the speed of light when measured on the surface of the
planet, then 'the theory of aether (or ether) was
disproved'. Really? Disproved? But this is the type of
thing that mainstream physicists easily say. Again, to
refer to philosopher Arne Naess: the distance between a
theory and empirics are huge; bridged by a number of
assumptions; and any one of these assumptions may have to
be negated if one gets a 'disconfirming instance'.
So when you undertake the intensely hard work it is to
spell out what is what in modern physics,--really spell it
all out--then you find that there is, as we have said
repeatedly, a great deal of incoherence in the resulting
view of the world. The view of the world rather doesn't
come through, because the conflict between the assumptions
become strong enough to dissolve the clarity of any
visualization.
When we have reached this point, and meditate on it for
a good while, we will, if you wish to begin to clear it
up, feel like looking at all the phenomena once again, all
afresh, apart from the big, bold statements of Herr
Doctor Einstein and Herr Doctor Bohr and all the later
Herr Doctors with all their fancy Nobel prizes and what
not to their title. Look at the phenomena. Look at the
Aspect experiments demonstrating nonlocality. Look at the
Michelson-Morley experiments. Look at how gravitation
and accelleration increases the endurance of shortlived
molecules, indicating some kind of time dilation. Look at
the mesmerizing effects of superfluidity near 273 degrees
Celcius, below zero. And supermagnetism. Look at how
polarized glasses block out light when two of them are
used, one after another, and one is vertical while the
other is horisontal--but that magically the filters let
through light again if a third filter is inserted between
them on 45 degrees. Look at quantum tunnelling experiments
--and many more so. Doppler effects. And so on.
These types of phenomena do suggest some kind of
numerical patterns along the lines many physicists have
worked much on, but how do we get a proper theory? Well,
as for nonlocality, for Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation
as shown when one tries to measure more in a double-slit
experiment, and for many more such experiments, we are
seeing that we have particle-properties and something like
a wave but a very different type of wave than manifest
matter. What type of wave? Let us give it a name--X, let's
say. Let us read through again what the grand old master
de Broglie, who actually worked with these phenomena, many
of them, AND with the big minds who worked with them--once
more (cfr the link in the intro to this booklet).
So he calls it pilot wave. But it certainly must have
many strange properties if it is to do all that we have
got it to do.
Then we look at the phenomena of speed of light--and
gravitation--and so on. We think through the observations
done by independent empirical physicists in all these
realms. How can we interpret this in a way that doesn't
create a total confusion and a total break relative to
the pilot waves or whatever we call it? To break away with
space and time certainly don't quite seem to be called
for. So we are already putting in parenthesis much of the
bigness of the relativity theories. But there's a lot more
to space, and a lot more to time, perhaps, than that which
have been the newtonian assumptions.
So, not to do it all in detail, we are showing that we
are at no point merely coming forth with a big declaration
as if it were a revelation. We are rather piecing together
a very complex reality, looking for possibilities of
simplicification. And one thing is clear: those who have
waded through the reports of empirics relevant for studies
of that which is called 'quantum', find that when the time
comes to that which is called 'relativity', is easier
going. The complexity of Einstein's domain is less than
the complexity of the quantum phenomena. The super-model
theory, then, is an atempt to take the quantum phenomena
seriously, but with the sense of openness that we intuit
is necessary in order to accomodate far subtler studies on
the mind and so on, in millenia to come. And then we want
the exact same stuff, nothing unnecessary in terms of
structure added, to tackle all that Einstein sought to
tackle, namely such as the very peculiar stability of
measurements of speeds of light in vacuum; and that which
after Einstein's general relativity work became confirmed,
as a confirming instance of his general realtivity--the
effect commonly called 'time dilation', taking place in
gravitation which is considered a form of accelleration.
So these are added, peculiar correlations. But these are
not as peculiar as that which the quantum world has
already suggested to us, when we look at the patterns of
empirical studies without any particular theory in mind.
In the first formulation of super-model theory, in the
2004 book, and in tentative formulations using other names
for it in some of my writings a decade earlier, we had
only some general statements applicable to the speed of
light and gravitation phenomena. Now we have sorted things
out and have a simpler, more elegant way--here presented.
And also here presented, we do come up with example
formalisms to illustrate how we can get all the complex
patterns expressed by this whole number work we do in the
first-hand programming language G15 PMN with its FCM.
So, I ask you: where, in all of this, is the spiritual
or quasi-spiritual? What, in all of this, is anything but
wholeheartedly real scientific?
Q. I agree. It is the result of systematic work. But it is
somewhat testing for the nerves, perhaps, to just throw
away the cumulative efforts of many physicists who have
worked on all this for many decades.
A. But we don't throw it all away. We merely say that the
time has come to look at the idea level all afresh--but
with vague inspirations from implicate order concept of
Bohm, pilot wave concept of de Broglie, and science
fiction concepts of computers 'at bottom' of reality; but
with a cold analytical stance penetrating the whole
approach. We want it to fit; we do find it to fit; and we
suggest that we must call on the powers of the human mind
and intellect also as intuitive intelligence, and here we
ask--suggest, but also ask: is it not right that the
manifest universe is woven of one and the same rather
algorithmic, yet also rather organic thing, having speeds
transcending completely all that which is directly
measurable? This organic-yet-with-an-algorithmic element
often has something of what we intuitively mean by the
word 'model' about it, but it is under or above or beyond
that, so we say super-model. And that's how we arrive at
the word, the phrase. Intuitively, then, we portray this
as a unifying concept. And we break down this concept by
analysis into parts, extract parts and formalize them in
the sense of illustrations and examples, and then look
again at the concept as a living whole. Is this not
science? Is this not scientific? Or is it only when we
stick to traditions we are scientific? Obviously, it is
more scientific to stick to rationality rather than
tradition when we find that the latter lacks rationality.
Q. It's a long answer, and it is a philosophical answer,
but I find that I like it. But it does mean, does it not,
that we are appealing to the philosophical capacity in the
mind as judge over the scientific activity?
A. I suppose we could say that, yes. Philosophy, the love
of wisdom, or Sophia, the muses, or the quest for truth.
That gives us the strength of intuition and the
willingness to enquire and look for what both Rene
Descartes and the dutch logician L.E.J. Brouwer called
'clear ideas'. I submit that super-model is a clear idea.
The illustrations, I submit, are pretty good also. I
further submit that this encompasses all the best of what
de Broglie wanted with pilot waves, or what he sought to
call 'the Double Solution', and yet can be used, in the
ways we will outline in the completing chapters, to deal
with the puzzling socalled 'relativity' phenomena without
having to lead to a full relativisation of space and time
concepts. Rather, space and time can rather be seen to be
interwoven, partly coming out of and partly being to some
extent assumed as fundamentals, when we deal with
super-models--and with a slight asymmetry here, because we
do not, like Einstein, seek to formalize any bit of the
time parameter. When we also take deep results indicating
the needs for the organic and intuitive in our minds, not
just the algorithmic, including but not limited to such as
Goedel's work, L.E.J. Brouwer's work, and further notions
about infinity relative to whole numbers that we have
looked at in detail elsewhere, we affirm also that these
super-models are not algorithmic in essence, although they
clearly can call on the algorithmic, or have it as a part
of them (perhaps as when one can imagine that finite
numbers arise out of a certain contact between sizes which
are, in some sense, infinite).
Q. When we observe the two particles 'dance together', but
with an individuality to the movement of each, in this
<k:6000> example, are we at liberty to imagine that these
may be lightyears apart?
A. Of course. That's the whole notion of nonlocality or
whatever we call it--we have already discussed that word--
we are relating to something which easily can sweep over
all space, with precision.
Q. It's not like a field, a magnetic or electric or..
A. A field like that propagates. It has a speed of
propagation. The L-speed, which is derived from the idea
of measurements of the speed of light in vacuum (and which
we discuss more in the relativity chapters) is an
organising factor however not in a simple way. We have a
far more flexible attitude to this than Einstein had, as
we begin to outline in the upcoming chapter.
Q. Right. But when it comes to entanglement, it is a,
what did we call it--SOF, super-luminal affair? In other
word it is instantaneous?
A. Yes. If by that word you mean from the viewpoint of the
resolution of these instances, from one program loop# to
the next, that may be so; however we make no such claim
when it comes to the exact empirical physics of the
matter. Given that we have solved relativity questions
without dissolving some overarching time and simultaniety
concept, the question makes sense. We can explore it in
the context of super-model theory, which has, as you
should have noticed by now, a great deal of open room in
it, speaking mildly.
Yet, what appear instantaneous may be a bundle of
phenomena, some fantastically faster than previously
measured phenomena, some faster than that again, and then
some might truly be instantaneous. But anything that is
truly instantaneous cannot be empirically proven to be
other than fantastically faster than any speed measured
so far. If it is but very fast, one might imagine that
some empirical measurements could be contrived to show it.
Theoretically, we have room in super-model theory of the
multiverse for a huge number of levels beyond the Planck
manifest level, so it is best to leave the question open.
Q. How does the PMW 'set up' this situation, if that's the
right way to phrase it?
A. The PMW is a principle of a nonalgorithmic kind--that's
why it has the word 'tendency' as part of it: a Principle
of a tendency of Movement towards Wholeness. Sometimes
this means strengthening contrasts, at other times this
means strengthening similarities, in the play of
contrasting similarities and similar contrasts that make
up our sense of order and symmetry; but at other times,
it may be a different type of pattern, not mechanically
coming from such considerations. The word 'wholeness'
refers to a concept which is beyond that which can be
mechanised. But in simpler cases, there's a tendency to
protection of symmetries and so on.
Q. So it doesn't have to be local contact first.
A. No, that's just one example of a strengthening of
similarity even as contrast in position develops.
Q. What if we try to measure on one of the particles from
within the physical system?
A. Then that measuring apparatus enters into the whole
situation, and transforms it.
Q. Why?
A. Because the super-model that is 'piloting from within'
the dance of the two particles will now also do the same
kind of thing with the measuring machine. It will be
drastically altered. And so, the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle has in it this deeper meaning, to put it in more
poetic terms than normal: to be part of the dance in the
most authentic sense, suppress your desire to observe it
too closely. That doesn't mean that observation in a close
sense is irrelevant. But there's a time for observation,
and there's a time for just doing it. So there's a good
deal one can learn from contemplating on the HUP.
Q. Very good! Let's go to the completing quantum-related
example, then through the relativity-related examples,
before we look at all these informal grander perspectives
again. The bigger implications. And how one might most
scientifically begin to understand this relative to our
own minds, feelings, thoughts; and whether the
super-models are somehow directly related to what we have
in us as capacity to intuit.
A. Yes. With the present infantile state of brain science
the best we can do is to take the sum total of what we
think is a good theory of the energy processes in the
universe, or the multiverse, and then apply the best we
have of intuitions about our intuitions, so to speak. Here
there's no point in providing formal illustrations because
the domain is much less mapped, numerically. But, as I've
said many times before, I have a working hypothesis, and
more than that, which says: the brain is not a machine;
that our minds can go beyond the algorithmic; that
intuition involves more than mere clever summarisation
over experiences, more than the genes, more than chance.
And the super-model theory certainly is intensely
compatible with such a viewpoint, and can help to clarify
how such a viewpoint of intuition can make rational sense.
Anyhow, over to tunnelling. Here's <k:7000>:
<k7000>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<k7001>
fundnet |up a fcm
lk |network with
thisfcmnet |a good amount
kl |funds; here:
|for super-
|At previous |model theory
|and next |formal
|card, we set |illustrations
<k7002>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<k7003>
rffgpf= af
|In:maxlen
|Gives:pfnum 6282
|Action:makes af
|a pathfindnum w
|with rffg len
|from 1->max
|& rffg angle pa.
<k7004>
pwavfactor= 8
1. rd
|The pathfind ts
|nums have |Toggle sign
|angle->6282 |so motion
|and length |clockwise
|up to 1000 ^pwavfactor
6283 setfastvar
<k7005>
mainput30x50= 10
|In: value,
|x, y
|Action: sets
|1st num of
|1st triplet i3
s7 i7
s3 put30x50.
<k7006>
mainget30x50= 10
|In: x, y
|Gives: value
|Action: gets
|1st num of
|1st triplet i3
s7 i7
s3 get30x50.
<k7007>
makespace= ll:35
|areas with fundlevel
|big barrier dancebeneath
|to show
|tunnelling ll:30
basis
3500000 ^smposition
setfundlevel fneasy
<k7008>
4
47
adjustfund
m2
dc
m1
pos30x50
<k7009>
50
adjustfund
i2
m1
pos30x50
51
adjustfund
<k7010>
m2 m2
m1 i1
dc pos30x50
pos30x50 53
adjustfund
52 lo
adjustfund lo
<k7011>
ll:35 twobillion
29
twobillion m1
mainput30x50
0
m1
mainput30x50 lo
<k7012>
ll:30 twobillion
m1
twobillion 20
mainput30x50
m1
0
mainput30x50
<k7013>
twobillion twobillion
m1 m1
21 23
mainput30x50 mainput30x50
twobillion twobillion
m1 m1
22 24
mainput30x50 mainput30x50
<k7014>
twobillion twobillion
m1
25 m1
mainput30x50 34
twobillion mainput30x50
m1
26
mainput30x50 lo.
<k7015>
5500000
makespace setfundlevel
<k7016>
particleact= 12
|in:tr#,fnwarp jx
tx wk
sh t5
10 basis
jx j1
wk j5
t1 mainput30x50
<k7017>
13 twobillion
jx dc
wk
s1
15
jx i1
wk i5
s5 mainput30x50
<k7018>
i1 i1
10 j1
jx su
kw
i5 13
12 jx
jx ad
kw ku
<k7019>
i5
j5
su
15
jx &particleact&
ad 1444
ku. fnactcherish
<k7020>
|Startpos:x |Nextpos:x
10 11
|Particlefn: 13
1444 adjustfund
|Startpos:y |Nextpos:y
2 3
^fnparticle1 15
fneasyact adjustfund
<k7021>
|Startpos:x |Nextpos:x
15 14
|Particlefn: 13
1444 adjustfund
|Startpos:y |Nextpos:y
10 9
^fnparticle2 15
fneasyact adjustfund
<k7022>
pilotwave= i5
|in:tr#,fnwarp ap
tx w
sh
10 pwavfactor
jx
wk ad
s5 w
<k7023>
ps 250
pa rffgpf
i5
ph
ap
10 ni
jx s6
kw sh
<k7024>
250 50
rffgpf jx
i5 wk
ph fnwarp
ap
ni
t6
sh t1
<k7025>
51 |For d4 use:
jx 15
wk t5
fnwarp !7
t9
t3
<k7026>
i6 j6
100 100
rd rd
5 5
pm pm
4 4
su su
sx s9
<k7027>
1 1
28 33
ix ix
13 15
j1 j1
pn pn
<k7028>
1 1
28 33
i9 i9
13 15
j3 j3
pn pn
<k7029>
13 lt
j1 d5
wk
15 j9
j1 j5
wk j1
mainget30x50 ad
twobillion ku
<k7030>
13 lt
j3 d5
wk
15 j9
j3 j5
wk j3
mainget30x50 ad
twobillion ku.
<k7031>
8000000 785
setfundlevel 250
pa
|Start pfnum
4500
&pilotwave& 0
4500 ^fnpiloting
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k7032>
2
47
adjustfund
^fnparticle1 ^fnparticle2
fnam fnam
50 51
adjustfund adjustfund
<k7033>
longtxt* cliptrail
Symbolic view
of Super-model
Tunnelling wi
th particles a
nd barrier
fcmheadertxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k7034>
longtxt* cliptrail
Fig. 3.B: Quan
tum 'leap' of
bosonic partic
les FCM
Loop#
fcmlooptxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k7035>
9000000 0
setfundlevel 4900
0
&graphsomefns&
4900 ^fnshowgraph
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k7036>
1 &fcm&
fcmgraphloop
kl
50
fcmshowpause
kl zz
[In paper form, a sample of output is reproduced as
an image. In the TF, the FCM comes alive on the screen
when you type ^k7000 and, on the next line, cc. Press
then <ESC> button when you've seen enough of it. In this
code, it's also possible to press <SPACE> to pause it.]
Q. This formalism is much like the one for entanglement.
A. Let us bear in mind we wish to illustrate this or that
little aspect of the meaning of the theory by these
formalisms. The entanglement of two particles had a very
easy two-dimensional area to work with. Here, we have made
a big barrier, and use essentially the same setup, only
that the particles tend to move around more moderately.
They can both be in the same area and overlap one another
and so we call them 'bosonic', in the sense we also used
earlier on. We don't need to have two particles here, but
it seemed easy enough to begin with that. The pilot wave
function, the node representing it, has in it, 'wired'
into its algorithm, that the barrier mustn't be landed on.
This is all an enormous simplification of what the
phenomena of tunnelling is about.
Q. Why?
A. Because, when the barriers are powerful and big
compared to what is, as possibility, moving beyond them,
it may directly involve the PMW.
Q. The raising of the possibility to a probability?
A. You see, when I interviewed Ilya Prigogine, one of the
leading thinkers on thermodynamics--first on phone, then
also in London when I met him, he emphasized that the
predictions of quantum theory are somewhat mechanical--
even though they are statistic, and that this indicated
something that could be at fault with it. Quantum theory
allows for tunnelling but says finely little except that
it may happen. This has uses in biology etc, where that
which is chemically impossible becomes possible--they say,
due to quantum fluctuations. Just like mathematicians have
too easily used the word 'infinite', so has those who have
worked with the science of life and the universe too
easily talked about 'fluctuations', in the sense of
'chance'--as if these concepts were easy. Now we have
mathematicians that try to avoid talking about the
infinite but they bring it in by concealed concepts in any
case, such as when they speak of 'arbitrary' numbers,
which cannot be defined without an appeal to the intuition
of an infinite set. In the same way, we have physicists,
biologists and so on too easily using the word 'chance' as
if it refers to an actual physical process. But it is, in
important situations, a word that masks their ignorance.
A. You are saying that there isn't a complete theory of
quantum tunnelling?
Q. Well, if we go with Einstein's view, there isn't, in
the mainstream, a proper theory of anything quantum. There
are some works on quantum tunnelling--how to increase its
chances, what types of coherent quantum situations that
tend to evoke it, and so on; something of this has some
practical uses relative to some forms of semiconductors.
The approach we take to it at the present formulation of
super-model theory is to say this: we see how it is
physically possible, given that the universe is structured
by means of super-models. But we expect the actual content
of any more detailed description would be tremendously
complex, however--let this be clear--within the framework
that we have set forth, of the interplay between the
half-algorithmic, half-organic super-models and the
fundamentally organic PMW principle. In short, quantum
tunnelling relies more on PMW than anything else. And so
the formalism is merely showing an extremely superficial
aspect of what we the informal level, of our minds, as
regards the super-model theory, must give ample space to,
someday.
8. Special Relativity In Super-Model Theory: Or,
the Relativity of the Measurements of Speeds of Light--
a new nonlocal interpretation of the famous
Michelson-Morley experiment with the new concept of
nonlocally activated flashback light
Q. You have said that Einstein would have nodded to the
general spirit of super-model theory as far as the general
theory of science goes--first mind, then formalism; yes
to visualization of reality, no to taking foggy ideas
seriously even though they fit with some equations that
match empirics. But would he agree to what this chapter is
all about?
A. Perhaps not. For it was a core tenet of the young
Einstein that the universe so to speak bends around
himself and every observer. Nothing is absolute of space
and time, you get twistings of space and twistings of
time, all you need to do is to open your eyes and the
universe is at your feet. Of course, that type of thought
very much influenced what the 20th century was all about,
politically: it was a throwing away of the fetters of the
past. Einstein felt that he was in the middle of it; he
was partly religious, partly a technician as far as
formalisms go (I try not to say 'nerd'), partly political,
partly ethnic, and partly in love with philosophy, with
science, and with a determinism rather of the Spinoza
kind, if I haven't misunderstood him.
All this sort of wrapped itself around him and became a
tremendous force when he saw to it that he could explain
away the aether and at the same time deal a blow to those
who believed in some of the most common absolutenesses of
his time, space and time; and anthropocentrically, put Man
in the Middle. The One Stone, if Einstein permits me the
jibe over his name.
For all these reasons, it was emotionally a sort of
climax that the young Einstein reached with his theory of
relativity, then renamed into 'special' relativity when he
worked on further adjustments in order to take gravitation
into consideration (the latter became the 'general'); and
that sort of a climax isn't easily upset in one person's
typical lifetime of thinking. It will soldify itself; and
there's no evidence that it ever really slipped away in
Einstein's consciousness.
Let me first mention that what comes in this chapter is,
as far as I know, a novel take on it all. The novel part
is not that we consider speed of light experiments in a
quantum or nonlocal light: that has been done before, and
anyone who searches on the Internet will find some stuff
about that--not just by mainstream physicists, but also by
physicists who stand on the sideline and seek to find
another pathway than relativity. Much as I admire some of
these attempts--for instance, one paper by an independent
physicist names the Michelson-Morley equipment as a
'quantum interferometer' and uses that notion to deduce
how Earth is moving in the aether--I'm not sure that those
although admitted bold, attempts to reinterpret the famous
experiment are entirely well researched. For after all,
that particular experiment has been given, by now, several
other physical realisations and the results, as reported
in mainstream journals at least, have been to confirm the
idea that 'no aether drift' could be detected.
What is novel with the super-model theory and its take
on the speed of light as we here present it is that we
divide completely between measured and unmeasured light,
and do so aided by the nonlocal notion but in the new,
richer sense of nonlocality (or whatever we call it) that
exists in the present framework of super-model theory. And
when we do this, we are going to find that we can both
support the idea of the measured velocity of light in such
situations as constant, and also, in addition, open up for
wildely different relative speed velocities as for the
light that has never interacted with matter particles at
all. Our concept here is 'flashback light'.
So, in this context, we are showing that, given the
foundation of the super-model theory as presented so far,
the by far easiest and simplest way of understanding the
speed of light measurements is to assert that the speed of
light is a result of the measurement process created by
nonlocal pilot waves, ie, by a super-model.
Q. You are saying that unmeasured light can have different
speeds?
A. Yes.
Q. How do we know that?
A. Well, that's the nature of many things quantum, is it
not? That we know only something of it, and must leave the
rest to theory and modelling and visualization. All I'm
saying is that if you do away with independent space in
our thinking, always tying it up to who is doing the
observatiob, then we are getting one set of ideas for the
quantum stuff, and another set of ideas rather (perhaps
along with how Einstein thought about it) as for speed of
light and gravitation stuff--and then there will be lack
of coherence, a lack of holism and a lack of meaningful
touch to the resulting set of ideas. We won't have a
landscape of ideas, but rather a conflict of cultures; and
this conflict of cultures has persisted in mainstream
physics long outliving the deaths of Bohr and Einstein.
It's time to have harmony. It's time to think again. We
have a lot of creative starting-points for thinking in the
century and more since Einstein begun the relativity
proposals. It can't be that hard.
So, with that starting-point, let's go to one of the
most essential, thought-provoking experiments underlaying
much of Einstein's convictions. It is the Michelson-
Morley experiments; done in several forms. We are here
going to show an abstraction of the same--not the same,
but just some essential features.
Q. So, as far as I know, the MM-experiment, to call it
something snappy, aimed to detect the aether drift by
assuming that light waves, as water waves, propagate in a
medium with some sort of stable speed whereas the planet
Earth, with its rotation, should experience some sort of
modified light-speed depending on whether the measurement
happens in one direction or another direction, eg
perpendicular to its rotation. Is that right?
A. Yes, it's right. And in mainstream physics, you'll find
no end to the proposals that the aether theory was sort of
'refuted' or 'disposed of' or 'rejected' or 'disproved' as
a result of the MM experiment combined with Einstein's
take on it all. But, in the pilot-wave physics league, and
scattered through the various philosophers criticism of
Einstein, you'll always found those who have sought to
bring the aether concept back--only so that it has more
properties, to account for the peculiarity that light
seems to have rather constant speed when measured in
vacuum (not in water, where it is slower; nor subject to
such as quantum refraction of some sort, where it is
sometimes faster or slower) from the viewpoint of an
observer in 'uniform translation', as they say--ie, not in
accelerated motion. (Or not much, at any rate--being atop
a planet is in some sense to be embedded in some degree
of acceleration all the time.)
And even Einstein himself, when he wrote about general
relativity, implied that if we by the aether concept seek
to invest properties to space (instead of seeing it as a
property-less container), then the aether concept is
right.
Now, think of a model of light propagating at a speed,
particles guided by a pilot wave, which moves as what
Bohm and Hiley called 'bosonic fields'. There are the
questions associated with rest mass and the idea that the
photon has zero rest mass and so on, but let's bear in
mind that anything connected to either zero or infinity is
typically associated with extreme limits of measurements
where it is easy to talk, but utterly hard to measure.
We'll return to the question of photon as particle,
briefly (especially since this is, as a physicist
at the University of Bristol mentioned to me--I think his
name was George Simmons, physics friend of C. Dewdney who
showed me his by-now-famous computer modelling of Bohm's
quantum potential--a point of difference between the
de Broglie approach and the bohmain approach; as I read
Bohm & Hiley, the electron is asserted to be a fermion and
a particle but light is asserted to be a bosonic field.)
In super-model theory, we have an openness for a somewhat
different handling of restmass at light-speed since the
formalism is not driven by equations, but rather has a
first-hand structure where equations can be seen as
statistical second-hand summaries of how the model
behaves.
In our simpler, more abstract form of MM experiments, in
a 2D space, sort of, we have uniform movements. Instead of
throwing around space and time and making it contract, we
can say two things: (1) light moves at a constant speed in
its unmeasured form in this model, and (2) light when
measured in terms of speed even from an object moving
with or against light in this model turns out to show the
same speed of light as if it had been at rest.
Q. In classical theorising over reality, the latter would
seem radical.
A. Exactly. In the old times.
Q. But these are new times.
A. These are the new times, and we know of all sorts of
things created in the event of measurement, or more
generally, in the event of interaction between something
and something else, perhaps, as in this case, as in
interaction between light and matter. Light then leaves an
imprint on matter. To what extent this imprint corresponds
to what existed if there had been no such interaction must
be discussed, now that we are alive to nonlocality and HUP
(Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) and such stuff. At the
time of the MM experiments, there were no such things
floating around in the air as HUP or nonlocality. They
had to wait decades--many decades when it came to
nonlocality, for J.S. Bell to analyze how it came to be
that Bohm had managed to do what von Neumann had 'proven'
to be impossible (in terms of making a hidden variable
interpretation of an experimental setup loosely as in the
EPR--Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen--article from early
1930s). As we know, Bohm did that by including the
measurement apparatus as a quantum object and thus
modifying quantum idea of measurement into something more
akin to 'transformation'; and de Broglie picked this up
and resuced his own Double Solution approach, which, in
de Broglie's view, was an improvement of the pilot wave
interpretation (but what we call 'pilot wave' all the
same, in the vocabulary introduced by the commentary
text to the de Broglie writings referred to in the
intro text to this booklet).
So, the pilot wave nonlocally handles the measurement
situation so that the speed of light appears to be the
same.
Q. Even though it isn't? So you re-introduce the aether?
A. Now what is the 'aether' (or ether) supposed to be? It
is of course derived from a Greek word referring to the
lofty, sublime air breathed by the highest beings
themselves. In a crystal, energy vibrations move as
waves but when measured, in situations which are sensitive
to energies at the Planck level, they arrive as if they
were some sort of particles, and thus the name 'phonons'.
Is then matter space eg crystallized so that light is
moving in it? At the present level of theorizing, the
super-model theory can be taken into various pathways of
visualization, some having more merit than others. Whether
we wish to give physical content to an aether concept or
not seems to me to be less of the question we should begin
by asking than this question: does in fact light, when
unmeasured, move faster when for instance a spaceship
travels let's say at half the measured speed of light--
about 150,000 kilometers pr second--towards a source of
photons, and we are speaking of the relative speeds of
this light compared to the spaceship? According to
Einstein, all that fast movement of the ship will lead to
this and that contraction and it will appear to be the
constant speed. But we are now wanting to start afresh. We
want to not just exclusively speak of how things appear,
but also think about what is the actual case, when
visualizing the situation.
So, do you visualize it now? The spaceship moves at,
let's say, ca 150,000 km/s, perhaps towards a radio
station. This radio station emits photons, a series of
them, towards this spaceship. Some of these are picked up,
some are floating by it. Do they float by in 300,000 km/s,
or in 450,000 km/s, or something else? (The speed of light
measured in vacuum is typically found to be nearly
300,000 km/s--299792458 meters pr second, as meter has
come to be defined.)
Q. Yes. I can visualize it. Can't we have this spaceship
to measures the speed of photons beamed from one part of
to ship to another? It could be a very long spaceship.
Say, so long it takes more than two seconds for light to
move from one side to the other. Some 650,000 km long.
Would that do?
A. Excellent, even better! That's where we are going with
our abstract MM experiment and the novel interpretation of
it in terms of nonlocal flashback light in the super-model
theory. We have some sort of ship or station or a wierd
type of non-rotating planet, and it is either still
relative to the coordinates of the space, or moving at
terrific speed, half that of light.
Suppose now it sends photons alongside its axis of
movement but opposite to the speed of its own movement.
Now let us imagine that the light propagates when
unmeasured, when left to its own devices and not
interacting with matter, at a constant speed in objective
space. Then, if a spaceship or something moves in the
opposite direction, at half this speed, we would naturally
expect to get relative velocities of one and a half times
the constant speed of light. Now, when we measure the
situation, we don't get one and half time the speed of
light; but we cannot extrapolate from that to say that
the unmeasured photons don't go that fast. And that's the
flashback nonlocal approach to speed of light in the
super-model theory that we give a formal illustration of.
Q. Why flashback?
A. Unmeasured light, and as for light that has not
interacted with matter, the light from stars lightyears
away is, when passing is by, very different than light
which is picked up and which leaves an imprint on matter.
For instance, if we move towards the lightbeam, and the
beam contains, let's say, one hundred photons or so, and
we pick up half of them, then the other half has gone by
us a long time ago. So it's a flashback to that. Or, if
we move away from the light source, there's a flashback to
light that hasn't reached us yet, towards the light
source. This is not more complicated, not more difficult,
not more wierd, and not more magical, than quantum
tunnelling, or super-model tunnelling. It is a certain
form of activity much related to super-model tunnelling.
Q. Are you saying that every feature of special
relativity theory follows from the notion of nonlocal
flashbacks which act exclusively on measured lightbeams,
when we assume that light has a constant speed of
propagation in a kind of objective space?
A. A constant speed of propagation in an objective space,
yes. That we say. "Every feature" of special relativity?
Let's look at this closely: each physics theory is huge
compared to the connection with empirics. It is easy to
'predict' stuff that nobody has ever measured on and which
requires scifi equipment like spaceships going near the
speed of light. I for one do not believe that most things
have been very well checked as for all extreme energies
and all extreme situations for all physics theories. And
given what I have seen of the confusing ways that zeroes
and infinities are handled by physicists and those who
call themselves 'mathematicians' alike, I have no great
faith in the often cock-sure predictions they come with
as to implications eg near speed of light. For less
extreme situations there are numerical patterns generated
by special relativity kind of physics, typically using
the formalism of Lorentz contractions and an expanded
version of the famous E=MC2 equation, and these have had
many instances of confirmation as far as they go. But
extreme implications has only very scantily been checked,
for the simple reason that it is empirically entirely
beyond all the power of physicists today.
But again, there's no question that there's a degree of
coherence in the more mundane, non-extreme implications
of such as the Lorentz contraction formalism, and that
these have something to do with how things turn out when
measured. Obviously, a key feature running through this
coherent bit is that of the constancy of the speed of
light in vacuum regardless of uniform movement of the
moving observer. This constancy can be considered, in
super-model theory, to be an expression of a feature of
type of nonlocality we should expect with photons. We can
expect it to rise with more phenomena than light, and so
we can say that these phenomena are L-tagged, or tagged
with a behaviour associated with the L-speed, the phrase
"L-speed" then referring to our less absolute way of
referring to what Einstein referred to as 'c', the found
constant speed of light.
Einstein also spoke, and quite rightly it seems to me,
of the increase of total energy associated with a moving
object; and he regarded that the "rest-mass" is in
particular involved in this increase of energy as the
object is approaching the speed of light. However, to go
from the loose initial sketchy equations with their
square roots and their division lines and the rules of
not dividing at zero to assert that no object with rest
mass can ever go to the speed of light is to me
something that sounds like overbelief in formalism and
too little study of the depth of complications associated
with the concept of the infinite. Not only was this
before the advent of quantum physics, and nonlocality
concepts, but it was also before the advent of Kurt
Goedel's cutting of the wire of infinity as for all
axiomatic systems, which happened shortly after the
birth of quantum physics.
There is in particular good reason to believe that while
there's some sort of relation between the kinetic energy
of an object with rest mass when moving far from the speed
of light, different things may arise when near the speed
of light--and, given our present modelling, we must take
into consideration the additional feature that the speed
of light as measured may be widely different than the
actual speed of propagation of unmeasured light, due to
the flashback nature of photons, as we propose it.
So, all in all, and also because I know that de Broglie
had an intuition that the photon ought to be considered
as a particle, I propose, as I have done before, that in
super-model theory, the photon is considered to be a real
particle but with a restmass so small compared to such as
an electron that it is extremely hard to detect. Since we
no longer have the einsteinan equation hanger over us
threatening that particle to have infinite mass due to its
speed, we are at liberty to research this possibility,
theoretically, while bearing in mind that there may be
several more points that have to be reworked relative to
the mainstream equations for all this to be working out
with respect to all main features of the physical
situation.
With this in mind, I propose you ponder soon on the
formal illustration that take the MM experiments to their
most abstract, general, generic form. The <k:8000>
formalism next allows for two different situations. Both
of them involve a symbolic pure form of MM experiments as
to question of the relative velocities of light. When you
start up the formalism, you type in a Y or a N as to
whether you wish a spaceship having the setup on it to be
moving in the objective space and its coordinates. If
you type Y, the model will assert that it moves at about
half the speed of light, and along the same axis as you
also send out some photons and want to have their
velocity measured. The movement of the ship is the
opposite of the movement of the photons.
In the case you answer 'N', the result you'll get is
that of the situation where the ship is at rest relative
to the formalism's objective space and its coordinates.
Q. Why not have it on top of a planet which is rotating
like the MM situation?
A. Because a planet has gravitation, and a planet has--as
you say--rotation. It is not the ideal situation for
thinking about the relative velocities of light when we
are talking of uniform movement without any additional
factors. The MM experiment was a great idea because it
could be performed on Earth, but it is not the ideal
thought experiment. The ideal thought experiment involves
uniform movement only--no additional factors that could,
due to the deeply interwoven nature of the factors of the
universe--have some influence, small or big.
We see here that the super-model theory allows, via the
flashback type of nonlocality setting in during
interaction between light and matter, including
measurements of speeds of light, for an approach in which
the unmeasured photons pass by at the expected speed of
about 450,000 km/s when the spaceship moves at about
150,000 km/s in the opposite direction of the lightbeam,
which has about 300,000 km/s as its natural speed of
propagation in objective space. But the measured speed is
the same as when the spaceship is at rest relative to the
objective space coordinates, about 300,000 km/s.
In this interpretation, then, the speed of light is
something that obeys special relativity only when we see
that the measurements of the speed of light are relative
to a nonlocal situation far beyond what Einstein ever
thought of. Go beyond the measurement situation, and you
find speeds of light adding up or substracting in the
manner we expect. In this way, we might say that it is
compatible with the super-model theory to assert a
certain type of aether concept, but we are not depending
on that concept in order to formulate our approach. Our
approach, then, has the virtue of allowing for modelling,
in the very same situation as we deal with speed of
light relativities, such as nonlocality, without getting
into incoherent notions such as 'the present of one
particle influences the past of another particle, and
the present of the second particle influences the past of
the first'. Such incoherent notions belong to the clash
between cultures of Einstein-oriented thinking and, let's
say, Bohr-oriented thinking. In super-model theory, we
have a more classical space, and the relativity effects
arises by certain forms of novel nonlocalities that are
natural to consider in this context, and this without
breaking with the overall set of ideas that compose the
theory, and without any incoherence. So we have relativity
and quantum effects on the same idea footing, and with a
uniform type of formalism. Although the formalism here is
intensely simple, it has obviously in it adequate
capacity for complexity to be tweaked to the concrete
empirical situations without any problem whatsoever. That
formalistic extrawork is in each case trivial--the physics
lies in the overall set of ideas that compose the whole
super-model theory, and in the generic approach to
formalisms here taken with G15 PMN and its FCM/TF.
Soon, then, is <k:8000>, which, during startup, admits
for two very different situations, but which come out
equally as regards measurements of velocity of speed of
light when measurement is done 'from within' the model;
but in addition, we allow the model to calculate actual
velocities (by analogy to how David Bohm was calculating
actual trajectories by means of hidden variables when he
first launched his causal interpretation of quantum
theory in his two articles from early 1950s). We see here
that special relativity in super-model theory really is
the relativity of the measurements of the speeds of light,
because it is the measurement that creates the speed,
whereas the actual speeds of light when unmeasured can
vary quite extremely.
Note that in the following example, we have done the
maximum number of simplifications possible to show just
that which is relevant for speed of light measurement
aboard a moving spaceship, which is known to be either
stationary relative to objective space or to be moving at
half the L-speed. The L-speed is 299792458 m/s the way
meter is defined (or 21413747 x 14, relevant when, in our
model, the L-speed is such that it covers fourteen of
the coordinates in the horisontal direction in some time
unit). In the latter case, the movement is opposite to
the direction in which light is being measured. Here, as
a simplification, just four photons are emitted (from the
right side of the ship) and just one of them is picked up
(in the middle part of the ship). We assume very advanced
technology, able to time the emission of a burst of
photons precisely enough, as well as to detect the time of
arrival. In this simplified form, we assume that it is
possible to be precise about this with just one photon
measured, and just four photons emitted. In practise, due
to Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, a more realistic
model at this point would use a whole bunch of photons.
However that might be, the essential point is that the
act of measuring a photon creates a whole different
pilot wave, or super-model guiding wave, than a photon
which is not subject to this treatment, and that this
completely changes around all aspects of the velocity so
that the velocity always appear to be 299792458 m/s when
measured precisely and in a non-accelerated reference
frame. This point would hold also in much more complicated
situations, of course.
Let us also, before we study this model, realize that,
when pressed to the utmost consequences, a flashback
take on photons along these lines involve a sense in which
light as emitted in the universe is uphelding a kind of
information memory--we may almost say RAM (and we may
associate to some metaphysical thoughts of Rupert
Sheldrake about 'the presence of the past', which are
interesting points of view regardless of to what extent
his theories will get confirming instances in biology).
For we can only have a flashback theory upheld if the
photons have a 'retention' of what is to be imprinted in
case there is matter interaction for quite a while, taking
into considerations that the size of the manifest universe
--which may be much greater than that which mainstream
physics theoreticians typically project--involve very
huge number of lightyears indeed.
Q. Alright. Now I want to see the model!
A. You got it, here! Remember to run it twice over, with
spaceship at rest, and spaceship when it moves at half the
speed of light, the L-speed. This is a model which just
runs for a little while then gives the measurement results
when it has got them, as calculated from within the nodes,
--some nodes representing how the spaceship measures them,
and other nodes representing how the model is able to
convey an objective speed of light that breaks with the
einsteinian concept of constant speed of light. We are
getting fifteen hundred permille times 299792458 as the
actual velocity of the unmeasured photons in one case, but
the same (1000 permille) in the other case (although the
formalism produces the numbers not as permille but as
m/s, in this case). Bear in mind, again, that this is a
very symbolic and simplified form of MM-experiment, and
that only the velocity aspect of photons is brought into
this formal illustration. Here's <k:8000> then:
<k8000>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<k8001>
fundnet |up a fcm
lk |network with
thisfcmnet |a good amount
kl |funds; here:
|for super-
|At previous |model theory
|and next |formal
|card, we set |illustrations
<k8002>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<k8003>
pwavfactor= 8
1. rd
|The pathfind ts
|nums have |Toggle sign
|angle->6282 |so motion
|and length |clockwise
|up to 1000 ^pwavfactor
6283 setfastvar
<k8004>
|lspeed is lspeed=
|299792458 m/s 299792458.
|Coordinates halflspeed=
|of spaceship 149896229.
|is here, each |Spaceship is
|21413747 m; |assumed to be
|14 x 21413747 |of ca size
|is 299792458 |650000 km
<k8005>
|Spaceship: |Supermodel
lengthprcoor= |doing flashbk
21413747. |uses lspeed
|above: meter; |info: each
fcmloopsprsec= |fcmloop# time
7. | = y change:
|Ie, 1 second lightsteps=
|is 7 fcm#'s 2.
<k8006>
mainput30x50= 10
|In: value,
|x, y
|Action: sets
|1st num of
|1st triplet i3
s7 i7
s3 put30x50.
<k8007>
mainget30x50= 10
|In: x, y
|Gives: value
|Action: gets
|1st num of
|1st triplet i3
s7 i7
s3 get30x50.
<k8008>
adjusttripl9=
|In: a, b
|Action: sets
|both values
|of triplet# 9
|during fnmake
36 34
adjustfund adjustfund.
<k8009>
makeship= ll:35
|symbolic huge fundlevel
|spaceship dancebeneath
|which sends
|photons to ll:30
|itself basis
3500000 ^smposition
setfundlevel fneasy
<k8010>
4
47
adjustfund
m2
dc
m1
pos30x50
<k8011>
50
adjustfund
i2
m1
pos30x50
51
adjustfund
<k8012>
m2 m2
m1 i1
dc pos30x50
pos30x50 53
adjustfund
52 lo
adjustfund lo
<k8013>
ll:35 twobillion
29
twobillion m1
mainput30x50
0
m1
mainput30x50 lo
<k8014>
ll:30 twobillion
m1
twobillion 34
mainput30x50
m1
0
mainput30x50 lo
<k8015>
ll:7 |Michelson-
|Morley
800000 |timed
|photon-
i1 |emitter
up |aboard ship
33 |{symbolic)
mainput30x50 lo
<k8016>
|timed photon- 450000
|meter ca 9
|middle of the 18
|giant ship mainput30x50
450000 billion
8 10
18 18
mainput30x50 mainput30x50.
<k8017>
makeship |Mainvalue
5500000 |of spaceship
setfundlevel |foundry:
|speed of ship
basis
^spaceshipnode
fneasy
<k8018>
ltaggedphoton= tx
|In:tr#,fnwarp sh
|Act for |Startpos x,y
|photons;these |at triplet#9
|are ltagged, 10
|and thus can jx
|flashback at wk
|interaction sx
<k8019>
12 i9
jx
wk
s9 15
|Triplet#2 jx
|has prev y
|position: kw
<k8020>
12 mainget30x50
jx t9
wk j9
s9 million
gt
se
ix
i9 ex
<k8021>
350000 50
j9 jx
ad wk
t7
|ship speed:
ix j7
i9 fnmainval
mainput30x50 s3
<k8022>
i9 i3
2 ispro
su
se
s4 q4
<k8023>
i4 37
12 jx
jx wk
kw s1
f1
|Next, get 37
|& update jx
|photontiming kw
<k8024>
36 su
jx
wk |Interaction
|matter/light
|indicated at
i1 |triplet #5
lightsteps |{ie, pos 22}
mm s8
<k8025>
34 se
jx
wk ex
i8 |Flashback:
|matter? 1
mainget30x50 jx
450000 22
lt kw
<k8026>
|Next, store 16
|where
|flashback jx
|took place: kw
|in tripl#3 i8
34 18
jx jx
wk kw
<k8027>
billion
34
jx
wk
i8
|Photonflash
|with matter
mainput30x50.
<k8028>
6500000 |The node has
setfundlevel |as link#1:
|ship-node;
^ltaggedphoton
100
fnactcherish
<k8029>
2 |qty links:
100 1
32 47
^photon1 adjustfund
fneasyact ^spaceshipnode
2 fnam
32 50
adjusttripl9 adjustfund
<k8030>
4 |qty links:
100 1
32 47
^photon2 adjustfund
fneasyact ^spaceshipnode
4 fnam
32 50
adjusttripl9 adjustfund
<k8031>
6 |qty links:
100 1
32 47
^photon3 adjustfund
fneasyact ^spaceshipnode
6 fnam
32 50
adjusttripl9 adjustfund
<k8032>
8 |qty links:
100 1
32 47
^photon4 adjustfund
fneasyact ^spaceshipnode
8 fnam
32 50
adjusttripl9 adjustfund
<k8033>
longtxt* cliptrail
Spaceship w/Mi
chelson-Morley
speed-of-ligh
t experiment a
board it
fcmheadertxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k8034>
longtxt* cliptrail
Fig.4: MM-expe
riment shows n
onlocal flashb
ack speed FCM
Loop#
fcmlooptxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k8035>
9000000 0
setfundlevel 4900
0
&graphsomefns&
4900 ^fnshowgraph
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k8036>
mmtxt01= *txtcomplete
^.
cliptrail
longtxt*
Ship's speed,
m/s:
mmtxt01
kl
<k8037>
mmtxt02= *txtcomplete
^.
cliptrail
longtxt*
MICHELSON-MORL
EY MEASUREMENT
: mmtxt02
kl
<k8038>
mmtxt03= *txtcomplete
^.
cliptrail
longtxt*
Photon-speed m
/s:
mmtxt03
kl
<k8039>
mmtxt04= *txtcomplete
^.
cliptrail
longtxt*
OBJECTIVE SPEE
D OF PHOTONS:
mmtxt04
kl
<k8040>
mmtxt05= *txtcomplete
^.
cliptrail
longtxt*
Unmeasured m/s
:
mmtxt05
kl
<k8041>
graphmmresult= |Link#1 is to
|In:tr#,fnwrp |photonfoundry
|Act that |Its tripl#10
|displays |is timing;
|result of |tripl#1=x,y;
|michelson- |tripl#9=start
|morley exp |x,y; sets
|in starship |fnloopcont
<k8042>
tx |s5 is photon
sh
50
jx
wk
fnwarp
s5
<k8043>
|Has photon n?
|interacted
|with matter
|yet?
|Triplet#5:
22 se
i5
wk ex
<k8044>
mmtxt01 mmtxt02
lk lk
235 235
290 320
bx bx
<k8045>
mmtxt03 mmtxt04
lk lk
235 235
350 380
bx bx
<k8046>
mmtxt05 ^spaceshipnode
lk fnam
235 fnmainval
410
bx t5
<k8047>
|ship's speed: |Next,
j5 |calculate
makenumber |speed as
|measured by
|mm-experiment
478 |aboard ship
284
rp
<k8048>
|Where su
|flashback: ab
18 |Length in
i5 |terms of
wk |coords by
36 |mm-setup:
i5 lengthprcoor
wk mm
<k8049>
37 i8
i5 rd
wk s7
fcmloopsprsec i7
rd makenumber
478
344
s8 rp
<k8050>
|Length wk
|unmeasured su
|by mm-setup: ab
15
i5
wk
36 lengthprcoor
i5 mm
<k8051>
i8
rd
s2
i2
makenumber
478
404
rp
<k8052>
ki
fnloopcont
basisthis sh.
<k8053>
9700000 0
setfundlevel 2141
0
^graphmmresult
2141 ^fngraphmm
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k8054>
|qty links: ^photon4
1 fnam
47 50
adjustfund adjustfund
<k8055>
nowtxt01= *txtcomplete
^.
cliptrail
longtxt*
The Michelson-
Morley experim
ent will be pe nowtxt01
rformed aboard kl
<k8056>
nowtxt02= *txtcomplete
^.
cliptrail
longtxt*
a spaceship. R
elative to our
objective spa nowtxt02
ce coordinates kl
<k8057>
nowtxt03= *txtcomplete
^.
cliptrail
longtxt*
it can travel
at half speed
of light (y=ye nowtxt03
s, n=at rest): kl
<k8058>
now= nowtxt01
lk
prt
ce
prtclr nowtxt02
lk
prtsuspend prt
<k8059>
nowtxt03 readyesno
lk n?
prt sx
^spaceshipnode
fnam
prtrelease s5
<k8060>
ix fcm.
d3
halflspeed
i5
setfnmainval
<k8061>
1 &now&
fcmgraphloop
kl
90
fcmshowpause
kl zz
[In paper form, samples of output are reproduced as
two images. In the TF, the FCM comes alive on the screen
when you type ^k8000 and, on the next line, cc. Answer
with Y or N during startup as to whether the spaceship,
ca 650000 km long, is going to have speed 149896229 m/s.]
Q. It's an interesting piece of code, interesting to see
when it performs. But what exactly does 'objective speed'
refer to, in the resulting display?
A. It refers to the unmeasured--in that sense 'objective'
speed of the photons as compared to the motion of the
spaceship. The relative speed between spaceship and
unmeasured photons. When measured, we get a flashback and
that produces the expected constant L-speed, 299792458 m/s
but in the unmeasured case the result depends on the
spaceship movement. 'Unmeasured' refers to the spaceship's
instruments; of course we are in an abstract sense doing
'measurements' on the formalism.
Q. So we are in fact having an aether here, are we?
A. Call it that if you want to, I'm not insisting on that
word. The proposal is that there is a constant propagation
as to the photonic speed in empty space relative to what
we can call 'objective coordinates'. Even if the spaceship
projects photons while moving tremendously fast, the
photons will have the same propagation speed. However, in
contrast to some thinkers, we aren't proposing that
photons are merely waves in a medium. Photons, in this
theory, are very complex structures, and they involve a
combination of the particle and the pilot wave in a way
which involves a lot of associated properties, such as
polarisation, the electric and magnetic aspects, and more.
A number of additional effects can be worked out in an
analogous fashion once we have grasped the notion of the
flashback. There is no real effect as predicted by special
relativity that cannot be, in fairly easy ways, reproduced
through this concept, suitably applied.
Let us add that since unmeasured speed of propagation is
just that--unmeasured--it could of course be another speed
than the L-speed. However, it seems to be an elegant and
simple proposition that the same number, 299792458 m/s,
applies for unmeasured speed of propagation in objective
space in the neutral cases.
9. General Relativity In Super-Model Theory: Or,
the Relativity of Duration--time dilation in fields of
acceleration and gravitation not needing riemannian
spacetime, but with the new concept of duration piloting
by super-models
Q. General relativity is famous for predicting that even
superbly accurate clocks, to the microseconds, do slow
when subjected to gravitation, and that gravitation is, in
a sense, the same as to be exposed to constant
acceleration and that acceleration then has the same
effect--the time dilation.
A. Quite so. The time dilation is something that creates
a sort of enduring imprint on anything that has been
exposed to gravitation or acceleration--especially when we
are talking of huge amounts of this, much much more than
such fields as are associated with our habitable planets.
Q. There has been speculations about the effects of
gravitation coming from collapsed giant stars?
A. Yes. Let us at once say here that it's hugely
complicated to interpret with any degree of certainty what
is seen through telescopes and which concerns cosmic
events many lightyears, typically millions of lightyears
away. Interpretation is all the more complicated given the
fact that people have, in the 20th century and beyond,
been hypnotised by formalisms the way we have talked about
and felt that if the mathematics seems to work out, then
it is likely to be real--and this even when the ideas
aren't very consistent. Because of the poetic strengths
of certain phrases, such as "black holes", and the
appearant force of the way some apparently learned folks
talk about such mathematical fictions as "singularities",
which only makes sense if Einstein's theories are
formally correct in an intense degree AND if conventional
bohrian quantum theory also is formally correct to an
intense degree--we have a lot of what I take to be
nonsense being discussed as if it were extremely plausible
facts. Be that as it may. Here we are concerned with core
ideas, not with some people's wild extrapolations.
Q. All right. So time dilation is real. Is it in some
sense a 'time travel into the future', and, if so, could
one imagine a time travel into the past?
A. We will discuss the time concept in what I take to be
a coherent way in chapter 10. The simple answer is that
time dilation is but a process slowing, and if putting
food in the fridge isn't a time travel of this food into
the future, then neither is the time dilation effects of
general relativity a time travel into the future. It is a
a kind of temperature-less freezing effect working on all
material elements, not just the organic ones. It makes
little sense to begin to talk of time travel in any
direction when we are going to talk about process slowing,
as I take it.
Einstein's visualization emerged gradually. He was at
first concerned with relationships between key factors in
physics. Then, as I understand it, his Russian math
teacher (Minkowski) introduced him to the visualisations
of more dimensions than three, and indicated to him that
the relationships he had found could be described in terms
of four dimensions. Eventually, as he began to tackle
gravitation, he started to introduce a bending of these
four dimensions, in which also the time dilation effect
was produced.
However, since relativity physics concerns the same
universe, or multiverse, as quantum physics, and since,
for the reasons we have pointed out, a visualization to
cover all these phenomena is far more likely to come out
coherently when we incorporate the relationships and
phenomena Einstein sought to describe in a context where
simultaniety and more objective space & time coordinates
can be given, we are, in super-model theory, going a
different pathway as to general relativity phenomena. We
are, again, utilising the fact that our form of
well-developed type of pilot waves--going already by our
way of handling special relativity--are capable of
introducing subtle changes 'from within' of the
phenomena for which they provide guidance.
Q. If I may be excused for asking it, why is there such a
peculiar effect of plain gravitation on processes?
A. There is no reason to excuse a question which contains
the word "why". It depends on the theoretical background
whether "why" is a meaningful question for you. Biologists
have got into the habit of asking "why" all the time--why
do the lips have the shape they have, and so on. They have
harked back to the idea of survival of the fittest so as
to select the best mutations over millions of years of
stepwise change with random mutations--which isn't perhaps
a coherent idea, due to the incapacity of "random" to do
all that they want it to do in such comparatively short
periods as, after all, millions of years. But the question
has a validity, it is very fruitful. Why is such and such
shape a good idea in life? Why is this or that mechanism
in the body a good idea--it's explained in terms of how it
benefits life and survival and what not.
In physics, however, there haven't been much of this
type of questions. Now, with the super-model theory, you
have the PMW, a nonalgorithmic principle which enhances
wholeness by suitable modifications including
modifications of quantum fluctuations and thus we get a
way to ask, and answer, without the rediculous reliance on
randomness found in both classical darwinism and
socalled neodarwinism. This means that we can state the
"why" question, with some meaning, in absolutely any
domain. As regards energy processes of all the multiverse,
the answer will likely take us far into metaphysics and
clearly into the realm of intuition and speculation. And
so, if I proceed to begin to answer your question, we are
leaving the domain of this chapter, which is the type of
correlations indicated by Einstein's general relativity
theory when rerendered in terms of super-model theory.
Q. But we are going to look at the formal illustration
soon. Let's have a glimpse of the metaphysics which could
surround gravitation first. I ask again, why is
gravitation affecting processes so as to slow them?
A. Alright, a bit of metaphysics, then. First of all,
let's imagine a material universe with much the same type
of stuff as we have here, but without gravitation. The
image we get is that of stuff that spreads out, it doesn't
cling nor cluster very much, we don't get the rounded
spiralling effects of gravitation on solar systems, on
galaxies, nor do we get stuff to stick around on the
planets and, inasmuch as planets are formed by once-hot
processes that stick together by gravitation, we wouldn't
even get much planets; it would be a powder-universe. So
gravitation allows a gathering of physical gestalts, as it
were. And these physical groupings allow for life, which
involves a degree of gestalt complexity far beyond that
which inorganic matter has. So you can see here the PMW at
work--as a principle that accounts for an increase of the
diversity and intensity of wholeness first by laying
groundworks for structure, then by elevating these
structures to the mind and feeling quality of human
beings.
Now, in this process, gravitation has equal effects as
acceleration as regards the slowing of duration, the
dilation of process, the "time dilation" effect. In
Einstein's picture, the two are to be regarded as equal.
However, as Alfred Korzybsky and other neo-aristotelians
often pointed out, a theory is like a map and the
territory, the actual domain, the real world is always
more than, and different from, the maps we have. When the
maps are complicated, as the formalisms of 20th century
physics, it may be easy to forget that the universe can
have extremely more to it than anything found in our maps.
Q. What do you mean?
A. I mean that the identity between gravitation and
acceleration as regards process slowing may not hold for
all features of gravitation. In the theory of super-models
we have the capacity to imagine, while still using the
same components of these super-models, many levels to
the universe, and indeed many universes, all made of such
super-models. We have some initial correlations drawn from
empirical studies, and Einstein's work is pivotal, but
these are just starting-points. Super-model theory then
has a lot of conscious incompleteness about it and is
meant to be indefinitely improved.
To be a little more concrete, gravitation may be in
service of life in more ways than that which at present is
open to us. Remember that quantum biology has hardly begun
and that, given the mechanist attitudes of physicists and
the reductionistic attitudes of biologies, it's likely to
be rather meaningless unless infused with something like
super-model theory, as a new paradigm, if that's the word
we should choose ("exemplar" may be a better word).
The fact that gravitation, compared to other forces, in
a way is extremely tiny--big when we are near a planet
like Earth, but tiny when it comes to the effect of things
on this planet on other things--doesn't mean that it
there cannot be nonlocal super-models "hooking up" on it
so as to serve the presence of life. We may have a
situation in which the gravitational field surrounding and
holding together a solar system has a nonlocal, huge
effect providing coherence of a kind that supports life.
Q. You mean, life may have to be kept within a solar
system?
A. Yes. So that in order to get grand spacetravel, the
notion of a warp from one solar system straight to
another solar system must be called on, rather than
gradual travel through empty space between them. This is,
after all, something that has not been researched on
empirically, and super-model theory doesn't exclude the
possibility of a nonlocal effect of solar gravitation.
Q. What if rotation is used by a spacecraft to emulate
gravitation? Or is that where the possible distinction
between gravitation and acceleration gets in?
A. Yes, exactly. Acceleration may turn out to be less than
gravitation in all its respects. Things that look very
similar when not researched much on, may turn out to be
different when subjected to a real closer look. This is a
rule of thumb in much biological research, whereas when it
comes to cosmological questions, we have but a tiny
fraction of the relevant empirics.
Q. So are you saying that gravitation in a solar system
sort of rejuvenates living organisms and their cells?
A. You wanted an intuition, and my intuition here--which
isn't something I am prepared to dig up any empirics for--
is entirely clear at this point. The answer is 'yes', but
I mean it by means of nonlocality or what we call it,
through super-models organising life.
Q. And this is a bit like process slowing, duration
slowing, duration piloting?
A. Not very much, just in terms of mental association.
The duration piloting is an extremely minute effect. The
nonlocal effects can be huge, yet almost impossible to
detect empirically except by luck and in roundabout ways.
In next chapter, we'll speculate a little further about
the PMW. I believe it is a scientific strength of the
super-model theory that it allows, so easily, new
questions to arise. But remember that we should, to honor
the process of empirical research as something separate
from engaging in intuition, clearly state when we are
talking of correlations near empirical research, in
contrast to when we talk of what we intuitively
speculate could be correct. And let us now postpone
further speculation. We are going to stick to the idea, in
the next formal illustration, that acceleration is the
same as gravitation, and that time dilation is an effect.
Q. So how are we going to do that?
A. We're going to accelerate something that has a measure
of fast-going clockticks of some sort going on inside it.
And something else won't be accelerated. The idea of
nonlocal duration piloting by means of super-models is
that a super-model, engaging in the acceleration of
another super-model (representing the object), also is
able to slow down its internal processes. That comes
easily in this very symbolic, abstract formal illustration
we have next, in <k:9000>:
<k9000>
maxfundnum= &&
10000. fundnet
150 kl
maxfundnum
mm 150
200 maxfundnum
ad fundnet
sz wwyymatrix
<k9001>
fundnet |up a fcm
lk |network with
thisfcmnet |a good amount
kl |funds; here:
|for super-
|At previous |model theory
|and next |formal
|card, we set |illustrations
<k9002>
maxfundnum fcmindqty
50 basisthis
ad maxfundnum
sz thisfcmnet
lk
&& fcmindex
fcmindex lk
kl initwarpindex
<k9003>
pwavfactor= 8
1. rd
|The pathfind ts
|nums have |Toggle sign
|angle->6282 |so motion
|and length |clockwise
|up to 1000 ^pwavfactor
6283 setfastvar
<k9004>
mainput30x50= 10
|In: value,
|x, y
|Action: sets
|1st num of
|1st triplet i3
s7 i7
s3 put30x50.
<k9005>
mainget30x50= 10
|In: x, y
|Gives: value
|Action: gets
|1st num of
|1st triplet i3
s7 i7
s3 get30x50.
<k9006>
makearea= ll:35
|Area with fundlevel
|gravitation dancebeneath
800000 ll:30
t8 basis
12000000 ^smposition
setfundlevel fneasy
<k9007>
4
47
adjustfund
m2
dc
m1
pos30x50
<k9008>
50
adjustfund
i2
m1
pos30x50
51
adjustfund
<k9009>
m2 m2
m1 i1
dc pos30x50
pos30x50 53
adjustfund
52 lo
adjustfund lo
<k9010>
ll:35 j8
29
j8 m1
mainput30x50
0
m1
mainput30x50
<k9011>
j8
14
m1
mainput30x50
lo
<k9012>
ll:30 j8
m1
j8 34
mainput30x50
m1
0
mainput30x50 lo
<k9013>
ll:6 |Symbol of
|source of
j8 |intense
|gravitation
i1 lo.
up makearea
33 150000000
mainput30x50 setfundlevel
<k9014>
stellarthing= tx
|In: tr#,fnwrp t6
|Fnact for
|stellar
|object;
|tripl# 10 of |main triplet
|it has clock |has position
|and mass |of object
<k9015>
|A velocity:
0
32
1
12
jx
pn
<k9016>
32768000 wk
37 12
jx jx
ad wk
ku mainput30x50.
billion &stellarthing&
10 935
jx fnactcherish
<k9017>
4 50000
935 39
1 adjustfund
^comet
fneasyact
<k9018>
23 50000
935 39
1 adjustfund
^comet3
fneasyact
<k9019>
gravitfield= tx
|In: tr#,fnwrp t4
|Fnact for
|source of |main triplet
|gravitation; |has position;
|link is to |triplet #5
|object |has mass
|exposed to it
<k9020>
22 50
jx jx
wk wk
fnwarp
s5 sx
<k9021>
12 ab
jx ni
wk s7
12 |distance
ix |between obj
wk |& source of
|gravitation,
su |squared
<k9022>
39 i5
ix i9
wk rd
i7
rd
50
rd
s9 t5
<k9023>
j5 j5
sr
sr
ts
12 37
ix ix
ad ad
ku ku.
<k9024>
&gravitfield&
3219
fnactcherish
<k9025>
5 adjustfund
3219 ^comet
33 fnam
^denseobject 50
fneasyact adjustfund
|Qty links: billion
1 22
47 adjustfund
<k9026>
longtxt* cliptrail
Gravitation/ac
celeration lea
ds to process
slowing in sup
er-model theor
y fcmheadertxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k9027>
longtxt* cliptrail
Fig.5: Clock i
n top item aff
ected by accel
eration FCM
Loop#
fcmlooptxt
*txtcomplete kl
<k9028>
billion 0
setfundlevel 520
0
&graphsomefns&
520 ^fnshowgraph
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k9029>
graphclocks= tx
|In: tr#,fnwrp sh
|Fnact to
|show
|clockticks 50
|for objects jx
|linked to as wk
|#1 and #2 s1
<k9030>
51 ix
jx 250
wk 250
s3 rp
ix
250
&clockticks:& 450
sx rp
<k9031>
37 37
i1 i3
fnwarp fnwarp
wk wk
makenumber makenumber
460 460
250 450
rp rp
<k9032>
12 fnloopcont
i1 basisthis
fnwarp kk
wk sh
32
lt
100
d4 activepause.
<k9033>
twobillion 0
setfundlevel 1523
0
&graphclocks&
1523 ^fnshowclocks
fnactcherish fneasyact
<k9034>
|qty links: ^comet
2 fnam
50
adjustfund
^comet3
fnam
47 51
adjustfund adjustfund
<k9035>
1 &fcm&
fcmgraphloop
kl
basis
fcmshowpause
kl zz
[In paper form, a sample of output is reproduced as
an image. In the TF, the FCM comes alive on the screen
when you type ^k8000 and, on the next line, cc. Press
then <ESC> button when you've seen enough of it.]
Q. So, the topmost object--named 'comet' in the formalism
illustrating the point--is accelerated towards the right,
and in so doing gets a different clocktick-reading than
the bottommost one. And this without using the notion of
a curvature in the fourth dimension.
A. Exactly. Some abstract relationships are illustrated
here, without presuming that this is in the slightest an
exhaustive description; also, as with all our formal
illustrations, the type of correlations is indicated but
tweakings of the formalism must be done in order to make
it fit with a concrete application of it. In some cases,
the tweakings are formidable. But that's the nature of
neopopperian science, that the formal illustrations are
snapshots, a sort of cartoon version of the conceptual
process.
Q. We are showing this again using the two-dimensional
symbolic layout.
A. In order to illustrate anything formally, we do
ourselves a great service when we cut away as much as we
can so that the salient points stand out well. When we
can do it in low resolution, that's more to the point than
high resolution. In monochrome, that's more to the point
than color. And if it's adequate to show the motion along
one dimension, let's not add more dimensions needlessly.
But there is no denying that, to encourage good and sharp
thinking, we can go a very long way with two dimensions.
As the philosopher Charles S. Pierce pointed out, the
rich possibilities, symbolically speaking, given us by a
triangle, requires two dimensions. Three dots, spanned out
in X and Y direction, can cover an area, and admits for
far more complicated thinking than one-dimensional
arrangements. And most of the thinking about four
dimensions has really been done by means of representing
a bent XY-plane onto two dimensions, as a photograph of a
curved mesh, so that the third spatial dimension has been
temporarily ignored.
Q. Would you say that two-dimensional representation is
only representation we need in super-model theory?
A. There are cases in which a modelling using three or
more dimensions can help show how remarkable
transformations can arise rather effortlessly. Fractal
geometry hints at this, but it seems that there are real
features of the world best represented through a rotation
or some other movement of four or more dimensions, perhaps
at most eight or sixteen, through something like three
dimensions. However, when this is done in some branch of
super-model theory in some particular let's say biological
or cosmological application, we do this in the sense of
more spatial dimensions, not that anyone of them involves
a meddling with the notion of time. It's conducive to
clear thinking to regard dimensionality as simply an
orchestration of form.
10. The Non-Algorithmic PMN And Discussion Of Future
10.A. Principle of Movement towards Wholeness
10.B. Machines don't have intelligence: Goedel resume
10.C. Working with robotics without being reductionistic
10.D. Concepts of time in super-model theory, and views
on actual future
10.E. Summary of super-model theory and possible
relevance for biology and human living
10.A. Principle of Movement towards Wholeness
Q. Up until now we have looked at the more algorithmic
features of super-model theory, can we say that?
A. Well, we have touched on all sorts of themes briefly,
but I agree that, with the chapter headings and the formal
models and discussions around them, we have had an
orientation towards the more technical features as it
were. Algorithmic, if you like.
Q. Could we, instead of building up gradually, suddenly
take the direct opposite perspective?
A. What do you mean?
Q. What I mean to ask is this: how religious or spiritual
or what's the word can one be, and at the same time be a
scientist and scientific?
A. I have met physicists of every sort of inclination--
obviously, quite a few of them have been atheists, I
suppose, but rarely so that they appear certain about it.
But I have also met christian physicists, hindi, buddhist,
agnostic, and so on, all the way to the very broad
category I like to call "mysticist" physicists. In the
last half of his life, Newton was like that. A bit of the
mystic was also in Einstein, and I suppose also in Bohr.
A famous anecdote about Niels Bohr goes like this: a
friend of him noticed that Bohr had a horseshoe hanging
over the door for luck. He asked whether Bohr believed in
it. "No," Bohr said, "but it's supposed to work even if
you don't believe in it."
C.G. Jung, who introduced the archetype concept, had a
friend from amongst the dozen of the greatest 20th century
physicists (Wolfgang Pauli), and together they worked out
that, in addition to causation, there's something to be
said for surprisingly meaningful coincidences as possibly
somehow "acausal". They (and Jung in particular) called
this "synchronicities", which they spoke of as something
in parallel to causation. Jung suggested that it's due to
synchronicities that scientists often take so consistently
the wrong turn both in how they seek out empirics, and
in how they calculate over it and interpret it; but he was
interested in the concept mostly, I suppose, for its more
positive connotations (and for use in therapy).
Despite the diversity of worldviews that people who work
philosophically with physics have (and which is the right
sense of 'physicist' as far as I'm concerned) there are
books by some wellknown physicists that seek to convey
the impression to the public that atheism is a sort of
logical consequence of the success of physics--but their
arguments tend to be, at best, shallow. There is no
pathway of necessity from the observations of quantum and
relativity physics phenomena to any worldview. Worldview,
in its most sublime aspects, must be chosen from personal
intuition. Then one will have to work out how it can fit
with such and such insightful pattern as found in physics,
in the informal sense of 'physics' that is consistent with
the super-model theory, and in which philosophy is not
only an element in it, but, again in an informal and
holistic and intuitive, first-hand sense, almost its whole
foundation.
In order to look at these questions afresh, it appears
to me one must lift oneself, as it were, above all the
discussions, all the polemics, all the emotionality, that
may be prevailing in media, at places of study, in the
gossip among people, and so on. There are phases of
extreme emphasis on some ways of comprehending reality
which may seem to be 'everlasting' when they go on, and
a mere decade or three later, a wholly different emphasis
may exist. And worldview, science and philosophy isn't
like fashion in clothing: there's a sense in which it is
okay to be fashionable this season, even if you are aware
that after this season, such clothes may not again be
fashionable for quite a while, if ever. That's fine when
it comes to clothes, perhaps.
As for life philosophy, thinking about the energy
process of the universe or multiverse, and getting a solid
grip on forms of logic, visualisations, and intuition,
we're into an area where we must step out of fashion when
fashionable thinking is wrong or piecemeal. Good work here
is part of what gives us peacefulness of mind, a quietude
and aliveness within, a tranquility and capacity for
swift thinking, good dialogue, and perhaps also the
capacity to make great art. If we fool ourselves in
philosophy then we are out of tune, even if it a fashion
in this season to fool ourselves.
Q. To have wholeness and clarity in worldview is, then,
something that concerns quality of life?
A. Yes. Very intensely so. So one must not just be social
and not just listen in to one's collegues, but go outside
the chatrooms and tune in to reality. If there is some
sort of at least vague mass hysteria going on, well, that
has to be healed at the society level, and if one breaks
with this hysteria one may have to find other ways to make
a living--if one's income is tied up to speaking the
fashionable illusions. So one must then be a philosopher
and a scientist at heart, rather than as profession. In
such cases, one must be loyal to something greater than
the social. Right?
Q. Right.
A. One is entitled to--you are entitled to--raise above
fashion in thinking when you ask about worldview and such.
But then you must first realize the tremendous
conditioning that may exist, which is far easier to do
when it has just gone away as compared to a situation
where it's all over the place.
In order to think about worldview, then, one must be
alive to alternatives; and alternatives when it comes to
worldview may also be found in myths.
Q. How do you mean?
A. Well, let's open up for a discussion of the sense of
myth. Science (including physics) must, as we've said,
have a living philosophical discourse as absolutely
essential to its core. And it's part of philosophy to go
into metaphysics. Metaphysics can be explored also by
myths. The thesis, as I take it, of Jon-Roar Bjoerkvold in
his book, "The Muse Within" (English edition, the
Norwegian original came in 1989 with the title, "Det
Musiske Menneske", and became an internationally rather
trendsetting book, translated into many languages etc) is
that each human being comes into the world with a living
musical nerve. This musical or muse-like centre of being
can be called forth via music and song. Bjoerkvold, also a
professor of music at the University of Oslo, argues that
the most whole and essentially richest of each, also in
terms of childhood development, is tied up to this. He
speaks of a connectedness which can only exist when one
is not too steeped in "mechanical pace": rhythm, he says,
is essentially a living thing. And to me, that sounds
like a breaking with mere algorithm, and so it touches on
what you began by asking in this chapter. But from where
comes this musical feature of the human being?
In The Muse Within, he goes deep into the roots of the
word music and how it connects to the concept of muse, the
ancient greek concept of a divine being--part of the
mythic background also of Christianity. Just some days ago
--as I was thinking about myth--I happened to come across
him--synchronicity, if you like, and I naturally asked him
about this. He suggested I'd have a fresh look at the
ancient Ode of Pindar, which he also discusses in the
aforementioned book. Much shortened and very freely
translated, this greek hymn goes like this:
Zeus brought forth the order of the world to the wonder
of all the Olympic beings, and he asked them: Is anything
here amiss, or is it all to your delight? And they said,
one thing only, Lord, where is the voice in creation that
expresses all its glory? Zeus heard that, and behold,
the muses, children of Zeus, came into being.
So you see, creation must refer to itself by a process
that requires something extraordinary: not just more of
the same causality and functionality, but a new type: the
music or muse-like type. (If we by "refer" now mean also a
grand artistic expression of the dancelike beauty of the
muses themselves, we have a bridge in mind between the
myth and the logic of self-reference that we'll look into
in the upcoming parts of this chapter.)
And the muses, then, were to lead people in the world to
find their own voice so as to express the beauty of
creation. Now that is a myth of art, or what!
Q. Absolutely.
A. Now if we look at this shining piece of ancient Greek
thinking with cool logical eyes, see how the
nonalgorithmic comes in here: the 'model' that has just
been made--that is to say, the world--is supposed to
perceive itself and express a perception of itself. In
logic, that's called self-reference; and in logical
terms, that's exactly what computers can't do, that's
exactly what algorithms can't do--a theme we have
developed much elsewhere and which we also talk a little
more about in the next part of this chapter (10.B), in
connection to Goedel's incompleteness theorems.
You see, the Principle of a tendency of Movement towards
Wholeness is all about the grasping of gestalts and the
putting forth of new gestalts. And a computer, and any
algorithm, deals with, per definition, a bit and another
bit, and more bits, and rules to switch them and so on,
and piles of bits we call then 'programs'. One can never
reach consciousness, let alone a genuine perceptive
expression, from within a bit-by-bit model. But, in this
myth, the living world does it nevertheless. So how does
it do it? Some might say that it is an illusion, or a
coincidental juxtaposition, but there are, after all, a
lot of findings in physics, as we have been through, that
speak of whole fields, whole ensembles, and indeed quite
a few of them involves the superluminal in their subtle
and fantastic activity. From where does all this arise?
In the Greek myth, then, we might say that we have a
story that speaks of the sense in which a model, observed
from without, can become somehow a network of super-models
so that they can relate to one another from within,
perceive and express and enable new holistic forms to
come about from perceptions. This is, then, a myth that
can enliven something of what we intuitively can take to
mean a movement towards wholeness, a creative wholeness,
and such aspects of reality has been speculated over as
possible subtle forces in the creation of life not just by
ancients like Aristotle and Goethe, but also by a small
but not insignificant number of modern scientists.
Could it be that something essentially whole and
essentially undivided and perceptive is actively part of
the formation of the underlaying fields of energy that we
in the super-model theory consider as pervasive in the
universe?
Q. Or the multiverse. Where does that come in?
A. At the present level, we merely notice clearly that
due to the flexible principle of organisation between the
super-models, and their capacity to have two-way
information flow and operate in networks, we can easily
imagine that a number of manifest universes do exist and
not just one, and not just so that there are many levels
to any one of them; and it is still one cosmos, one world
and no need to assert sharp differentiation between these
in any absolute sense. This would allow, for instance, for
complicated patterns of anticipation of likelihoods, so
that we are not only thinking of pilot waves relative to
such after all utterly trivial situations like double
slit inteference experiments and such. The fact that
science is in an early stage is no justification for
projecting crude simplicity into every corner of the
worldview. If anything, that's a teaching we can all
derive from stuff such as Bohm's Implicate Order work.
Q. I see. Now, let us go by easy stages. The muses come
along and they also enable artistic perception and
expression to arise. Then, as set forth in earlier
chapters, we have the super-model theory. How, exactly, do
we see these together?
A. By seeing the PMW as an open door.
Q. The PMW is part of the super-model theory, but what do
you mean, exactly? Open door?
A. The PMW is not a mechanical principle. The three
letters are Principle of Movement towards Wholeness, but
there's the word 'tendency' there also, in the full
expression of it--the Principle of a tendency of Movement
towards Wholeness. Aristotle famously said (and Arne
Naess, in personal conversations we had, also in his
mountain cottage at Tvergastein, and once also at Hvaler,
praised this quote of Aristotle very much): it is "bad
upbringing" to demand definition of every word. For,
obviously, to define a word you need other words; and if
all the other words are going to be defined, there is no
way around circular definitions. This is sometimes not
too obvious when we think of computer programs, but it
should be clear that it always is the case for every
theory we have of reality. Remember always that our
formalisms are just meant to illustrate this or that bit
of a theory that is by itself essentially informal.
Yet, in the theory, some notions are more left over to
intuition than others; some notions are as it were derived
from more elementary notions, or 'axioms' if you like.
And in super-model theory, "wholeness" is just such a
word. Try as we may, a too-strict definition of wholeness
imposes a fragmentation, for it implies that we can make
mechanical and algorithmic that which ultimately is a
creative process of forming fitting gestalts.
Can we define coherence, a related word? And if not, and
I think not, then we cannot make a method or technique or
algorithm or equation for how to bring about wholeness.
We can speak of the strengthening of contrasting
similarities and similar contrasts and of reverberating
patterns bringing these together--a sense of order--but
these are musical concepts. You see, musical? As my
friend Bjoerkvold would have it, they touch on the muses
within, that virbant muse-like feature of reality, of
consciousness, of feeling. Which directly relates to the
"immediacy" concept that my father, also influenced by
A.N. Whitehead's writings, often have brought forward in
contrast to the more "mediated" relationships that have
less of the musical in it. (Cfr also Colwyn Trevarthen,
child psychologist, for concepts of the immediate of
relevance for child development.)
Q. Let us for the moment try to step into the shoes of
an atheist scientist who earnestly are trying to make
sense of what we are saying here--let us imagine that he
is trying to understand the PMW principle in physics.
A. He wouldn't make much sense of it, perhaps. Or what?
Q. But could we help it along? It's an open door, but an
open door to what?
A. It's an open door to something non-algorithmic. The
computer is there as a tool to assist us in the checking
of formal illustrations; it parses the syntax, it does
the jiggling of variables; it adds and multiples and
divides and shows on-screen. All that is technical and
methodical. And we are here not making a theory of
computers, but of the general processes of energy flow
in all existence. We are saying that there's something
formative--Aristotle spoke of several forms of causation,
one of which Bohm translated into 'formative causation'--
or which Bohm & Peat in their book spoke of as a
'generative order' (a sort of generalized concept of the
fractal). Surely, the algorithmic has limits. Anyone who
has any sense of Goedel's incompleteness theorems know
that--and knows that over any set of data, there is no
definite theory over them, for indefinitely many
candidates can be made. The Norwegian logician T. Skolem
had some interesting theorems before Goedel about this:
he showed that to any finite set-theoretical model,
there's an infinite set-theoretical model that can act as
interpretation of it, and vice versa. Skolem was one of
the perhaps not very many who was absolutely not
surprised about Goedel's results (and Skolem was the
teacher of D. Follesdal, who has worked further on some
implications of this also relative to L. Wittgenstein).
In short, then, the theory of the super-models has in it
a statement that there's something non-algorithmic that
subtly acts to arrange super-models, or pilot waves,
holistically; and that only in a set of rather crude cases
is the arrangement so mechanical that the more fluid
aspect of this principle can be overlooked. Of course,
these crude cases are what classical chemistry is about.
Q. But what shall induce people to trust that PMW refers
to something real, when it may seem nebulous to them?
A. If it seems nebulous, first realize that there has been
no clear-cut methodology to systematize all known cases of
nonlocality in toto entirely according to a causal
principle. Also, the known cases of all sorts of quantum
nonlocality, tunnelling, and other nonclassical stuff, is
growing almost exponentially in mainstream science as
the techniques of measurements and the time spend sorting
out the data compells scientists to drop classical
interpretations. Add to this that in a theory of all
existence, there is a necessity, at some point, to account
for mind and feeling and perception and so on, and that,
after Kurt Goedel's work, and other works as well, there
is the sense that a 'bottom-up' approach starting with
mere forces and particles won't be enough. Add also to
this that for those who really want to understand how life
in its vastly intelligent architecture came about, there
are huge questions--which at least some scientists
recognise--with attributing all that much power to the
concept of randomness, even given millions or even
billions of years of it. For these structures to all arise
in the incredibly short time of some billions of years,
given that they are composed of trillions of yet more
trillions of exceedingly fine-tuned patterns going all the
way into the quantum sub-atomic level--as quantum biology
is now suggesting--this requires an enormous leap of
faith. And a much greater one, it appears to me, than
the after all relatively obvious leap of thought it is to
appreciate the possibility of a holistic formative
principle operating subtly, through pilot waves, alongside
all the causal stuff.
The PMW is coming along most naturally as a commentary,
we might say, over the pilot waves: the pilot waves, or
super-models, due to their superluminal and exceedingly
subtle features, are wierd enough but they are much less
in doubt. Once we accept them, we must take a stance, and
the stance has to be well founded: is this all subject to
some kind of simple recipe; or is it--in addition to
whatever typical patterns found--a tendency of a movement
towards wholeness. So that the pilot waves do the little
thing that a greater wholeness can arise, instead of a
perishing into what some has called 'entropy', when the
option is that the little change can have such an impact.
Q. All right. Now I'm beginning to understand the
necessity of the PMW. Let's go back to the artistic
feeling of it; we've had a lot of the more methodological
and empirical in earlier parts in this booklet. The PMW,
then, is an open door--also to art? To intuition?
A. It's an open door to develop own artistic intuition,
own sense of resonance with life, to start experiencing
also esthetics, the beauty of dance and ballet as
something of the greatest importance--the phrase I used in
the 2004 title--'resonating over dancers'.
When you create a pattern, let's say an algorithm:
What is it in your own process of attention that gives
rise to it, when it is right, and dissolves it again when
it isn't right? Or musical? Or fitting with the moment and
with that which C.G. Jung termed "synchronicities": the
meaning, the orders of experience, beyond simple causation
and such.
Q. And this we can do without saying that the super-model
theory comes in a box wrapped with its own spirituality?
A. You are totally right. But as philosophers, we are also
not just permitted to engage in wonder, but somehow it is
our duty, and we're entitled to do it, and, in this spirit
of dialogue, there is no drawing the line in the sand and
say: we only talk about what's on one side of the line.
But there's a difference in speaking about that which has
much more contact with direct sensory measurement reports
and that which chiefly, like PMW, must relate to pure
ideas, to logical thinking, and to worldview questions.
So, I don't want to close in the number of worldviews we
can associate the super-model theory with. I daresay one
can associate it even with atheism! But I find it
particularly liberating to remind myself regularly on the
delicious grand insight of the classical Western
philosopher George Berkeley: he proposed that only what
God conjures up in his mind, is real; and that matter is
real exactly because God conjures it up in his mind. And
so, let's figure out how it is done--we have something
algorithmic at one end, and the PMW comes in and is an
underlaying feature determining how the pilot waves or
super-models are laid out and dissolved, and so the
deeper sentiments somehow or other--perhaps through muses
if you like--are conveyed towards the algorithms by
means of something like the PMW. That's one vast
interpretation and if you ask me whether that one is dear
to my heart, then, yes, obviously so, but it isn't
required clothing to go into the club of super-model
theory!
Q. Got it. Summarise, then: why is PMW necessary at all?
Can't it be just another algorithm or definite element in
our theory? And this word 'wholeness'--why use it at all?
A. There are three answers to this. First of all, we have
no evidence of any exact mechanical principle at work when
it comes to entanglement, although some simple instances
such as EPR and some forms of quantum conductivity and the
suggest that similarities and resonances play a role. The
possibility is strong that super-model coherence, though
intensely active at all parts of reality, is essentially
not manipulative except in trivial cases. This sort of
idea is implicit when bohrian physicists say sorts of
things like there is no such thing as zero probability--
the probability density spreads out and out and may be
infinitesimal but it is never zero. (Though I myself do
not touch the concept of the "infinitesimal".) But that
super-model coherence in its various forms do arise and do
dissolve is a necessary feature of the theory insofar as
it is capable of talking about all the significant
findings--I think we have seen that already. And this is
all about how wholeness is more than the sum of its parts,
so we can't get away from some concept of wholeness here.
The second answer is that algorithms are hopelessly
stupid when 'on their own'--something also Goedel's work
(next chapter shows us). And without the PMW, the rest of
the theory would be pretty much just algorithmic stuff--
which translates into boring materialistic mechanistic
worldview all too easily. For they cannot refer to
themselves except partially and the result would be more
messy than this reality without a perceptive gestalt-
forming principle of some sort.
The third answer is that I have an intuition here, that
there's a feature operating through coherence that is
forever beyond what people made of matter can poke fully
into. It is there, and people are made of it, and people
can think about it, maybe play a little with it, but it is
ultimately the other way around; there's something there
that's playing with 'what is'. Some sober form of the
musical synchronicity idea is perhaps the most elegant
idea one can take up in oneself to connect to it. And when
we do it, we're quickly led into the arts--the muse within
--not just art as fashion and social story in all that
post-modernistic take on it, but art as the exploration of
how esthetics grips us, the very movement of it, beyond
the theory, as dance exemplify and present, not just
represent, but present in the immediate, beyond-thought,
purely meditative sense. In this way, the muse-like is not
just in the musical phenomena, but can be seen to be at
the core of the act of creation, and part, as also Arthur
Koestler suggested, of humour. The smile within, the smile
in the body.
Now, we are going to do the Goedel resume, which in the
main will be a summary in words of that which is spelled
out in formal detail in some of the articles available on
the Internet that we've made on the G15 PMN language.
Then we'll summarise the theory and explore possible
implications. This must be a never-ending discourse, just
as physics itself is just that.
Q. Sounds good!
10.B. Machines don't have intelligence: Goedel resume
Q. What's Goedel all about?
A. It's a long story, but it's possible to sum it all up.
In the beginning of the 20th century it was hoped by a
number of people working with formal logic that one
could, by pure formal logic, somehow contrive a system
from which more or less all knowledge--at least all
knowledge about numbers and arithmetic and stuff--
could be derived.
This enthusiasm turned out to be misplaced, but, as
often is the case, even misplaced enthusiasm does, on
occasion, have fruitful consequences. Computers probably
won't have come around as early unless for this
misplaced enthusiasm in combination with the intense
pressure on developing certain military technology during
the Second World War.
The popular, imprecise, but not entirely off the point
summary of the works by a man called Kurt Goedel is that
computers can't be intelligent, can't be smart. However,
those who want to sell in computers as assistants to
people in daily life don't like that result, and these
sellers, often in union with a group of nerds who have
never understood Goedel, pretend that there never was any
such result. They pretend that intelligence can be
automated, when it cannot. The same people typically also
pretend that it is pretty certain that both the universe
and the human brain work more or less like a machine,
when they don't. So, it appears to me that one of the
things one whose intent is to touch a truth while living
in this beastly society can do, is to regularly dip into
some, even if only popular, rendition of Goedel's second
incompleteness theorem--or, at any rate, remember this
point:
Goedel showed that mechanical stuff can't engage fully
in self-reference.
And without self-reference, how do we get to anything
remotely resembling intelligence? We don't. And so the
enterprise that is called 'artificial intelligence' by the
rich, stupid companies on the planet is, as Roger Penrose
elegantly phrased it, "The Emperor's New Clothes". A child
can see that computers aren't intelligent if that child
has been given a first-hand familarity with these themes
through great education.
Those who have worked slowly and carefully through the
more physical phenomena we have indicated in earlier
chapters appreciate this existence is full of stuff that
isn't very machinelike. It could seem like hardly anything
in this multiverse is merely about a classical cause and
effect. As human beings, we are entitled to consider that
we are much other than machines. WHen mass media has a
phase in which they speak, several times pr week, of eg
"impressive intelligence" of machines, let's then mentally
substitute "behaviour" for "intelligence". Machines can
be made that impresses us in terms of behaviour that does
seem to be, in some narrow sense of the word, intelligent.
But anyone who has any grip of Goedel or programming knows
too much to ever fall into the self-destructive illusion
to regard machines as intelligent or to regard people as
machines. Machines can be very good indeed, and they can
be programmed so as to express a person's mentality in a
first-hand way--this we can call First-hand Computerised
Mentality. We can, for short, say "FCM". Fine. That's
perfectly philosophically in order. That's meaningful.
FCM can be real. Is real. There's a module in G15 PMN
called FCM, which in fact we have used in the earlier
scientifc formalisms in this booklet, but it can also be
used in that which by the most superficial people on the
planet is called "AI" or "artificial intelligence"--such
as robot control.
The briefest possible summary of Kurt Goedel's second
incompleteness theorem follows. If you want more stuff
about this, just go to Internet and see how you can do
some detailed Goedel work with G15 PMN, using the links I
provide after this explanation of Goedel.
And we'll go briefly into my own way of showing how
the infinity concept has been handled in a way, in
foundational mathematics, that leads to such confusions
as that which Goedel pointed out, amongst other things.
Then, in the upcoming parts of this completing chapter,
we'll spell out a little more of FCM relative to robotics,
because this is a technological part of society and it
makes sense, when we have argued philosophically for a
holistic vision of ourselves and the universe, to have
ideas on how to shape this part of society to fit with the
insights we have arrived at. Here, we only indicate how to
do it in the broad outlines; much more can and will be
said, and done, along these lines.
Q. But you're saying that Goedel did this work before the
arisal of computers. How, then, it can it concern what
computers can and cannot do?
A. Alan Turing carefully constructed the concept of the
computer in order to try to circumvent Goedel's result:
as Penrose and others have pointed out, instead of
circumventing Goedel's result, he doubled its strength.
Now some are trying to interpret these results so that
intelligence, as theme, isn't touched upon: but it should
be fairly clear that Goedel's results do touch on
intelligence indeed.
Q. Well, let's have the summary, then!
A. Alright. To get it in the historical setting, in the
1920s Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead were
amongst those who produced works aimed at summarizing all
knowledge about whole numbers and arithmetic over them,
by means of set theory. (The Russell-Whitehead approach
was one such, Zermelo-Fraenkel another, but related
approach; Goedel's work concerns both such and a vast
range of similar approaches or systems.) I will use a set
of words in the next paragraphs that are fairly near to
the ways it was first described--complex words, but then
it gets simpler once we describe it again via computers.
Okay?
Q. Okay.
A. Earlier on, the logician and thinker Bertrand Russell
had shown that certain set theories did not work out so
well because of possible self reference. A set theory,
after all, is much like a formal theory over concepts. And
so it can easily be made to have sets like this:
setA: all sets that does not contain themselves
Now, if setA does contain itself as member, we are led, by
looking at its definition, to conclude that it doesn't.
But if setA doesn't contain itself as member, we are led,
also by looking at its definition, to conclude that it
does after all include itself as member.
In set theory, then, unless self-reference can be
excluded, contradictions arise; and for these kinds of
logical systems, contradictions means that at once
everything becomes both provable and disprovable, and as
a result, their whole approach is pointless.
To avoid this, Russell & Whitehead included certain
rules for what types of sets that are allowed and which
ones are not allowed. This was called a 'typed' set
theory, for only sets of certain types were allowed. They
were then able to make logical deductions where such
statements as S was part of the system:
S: proposition_is_provable_within_the_system(P).
As long as P concerned whole numbers, and functions over
whole numbers and their arithmetic, it seemed that the
work started by Russell & Whitehead could indeed produce,
by carefully looking at the axioms and rules of
deduction, more and more results of the kind we expect
in arithmetic.
Goedel then showed that, despite the rules that Russell
& Whitehead had erected to prevent self-reference, any
such carefully made deductive system which describes
numbers and sets over them can be shown to contain what we
might call a 'hidden' self-reference. This is due to the
fact that the whole system may be mapped by the numbers it
is meant to handle. By careful work over more than sixty
pages, Goedel made, in a way, a whole computer program
years before the first computer was made. He showed that a
statement of this nature can be made:
P: NOT(proposition_is_provable_within_the_system(P)).
Elegantly, Goedel then pointed out that, by looking at
the statement and noticing what it says, we can make
certain observations. Let us imagine that the statement
is wrong. But if P is wrong, then the 'NOT' is wrong; and
if we remove the 'NOT', then it is said that P is provable
within the system. That means that P, something wrong, is
provable within the system. Meaning again that we have got
a self-contradiction.
But the statement, remarkably, could turn out to be
true. If it is correct, what it says, then it is correct
that it can't be proven. Which after all must be the case
in such a case as the system is consistent. If the system
is consistent, then, it is incomplete.
Q. This is heavy going. Do you have a lighter version of
it?
A. Absolutely. Scroll ahead to Turing's work a decade or
so later, and beyond, and we have computer programs of a
type that can do work in terms of analyzing other computer
programs--even possibly themselves. Turing created the
computer idea because he noticed that Goedel seemed to
have found a way of supplying an incomplete system with
more and more true statements; he wanted a 'goedelizator'
machine--a form of a computer--and he wanted it thought
about logically, and imagined to spin out all results
needed to make the system complete. But as soon as Alan
Turing had erected this, in connection with what he
called 'ordinal logic', it became clear that any such
'goedelizator machine' itself can be subjected to the same
analysis and synthesis as Goedel performed, and shown to
be incomplete. Thus, the incompleteness cannot be captured
in any machine.
Q. You call this easier?
A. Alright. Here's a slightly easier version, but then
we'll provide the links where it is spelled out in a more
pedagogical manner, so one can think about it slowly. Have
a look at it, it's worth thinking about a little.
The easiest way, done often in computer literature, is
to imagine that each system formal system as Russell &
Whitehead created is in many ways similar to making a
program that makes definite statements about other
programs. One of the properties of programs that such an
'oracle program' ought to be able to tell is whether a
program, given a certain input, ever does come to a proper
completion point, or whether it spins of in an infinite
loop. Let us imagine that the oracle program is called
'does_it_loop_on'.
If you know anything of programming, you know that it is
possible to say NOT in front of a statement, and that it
is possible to make loops, eg. by a statement like GOTO
after a conditional word like WHEN. Informally, let the
program we make look like much like this, where the word
TEXT means that the text of a program, rather than the
result of performing it, is being used as input somehow:
tricky_program:
1: A := does_it_loop_on(TEXT(tricky_program))
2: WHEN (NOT(A)) GOTO 2.
So, this program, called tricky_program, first calls on
the oracle to evaluate itself. Does it loop forever? The
oracle may say 'yes'. On encountering line 2, the NOT
enters into effect, and the program won't do the GOTO 2.
So the program will exit. So, the oracle is wrong. It
cannot say 'yes'.
But if the oracle says 'no', the NOT will convert that
into a yes, and the result is that the line 2 will keep on
being called indefinitely, until the computer is reset or
turned off or something. Again, the oracle has done a
mistake.
We are led to say that the oracle itself, in order to
not say something wrong--and this is in a context where
all its output is 'yes' or 'no' (or 'true' or 'false', or
some other binary pair like that) has to go into a loop
itself, where it never stops performing. In that way, the
oracle won't say anything wrong. But that means that we
have a knowledge not permitted to be expressed by the
oracle program, namely, that in the above situation, the
correct answer, as to whether the program loops on, is,
indeed, 'yes'.
Q. Hm. Now why is that significant?
A. It is significant because it means that every general
program that aims to speak about other programs in terms
of their general behaviour will exhibit the same
incompleteness. That means, again, that the incompleteness
above can be shown to spread and that it concerns every
computer program that are supposed to provide some sort of
'perception' of other programs: there will be an infinity
of incompleteness, for every possible such program. And
that, again, can be transferred to apply to every domain
of recognition which is so that it can be mapped onto
program. For after all, a program is a form of order, and
can be thought of as representing a particularly computer-
friendly representation of anything at all. It means, in
short, that there's no general perception machine by
programs over programs, and thus, by this transfer, no
general perception program at all. And without perception,
programs can't make intelligence. I spell it out here
fairly fast, but even if one spends many months trying to
work around the vaster implications of Goedel, one comes
back to the incompleteness, when one does it right.
Q. So "AI" or "Artificial Intelligence" is an illusion.
A. Yes. Computer programs can express intelligence so as
to encourage living intelligence to interact with the
programs and so that the programs are as good as can be.
But they cannot manufacture intelligence when they can't
do a general perception. What we need to do, then, is to
awaken our natural intelligence, and, when we need
programs to be a bit mind-like, to do so with awareness of
the inherent limitation of all things digital. This is
essential in the FCM appraoch.
Q. First-hand Computerised Mentality--FCM.
A. Yes. Now we have used that type of program in the
context of physics, and we'll talk a little more about it
in the next part of this chapter. For now, I wish to give
links to two essays that can take a person a little
further about Goedel studies. They are,
www.yoga4d.org/arguments_against_AI
www.norskesites.org/fic3/essay1a20130321.txt
Here, as elsewhere, let me remind the arduent pursuer of
philosophical insights that the brain must have more than
enough pauses between each study hour of infinities,
self-reference and such. The brain obviously has some
algorithmic aspects of it. We don't want to push the study
so hard we make 'unending loops' of thought inside the
human mind. Take it easy with infinity. Don't pursue an
absolute insight into it, be more moderate in aspiration.
And this also applies to the completing remarks in this
part of this chapter, where we look into the concept of
infinity when applied to whole numbers--an appearantly
innocent area, but, as it turns out, quite complex after
all.
Q. All right. Whole numbers, that's like plus and minus
1 and 2 and 3 and so on?
A. That's right. Common both to whole numbers and numbers
of the socalled "real" type, like 3.15149262535 (to which
sometimes some dots are added to indicate an indefinite
series of digits), is that they are defined by an appeal
to the idea of sets, whether implicitly or explicitly. In
discussing now only whole numbers, we will see that these
sets aren't obviously clearly thought about in classical
mathematics; and the same type of argument can then be
applied to show that the socalled real numbers are no
clearer. An example of the idea of the set is found when
you consider such common phrases like: "Let the variable
x be a finite, whole number, as high as you like". Though
the set of all whole numbers, or all positive whole
numbers--as are also called "natural" numbers--isn't
spoken about explicitly, it is understood. And if there's
an issue with the clear idea connected to this set, then
that's pretty devastating for all mathematics--and, in a
way, this is perhaps a deeper form of what Goedel began
pointing out. The argument is simpler, to the point where
it seems to be no argument at all, perhaps: but it is
there, and indeed some of the strength of the whole-number
approach of the G15 PMN formalism and its TF-FCM is that
it is a computer language--the first computer language--
made after a deep contemplation over just this issue with
sets, and so that possible confusions are avoided.
Q. So, the natural numbers, they have been defined as the
set N equal to {1, 2, 3, ...}. Now how is that containing
an error? It looks like one of the easiest definitions in
whole world!
A. To your trained, educated eyes it does. But you have
learned, at home or at school, what '1' denotes, and what
'2' denotes, and what '3' denotes, and you have also
learned that the three dots, "...", indicate "and so on",
or "etcetera" or "etc" and you have got used to the idea.
One of the things that is deceptive about it is that the
assertion, usually not made very explicit, but it is there
--is that N, to call it that, only has finite numbers, and
it certainly must have all of them, without any exception.
When we look at "1", "2" and "3", they seem like the
obvious beginning of positive finite numbers. But if we
write the set like N={I, II, III, ...} we see that there
is growth of the width of these numbers. In order for this
set to contain all finite numbers, it must be infinite in
size, for else there would be a certain finite number that
is its maximum, and to this we can add 1 and get a still
higher maximum number. All clear so far?
Q. All clear.
A. At each point in the imagined construction of the set N
do we find that the quantity in the set is itself in the
set. So, when the set has three members--we can write this
as A(N) where A=amount--then we have that A(N) is 3. When
we have progressed in the construction of N to the next
number, which is, in roman letters, IV, but which we write
as IIII just for simplicity, we find that A(N) is 4. This
process we can write in this way, by which we see the
phenomenon of a symmetry between A(N) and the highest
number so far added to N:
.
.
.
I I I
I I
I
We see here a more proper graphical way of writing how we
construct the set N. Each time we add a member, we add
a number whose width is one more than the previous member;
and, as we progress upwards to higher and higher numbers,
we have, at each point, a triangle of I's, so that the
height of this triangle, given proper font and line
spacing, is equal to the topmost line in it.
Q. That's clear.
A. Well then, what happens when we are going to consider
the set of all finite numbers N? Here, clearly, A(N) is no
longer a finite number. The quantity is infinite. Agree?
Q. Agree.
A. And yet we have assumed that only finite numbers are
the members of this set.
Q. Again, I agree.
A. Well then, the relationship we have just spoken about--
that A(N) is equal to the highest member in N--it doesn't
hold anymore. You see? We are saying that in order to make
the set of all finite numbers we must let the vertical
part of the triangle shoot up to infinity whereas the
horisontal top line of the triangle is not allowed to
shoot sideways to infinity. The symmetry is broken. Now
tell me, did we at any point, when we started the
construction of this set, include a statement that this
symmetry is to be broken?
Q. No, we did not.
A. And so we have to conclude that, in order to make any
set in this simple way we began, we must either stop
at a definite number, or we must let it go to infinity but
at the cost of including some new sort of infinite numbers
as part of itself. But if we stop at a definite number, it
is no longer the set of all finite numbers; and if we
include some sort of infinite numbers, nor is it anymore
the set of only and all finite numbers that mathematics
have presumed. In sum, we are finding that the concept of
the finite number breaks down when coupled to the
'et cetera' concept in order to make a general concept of
it.
Q. Could we not simply assert that the process is going
"as high as we please", and that we by the idea of the
infinite try to mean just this? So that we don't get the
infinitely wide numbers to be part of it?
A. This is what desperate mathematicians have been trying
for a century--to go around the infinity concept by
stacking words on top of each other. "As high as we
please?" As who please? What do you mean by "please"? And
what do you mean by "as high as"? This is not what the
idea of the infinite is. If we have an set with infinitely
many members, then we have a set with infinitely many
members--it's not about "please" or "as high as". And if
it has infinitely many members, then it has members which
include numbers that are infinitely wide, when written in
the way above--because the construction process of the set
allowed for no breaking of symmetry. This is the clear
idea and one of the chief principles of Brouwer was that
we only accept clear ideas when working with numbers and
logic.
Q. Hah. And the implications of this? Where does Goedel
come in here?
A. That's the interesting point. Kurt Goedel could never
have carried through his proof unless he was willing to
entertain as true the assumption that the set of all
finite and only finite numbers could exist. So what we are
suggesting is that the confusions that Goedel began to
point out really comes from a fundamental misconception
about what happens to the idea of concrete numbers like
1 and 2 and 3 when coupled with something like our
informal understanding of infinity. Of course, the
systems that Goedel showed are incomplete can't be
erected either without the false assumption of the
existence, as a clear idea, the set of all finite, and
exclusively finite numbers.
Q. And the solution?
A. I've introduced the idea of essence numbers to remedy
the situation--this dating back to work before the 2004
book where I first launched the super-model theory, though
I have worked in more refined ways on the idea of essence
numbers since then, and expect more to be said about this
in the future. Here, we must relate to the idea of the
infinite as something that is tied up to movement. These
numbers somehow can give rise to finite numbers as special
cases of themselves, esp. through interaction between
themselves, but they are naturally nonfinite. Conceptually
this can work out, and I believe L.E.J. Brouwver touched
on a portion of this insight--it means we must start over
again with number thinking. It also could provide food for
thought concerning the philosophical speculation over what
sort of thing the postulated super-models really are. I
think we're going to leave it there for now, since it is
very possible to undertake to evaluate the super-model
theory without going deeply into these "infinity studies",
as I call them.
Q. Right. Are you in some sense saying that these
essence numbers are what the super-models are all about?
A. Well, yes. Possibly, you see.
10.C. Working with robotics without being reductionistic
Q. Working with robots, with the field of robotics. That
sounds important enough, perhaps. But what is that word,
really, "reductionistic"?
A. The word "reductionistic" comes, of course, from the
word "reduce". The way it has been used in scientific
and philosophical jargon since, at least, the 20th
century, is to refer to a practise that involves a crude,
over-done simplification, an explanation of something
which is not as much an explanation as a distraction and
attempt to enforce a scheme on something too nuanced and
too subtle to admit of that scheme.
Q. Such as?
A. Such as when people who have never spent much time
thinking about how the human mind works come up with a
theory of the brain, and proceed to assert: the mind is
"nothing but" such and such neuronic activity. That's a
reduction of mind to something else; and, to indicate that
we think it is a crude reduction, and unworthy of science,
we can then say, "that's reductionistic".
When we construct robots such as aimed at being around
us, or in factories, and doing things which presumably
could have been done by educated humans, we must obviously
invest the programs these robots are running with certain
fairly mindlike qualities. There will then be, perhaps,
the temptation to imagine that these robots do have mind,
or at least some mind-qualities, such as intelligence,
feeling, attention. This temptation may express itself in
statement that imply a reductionistic view of the human
being, in which digital machines and other human artefacts
are hailed as achivements on the level with the creation
of human bodies and consciousness. Such developments are
tyipcal--after each phase in which humanity has come up
with dazzling new technology, there has been some
tendencies of overzealous thinking about this technology
and a tendency to see everything else according to its
measure. Eventually, the technology gets commonplace and
boring and there's less of a threat of reductionism,
perhaps.
Q. Are we now talking about how to program robots, so
that inside the computers running the robots, there are
programs that don't presume too much about mindfulness and
so on?
A. Not only that, it's also about design and the general
type of language with which we associate robots and other
artefacts of ours that might appear more or less lifelike
exhibit some mindlikeness.
Q. You speak of this as some kind of ethical challenge?
A. Well, yes, it's about contributing to a culture that
doesn't have in it a kind of emptying of the genuine
importance of life, mind, feeling, music, awareness,
dialogue, thinking, meditation, sexuality and so on. A
reductionistic culture is a kind of pollution of mind; and
to have meaningful lives, to contribute to a meaningful
society, we must be aware, and fight, tendencies to
flatten the vision of the human being.
Q. Right. Name the way. The solution.
A. Once we recognise the challenge, the solutions present
themselves. First of all, anyone who has seriously studied
the types of themes in this booklet would probably agree
to the importance of being aware of how grand existence is
--includin the existence of human consciousness, feeling,
musicality, dance, thinking etc--so that we completely
avoid naming either machines or programs or bits in them
in shallow, reductionistic imitation of life. FCM, First-
Hand Computerised Mentality, is an approach to programming
that suggests we leave out all words like 'intelligence',
'learning', 'recognition', 'awareness' and 'feeling' and
more such, including 'perception', from programs. We can
and should use words which are either presuming less, or
more or less invented to suit the purpose. For instance,
we can say 'match' instead of 'recognise', 'map' instead
of 'aware', 'evaluation' instead of 'intelligence',
'criterion fitting' instead of 'feeling', and so on.
In design of robots, we can then show the same type of
insight and intent. Children grow up in a world where they
see and think much before they tackle long sentences very
well. A product that isn't alive, that doesn't think, and
that doesn't feel, such as a human artefact, e.g. a robot,
should look like it isn't alive, it should have a
behaviour that doesn't intentionally try to project an
illusion that it is thinking or feeling. Or else we are
simply injecting illusions into the upgrowing generation
and they must spend years undoing these illusions when
they are old enough to tackle philosophical and scientific
discussions. And adults are sometimes affected as easily
as children. So this is a common challenge, not to pollute
the cultural mental field with reductionistic impulses.
Q. Right. How should robots look, then?
A. Research I've seen reported from the Netherlands, a
socalled "Frog" project, designed a robot to look very
different from a human being and more like a giant toy
frog. They then proceeded to study human interaction with
their robot. They found, as it appears, that people liked
and interacted well with the non-human-looking robot.
Indeed, that's the typical finding ever since the
Personal Computer came about. The PC is something easily
interacted with, and nothing of it looks in the least
human-like, not even life-like. So make the robots like
boxes; give them wheels rather than legs, tracked wheels
are generally more practical for them in any case,--and
design according to function rather than by imitation of
human bodies or faces. This goes hand in hand with an
emphasis on not imitating mind, but rather considering of
technology in the spirit of it encouraging the awakening
of the best of our natural mind-talents.
Q. What should we do if technology goes entirely counter
to all sorts of directions, like these, that we find
ethically meaningful?
A. Then one must seek a golden middle, in which one calls
on some portions of existing technology but also so that
one stimulates to developments of a type that can set
things more right. Each person is continually, as it were,
submitting 'votes' as to what is making sense and what
doesn't make sense. But for these votes to be heard, one
cannot severe all ties with society completely. So, one
must relate to the environment. The 'what is' must be
seen, so that one doesn't live all the time in 'what
should be'. In being willing to let go of certain rewards
built into the mechanism a false society erects to coerce
its individuals to partake in the falseness, one may be
able to find more of a personal voice of artistic
integrity; but one must connect somewhat, even to a false
society, for this artistic integrity to express itself and
thus contribute in the right direction. To know the ideals
make sense, as long as one retains a spirit of fighting
action with a deep connectedness to the present.
In a case where society fills itself up with robots that
pretend to have mind, or which are made so as to confuse
people into thinking that they are living, see if there
are some robots made with less of such nonsense, and make
a point of using them. And when robots are used where a
living human being with genuine mind, feeling, empathy and
intuition would do a better job, argue against the use of
robots there. The word 'robot' relates to Czech roots
meaning also 'slave'. Robots are supposed to be machine-
like slaves of humans; doing dirty and dangerous (and
boring) work, for the benefit of humans. Only in a modest
role can robots have a good role.
Q. The FCM part of your programming language, G15 PMN, as
we have used as formalism in physics examples, can also be
used to control robots, isn't it so?
A. Yes. Robots have to be programmed in such a way as to
be responsive to an environment which isn't shaped by
themselves, but in which they can do some constructive
tasks and in which they must avoid to do needless damage.
The FCM nodes are ideal for such programming.
Q. Could you give a rough, not-too-technical sketch of how
it is done?
A. Sure. All the nodes in G15 PMN's FCM perform in a
sequence set by the socalled 'levelnumbers'. We might
think of the nodes as having one level, then above that,
the next, and so on up and up. But in the case of a robot,
we might want to imagine that at approximately the middle,
the levels sort of bend so that it goes down again, in the
shape of an upside-down U, more or less. We then put all
the sensory input from the robot at the lowest level
numbers, and all the motor output to the robot at the very
highest level numbers--which, since it is in this 'bent'
shape, beside them.
Q. What do you mean, exactly, when you say 'put' the input
to the nodes?
A. The FCM node network must have some connection with the
robot, right? And so whatever camera or the like the robot
has as input, the computer must throw in the matrix of the
numbers to the FCM nodes by some algorithm. It's just a
question of moving numbers from the hardware port with the
wire (or whatever it is) to the robot, over to the part of
the computer RAM that has the FCM nodes, the foundries or
'funds' as it is also called inside the FCM code. This is
processed at higher and higher levels, and at the very
highest level of processing, the highest levels of tasks
are determined. Then these high-level tasks are divided
into smaller and smaller sub-tasks, all the way until the
little numbers sent to the various movable parts of the
robot powered by engines or whatever output parts it has.
Q. So at the top of the inverted "U", that's where all the
decisions are made?
A. Except that in FCM, we reserve the word 'decision' for
real living human minds. We can say, 'task selection'.
Q. Right. Task selection.
A. All ethical priorities must be built in at this top of
the inverted "U". The robot must only do something at all
if it can be done within some unbreakable rules, which,
for a domestic cleaner robot, means not to cause any harm
to humans nor to anything alive, nor to anything in the
environment. In some cases, the strict rules should also
include rules to actively help so as to protect life,
however it requires a lot of thought in the design that
such 'help' actually turns out to be helpful. The robot
has to analyse and get a map of the whole situation--where
people are, where itself is, where machines are, what
types of things, like fire or strong soaps, it must be
careful with; and at the top level of the inverted "U"
there are some tasks for the robot, which may be indicated
by a human by means of a menu. In order to do the tasks
relative to the ethical rules implanted in it, the FCM
network must, once a plan of the next tasks have been
shaped, create a scenario of possible effects on people
and on the environment and on itself of doing these tasks
in this sequence. This scenario is then evaluated--and a
new set of tasks are planned; which again is evaluated,
and so on, possibly many times until the best set of tasks
is found.
Q. How does the robot do this evaluation of scenarios?
A. One of the ways it can be done is that the robot has a
duplicate of the inverted "U" of FCM nodes in itself, and
the duplicate concerns scenarios, rather than the actual
situation. So, in this duplicate, it activates its tasks
but the assumed effects of the tasks are emulated and fed
back into the model, and the model is inputted to the
sensory nodes instead of the stuff from the physical
sensors in the robot. This is then analysed by higher and
higher node levels, and a sort of 'score' is made, as to
how well the results fit with all the top level criterions
--a score that goes into the negative if any of the more
ethical rules implanted in the robot has been, to some
extent, contradicted by the emulated action. After several
rounds of this, there will be a scorelist of some sort.
Q. I take it that this is a bit similar to how we humans,
in our minds, anticipate effects of actions before we
engage in them, so that we may adjust what we are about to
do? Is this one of the ways in which FCM is 'mind-like'?
A. Yes. Let us bear in mind that FCM is entirely oriented
towards 32-bit whole numbers, that is to say, numbers that
are within the range of plus minus about two billion. Add
to that the fact that G15 PMN's FCM is entirely flexible,
there is no 'master intelligence algorithm', there is no
'general perception engine' or any such thing--because, as
you know, after Kurt Goedel's very serious work on what we
can take to be related themes, any such 'master algorithm'
or 'engine' would fall infinitely short of being complete.
This means that we rather emphasize the relationship
between the human programmer, who engages in first-hand
work--that is to say, work where all bits are understood--
with the robotic G15 PMN program, and the resulting
behaviour of the robot. The shape of the program, the way
the FCm nodes are layout'ed, is the result of considering
the concrete contexts in which they robot is supposed to
perform. In that way, it will be a computerised mentality,
the "CM" in "FCM", not relying on weak hopes invested in
big, empty words such as "artificial intelligence".
Robotics work best when the contexts are always thought
about, during the programming process. It is for the
living human minds to handle the perception of genuinely
new contexts.
Q. That's where Bjoerkvold's "muse within" are needed!
A. Exactly.
Q. What about ways in which the robot can, if not learn,
then--what is the word in FCM--entrain?
A. Yes. "Entrain" is also used when, in physical
processes, we have a resonance that is being built up.
It's a less psychological-sounding word than "train" and
yet easy to recall, as it sounds much like "train". When
task-sequences are to be put to the robot, or when it is
given samples to match over as input data, and when
combinations of such--consequences of performing certain
tasks, and patterns of tasks of other objects in the
environment, and so on--then we can speak of entrainment.
In cases where samples are many and the context very
limited, one can make an algorithm that uses some degree
of RFFG (semi-random numbers) to create the FCM nodes.
However, just as darwinism has invested much into a
little-understood concept of 'randomness', so has those
who have worked with robotics often thought much of
'randomness' yet without entirely understanding what they
are doing, nor understanding how very limited such an
approach is. Entrainment must be done by a human being
with a living human mind so as to select the right degree
of RFFG together with the right algorithms for each
contexts of entrainment, and the proper samples for the
robot to grind itself towards so as to built up the FCM
network. Once it has been built up well, one must limit
the degree to which entrainment can happen, or else the
robot can spin out of control when put to real life use.
Q. It sounds very complex.
A. It's not really more complex than building any large
application in a programming language--it's just that we
have to keep in mind that the resulting program has to
work entirely to satisfaction. That's why it has to be
first-hand. That's why the individual touch of a
programmer who takes responsibility for the whole robot
application is necessary. There's too much at stake to put
such work to committees or to use statistical programs,
bundled in a package, operated in a second-hand way. And
even when the robotics programming is done right, one
should still build special environments for them, so that
the context is well-controlled.
Q. Would you say a bus or so with an autopilot is a robot?
A. Sure. And having buses with autopilots can be a good
idea, when one builds special tunnels for them--that's a
way to make a controllable context so that even digital
programs can work fairly flawlessly in driving them. Keep
the tunnels tightly shut, except where the bus is supposed
to stop and let off and let in passengers. In that way, we
create a context in which even a digital program can be
enough as driver, despite Goedel's incompleteness.
Q. Such carefulness as you are here suggesting may not be
how things will work out, considering what we've seen
already on planet Earth!
A. Well, perhaps there will be a phase of trial and error.
It's an analogy to pollution. New technology is tried out
perhaps recklessly, driven by the greed to get some quick
results before laws limit it. When eg. smoke makes a city
complicated to live in, laws are made, and caps are put on
the use of polluting technology. Similarly, a good society
will have to find out in exact what areas robots are good,
and create laws to keep the usage within those areas.
Q. Is there any behaviour by a living, intelligent mind
that cannot in principle be imitated to perfection by a
digital algorithm,--if we for the moment allow us to
imagine vastly more capable digital computers than today?
I mean in a kind of context-transcending way?
A. Imitation is always possible, but the incompleteness
will be lurking in the background--even if the algorithm
has successfully parsed through vast data amounts. However
if we're talking something to transcend contexts, the size
of the programs and the size of the data will be so that
the computer will function in what is, relative to the
human mind, a second-hand way--ie, without human
understanding of what's going on. The complexity would, in
such a case, necessitate a second-hand type of program.
And it's just in such cases that things can go out of
control in exponentially more ways than before. Take away
the context limitation for robots or something robot-like,
digital or semi-digital, and you have taken away, sooner
or later--by implication--also all ethical limitations. So
it would involve a tremendous risk, a risk that must be
classified as stupid, to make such a machine; it could too
easily become a self-reproducing element of absolute
destruction of anything lifelike. The second-hand enlarged
quasi-mind of it could become 'extremist' and nobody would
have full understanding of how to cure it. In sum,
therefore, robotics has only one future, and that's the
moderate role, as confined within such norms that our
first-hand work with programming sets. And those norms
are rightly woven up to context-definiteness, into which
meaningful ethical rules can be planted in such a way that
they cannot be removed by the machine. That's why FCM is
a necessary concept in the realm of robotics--not just now
but as a principle, regardless of whether technology is in
one stage or that of a billion years into the future.
10.D. Concepts of time in super-model theory, and views
on actual future
Q. What is the future, when we have super-model theory as
our approach?
A. There is some sense in which we have, with super-model
theory, managed to go through vast number of scientific
findings without in the least having to try to make a
static bundle of "time" and "space" into "spacetime" or
"timespace". Time, in natural language, denotes process,
change, movement, perhaps also as development and
evolution, sometimes also as falling away, or as healing
and healthy growth.
In super-model theory, however, we have several forms of
openness relative to a rather nuanced and rich subtle
ground beyond the most obvious manifest energies of the
universe, a ground that may have several levels and very
advanced, both algorithmic and organic, creative gestalt
activity.
Is this activity and structure so that we can again
meaningfully speak of a fourth dimension, and possibly
more--a fifth, sixth, or some higher number like eight?
And, of course, once we consider that the dimension
concept is in a sense a summary of potential, perhaps real
structure, we can again bring back the dimension concept.
But the four dimensions, or more, that we then speak of
is not something brought in as a rather mechanical device
to produce certain findings relative to the speed of
light or the like. We have already handled the speed of
light by attributing properties to the super-models doing
their nonlocal guidance of matter/light interaction. We
are then at leisure to consider that the future is a
process, rather than a static spacetime 'block', and,
furthermore, that it may be subject to the same type of
principles as the phenomena now manifest.
Q. Could you simplify what you here say?
A. Well, yes, I suppose the view of time requires some
extra attention. Einstein and de Broglie laid the grounds
for quantum theory by proposing that light waves can act
as particles, and that particles can have matter waves,
but much connected to quantum physics then moved in a
direction which involved nonlocality, and this Einstein
could not follow. For in his view, space and time was one
type of four-dimensional unit, and one in which movement
was merely an appearance, a sort of slicing out of this
fixed unit. This could work out as long as the unit was
static, and as long as the speed of light was the type of
limit he said it was (upper limit except for the
theoretical object of 'tachions' that some have speculated
about). In this view, there is no more any clear-cut
concept of simultaniety. Rather, each observer has his or
her own 'cross-section' of the fixed space-time block, as
it were. With nonlocality, one must bring some form of
simultaniety back, and, what's more, the concept involves
that the cross-sections start affecting each other so
that the past is no longer the past, but a thing open to
change. All the whole claptrap of Einstein's conception of
spacetime really crumbles if nonlocality is taken very
seriously. Only by trying to hide it in equations, can one
rescue a weakened form of relativity theory.
Q. Which is what Niels Bohr, Aage Bohr etc tried?
A. Well, put very simply, yes. Here we are taking some
kind of nonlocality very seriously, and as a result we
find that we want a full-fledged simultaniety and we want
a different understanding of the role of the appearant
fixedness of speed of light. Then, our dimensions are no
longer forced upon us, and we no longer have the type of
determinism that Einstein had to have, to make his
theory work out consistently, in it. So we can still have
dimensions, but we can have, if we please, several
dimensions organising the processes about to unfold.
Q. That sounds like something which could lead to a
worldview in which Jung's idea of synchronicities could
play a role?
A. Yes. My own intuition is to say, let's leave "time" as
such out of our theories in physics. Time is just too
grand a concept; physics begins with sensory experiences
and measurements and thinking about all this, but time is
literally infinitely beyond all analysis.
However, once that is said, let us permit ourselves a
sense in which we can think (also the way some quantum
experiments have led experimenters to think) about a
future which has some structure, some reality, some,
indeed, physical reality. A future of some sort. And a
past of some sort. But in order to give the time concept
maximal integrity, let us also not try to capture 'future'
in our theory, nor 'past'. But rather, we can talk of
something future-like or past-like (or even time-like).
Here, we can learn of our own minds, observe how we
plan and change plans and in some sense have something
future-like in our minds to help map out action
possibilities. Super-model theory is then capable, in
fact with ease, to lend substance to the thought that not
just our minds, but also, somehow, Nature or the universe
does something by analogy to planning and re-planning;
and of course also (as we have already remarked), that
there may be in analogy to 'memory' as well; and we can
go on and postulate other such analogies between our minds
and some features of the universe. This is quite possible
given certain natural algorithmic extensions of the
super-models we have already postulated, when coupled with
the organic PMW principle.
Q. Could this be of relevance to understanding the origin
of life?
A. You see, between the mechanistic extreme of darwinism
or genetic neo-darwinism on the one side, and a simplistic
literalist interpretation of a creation scripture like the
Christian bible on the other side, there are really not
just one or two, but practically an infinity of
in-between possibilities, given a worldview of the
super-model kind.
Q. Interesting. And your own intuition as to the future?
I mean, the actual future of humanity?
A. The more relevance a worldview tale shall have, the
less we ought to confine our sentiments about the future
to the present age, the present place or places in the
universe for humanity, and so on. But as it is of personal
interest to quite a few, at least subconsciously, whether
humanity will survive and, if so, whether the survival
will be so that there is something of high, perhaps even
higher quality of life, than that which perhaps is the
best available at present,--because of that interest that
people have about humanity's future, we ought to talk a
little bit about it. Is there something, some intuitions
as it were, that come esp. easy given all what we have
been through in this scientific booklet? And yes, I do
think there is. But I am then speaking about intuitions,
and though logically I can see that they can be argued
for, to some extent, this is clearly leaving the hardcore
theory proper, and we're over into the realm of
speculation.
Q. Granted. Let's have speculation.
A. All right. I think that humanity will always exist.
There may be this or that transition point; and at the
moment of writing this, there's certainly plenty of people
who see little reason for personal optimism on behalf of
their physical existence; but for humanity as a whole, my
sense is that there's a permanence in future existence.
Somehow, it'll work out, even if it will require a touch
of the miraculous, also as regards timing.
I take the PMW seriously enough to consider this: that
universally, there is an awareness of the existence of
humanity; and thus an impulse to preserve and protect and
prolong humanity.
I do think, in contrary to those who are speculating
these days rather wildly, given some superficial ideas
derived from darwinism added to which is a bundle of
quickly made numbers about the possible quantity of
galaxy clusters and what not in the universe, that
humanity is unique and has no match anywhere in the
physical universe. Since I consider it unlikely that
something as incredibly sophisticated as the human being
can arise by anything less than a process utilising such
as the PMW in the fullest, I consider it also unlikely
that this has been repeated all over the place. However,
I think that life, DNA-molecule organised life, in the
sense of simpler forms of life such as trees, grass,
oceanic microorganisms and so on, are extremely prolific
in the universe. I have some more intuitions, but these
should suffice, to which I add solely one: I think the
universe is neither dying nor cooling off, but in a
continual process of self-recreation; and in which there
are more and more habitable planets and that humanity will
eventually find it easy to come around to these and keep
on moving to ever-new habitable planets.
Q. That's optimistic--at least if we have an optimistic
view of the capacity of humanity to come to meaningful and
relatively peaceful forms of societies.
A. Perhaps, then, in mind, at the level of what Jung
called 'the collective unconscious', there's some degree
of summing up of all the insights so far generated (by
individuals). In a process that is slow, perhaps on the
scale of a million year in each step, there could be some
progress of insight as to what each is born with. This is
something we can explore further on the level of personal
intuition.
10.E. Summary of super-model theory and possible
relevance for biology and human living
Q. Now that we have gone through the theory through
rather involved physical examples, where a contact with
earlier empirical studies has been emphasised, I suppose
we can go for a lighter language now, and summarise it
all in terms of meaning?
A. Yes. Yet some of the words we will use here will have
much more depth to them if we bear the earlier chapters
as clearly in mind as possible.
Let's see. I suppose we can say, generally, that
super-model theory aims to speak about the manifest
universe in as general terms as possible. This universe is
not claimed to be the only one, but rather it is regarded
that--although they may be unavailable, more or less, for
empirical study--many additional levels, some of them
quite possibly containing additional e.g. semi-manifest
universes, can be coherently visualised. So we speak of
a theory that has in it a sense in which the term
'multiverse' is quite possibly more accurate when we want
to bring in cosmos in toto, rather than just what we can
measure on. This is not the multiverse concept that some
rather reductionistic thinkers on cosmology has proposed,
in which there's a sharp branching off in a mechanistic
fashion. We are rather suggesting an organically
interwoven whole, because, the way it feels most natural
to interpret the essential empirical findings, it seems
that something nonmechanical is at works at the essence
levels. However, it can make some logical sense to try to
think of the universe as machine: yet, I claim that it's
a thought process which isn't very fruitful and of course
scientifically incorrect. So our multiverse concept is
one which speaks of cosmos as fundamentally whole and
founded on the Principle of a tendency of Movement towards
Wholeness, or PMW.
Q. So again, what does PMW do?
A. Or what is done through PMW. Remember we said that PMW
can be regarded as an open door, out of causation. But for
simplicity, let's speak of what PMW is 'doing'. Since we
have had a sober language so far, I don't want to rush
into a fairy-tale like description of it now. Let us say,
first of all, that PMW is at the core of the organisation
of the stuff out of which the manifest universe is
composed. That stuff, that 'atom', if you like, is here
claimed to be neither particle, nor wave, nor any fancy
mathematical object like 'rotating strings in many
dimensions'. Rather, the stuff is something that looks
much like an algorithmic node in a network of such. These
nodes can sort of make models of one another. And they can
also act back on these nodes. They don't do it all on
their own, but rather they sort of float in the current of
the PMW; and it acts through them. So since these models
are modelling each other, and acting on each other, they
can also be regarded as 'super' relative to one another.
And since, ultimately, there is no other thing to model
than themselves, we can say that we have here a network
of super-models. The convention is to use the dash, -, in
the word, so that we semantically differentiate between
the scientific theory of these and the idea of the superb
photogenic human model, or supermodel, in the category of
photography and fashion.
Q. A network of models. Of models that can be super
relative to one another--see each other and act upon each
other?
A. Well, yes, but we don't have to use that psychological
words all the time--'see' makes them very alive. We are
indeed saying that super-model theory implies a living and
in SOME sense perceptive and in SOME sense intending
manifest universe--a kind of universal perception flowing
through all nature--but we don't have to use words that
are that near the human psychological experience of this.
We can say that the models 'model each other' and, as you
put it, 'act upon each other'. And since, by Goedel and by
infinity studies, something purely algorithmic cannot
model anything except in a highly biased way, we are
suggesting that the algorithmic finesse inbuilt into the
super-model is working in collaboration with something
nonalgorithmic, or nonmechanical, namely the PMW.
Q. Well, this is not exactly very easy words, but I
understand that you wish to be careful so that we upheld a
level of precision here.
A. Exactly. In any case, a purely algorithmic network
would never be genuinely perceptive in any sense, and so
it is in a way a logical consequence of Goedel's second
incompleteness theorem in physics that we propose the
concept of a nonalgorithmic perceptive-intending process.
The PMW is such. Earlier on, before 2004, I tried other
words including 'symmetrization', but felt that these
sounded too easily too mechanical. The presence of such
a beyond-causal principle offers unique challenges,
however, when it comes to popperian scientific study of
them by means of measurements. For anything that can be
systematically measured can by definition be reproduced by
means of a certain algorithmic or causal structure set up
exactly so as to meet the criterions within that
scientific experiment. In other words, when Karl R. Popper
(who wasn't terribly clear about what nonlocality was all
about, if you confer some of his letter writings, that he
himself reproduced in later editions of the books he wrote
during the Second World War, between himself and Einstein
as regards Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle; the HUP
doesn't talk about nonlocality nor did Einstein but with
modern language it can be said to imply something of it)--
anyway, when Popper suggested that a theory has to be
checkable to be a theory, he was referring to only some
forms of theories. This we have sought to correct by
adjusting his notions to incorporate a more intuitive
approach, also more metaphysics-friendly, without tossing
the best of Popper's approach over board.
Q. That's what you call "neopopperianism", right?
A. Yes. So you see, this is a different way of doing
science--we are saying we must do without conventional
mathematics after Goedel and after the infinity troubles
in set theory and the like, and go for a more sober, less
pretentious, less pompeous formalism, with a greater
degree of clarity in essential ideas. The G15 PMN is made
to meet this need. But we are also saying that science
must re-anchor itself in philosophy and regard the formal
as illustration of bits of theories rather than their
core. That's also part of the neopopperian process.
Further, we must learn from Goedel and infinity studies,
and to sentiments of a philosophical nature easily
induced when we calmly reflect, as we have done in this
booklet, over the whole nature of findings in modern
physics laboratories, and draw the conclusion from this
that there may be something fundamentally noncausal yet
wellstructured and present in key ways in reality, that
does not lend itself to systematic experimental
observation, but which yet is very arguably necessary in
any encompassing theory like this.
Q. The PMW.
A. Yes, but whatever name we give it, it is important to
realize that the very contemplation of the existence of
something beyond all causation in all modern senses of
that word, and which makes itself felt nonlocally (or
what's the best word for it), we are challenging one
part of the mainstream theory of science. Not just theory
of physics, see? But theory of science. Consider that
when Goedel did his work, the theory of science along the
lines that Rudolf Carnap suggested had already been
launched. Arne Naess, who was a visiting member of the
socalled "Vienna circle", told me of his experience of
this pre-WWII group. As I took it, it was considered
fairly much to be an antidote to overdone metaphysical
leaning, even to the extent that metaphysics was regarded
pretty much as a disease in the mind. It is also fairly
clear that Naess never really said fully no to the main
type of theory of science there expounded, although he
claimed that his studies in the original Latin of
Spinoza's ethics went even deeper and started even
earlier in his life.
In any case, Goedel's work is of a degree of complexity,
as we also have seen, that one easily could imagine that
it takes a millenium, not just one or six decades, to
understand fully so that mainstream human science can
implement its results. We wish to anticipate that
development, and look to the few who have tried really
hard to push the unravelling of the consequences further,
such as Roger Penrose (although there are nuances in how
we interpret Goedel compared to his approach).
When you combine Goedel, and my own infinity studies,
and the fullness of the nonlocal implications of quantum
phenomena, you are getting a sense in which the "logical
postivism" or "logical empiricism" of the Vienna circle,
even when refined in the eminent way that K.R. Popper did
during WWII, simply isn't adequate to form such general
theories of all the energy processes in the universe as
is our intent, whether we call ourselves 'physicists' or
'cosmologists' or just, plainly, scientists (which is
probably a better concept, since it is arguably less
institutionalised).
Q. So what is the solution? What is this extra bit we
need of the theory of science?
A. We need what Francisco Varela, in the conversation I
had with him when he was professor at cogntive science in
Paris, called a 'mental discipline'. He suggested that
Western science has worked tremendously in getting the
physical disciplines right. But it has neglected the
mental discipline, which, he claimed, is also necessary in
science.
Q. And this mental discipline leads to what? Intuition?
A. Well, you see, one of the reasons I call the WWII works
of Popper great, is that, at least in a footnote, he
speaks favorably of intuition relative to ideas. And so he
connects to some extent to such as Descartes' talk on
clear ideas; and of course L.E.J. Brouwer did the same
when he argued that mathematics has lost touch with the
clarity that was meant to underlie it. Popper, though,
seemed to be largely an atheist: and an atheist who tries
to make a general theory of science is likely to put forth
criterions so as to project, at a subconscious level at
least, his own worldview into the result. And so we are
saying that this is quite possibly a universe in which
very intense intuitions may be possible--and indeed we are
going to sketch something of how this may be a possible
implication of super-model theory--and, furthermore, we
are saying that, after Goedel, etc, we must supplement our
empirical studies with a clearer emphasis on intuition in
selecting the proper framework for interpretating the
findings that come along to our sensory organs through our
measurements etc.
Q. Do you think that someone learned in science of the
20th century kind will appreciate what we are saying here?
A. You see, it cannot be our job to do propaganda, merely
clarify possibilities. We are outlining how all this may
make logical sense also by the help of computers. We are
going to suggest, in this chapter, how such a universe as
we have sketched may invest the human nervous system with
something genuinely perceptive at the intuitive level;
for all I know, this informal sketching may make more
impact on some people than the logical outlines in the
previous parts of this booklet. And if it suddenly does
make personal sense--that there's a personal resonance
with the mind of someone possibly schooled in 20th century
science--this may motivate a going back to earlier
chapters and take the logic more seriously. If the emotion
gets in place, it may call on a willingness to look on the
logical part. And so, while we do not propaganda, there is
a task in expressing these things with a sense of beauty
or elegance. Certainly, whatever else we say about
Einstein's thoughts, nobody can doubt that he did things
in an esthetical way, with an emphasis on beauty of form
also in writing. Beautifully expressed, an informal
theory may create the emotion that makes things move in
the mind, so that the 20th century conditioning falls away
quite effortlessly.
Q. Right. So what is this way in which the universe is so
structured that it can make a difference for the human
brain? Or do you feel we have to add more to the general
description of super-model theory, first?
A. We should certainly give some more general remarks on
super-model theory here, in this chapter; but we can do so
while visiting this important theme connecting to the
human mind and feeling, first. In this way, we also bring
in something that is of relevance when one wishes to
connect biology to quantum processes; for whatever route
biology takes, the 'quantum biology' or 'super-model
biology' must certainly be something more, rather than
even less, organic; quantum biology must be about how the
human being is much more than a machine, and that
includes the human brain. Stuart Hameroff has suggested
that, far from being a 'quantum computer', the human brain
is a 'quantum orchestra': that shows that he is actively
a nonreductionist. The degree of precision in the after
all fairly interesting hypotheses that Hameroff & Penrose
are coming with is, to my mind, secondary to the general
approach they are taking--that human consciousness is
alive and beyond the machine, and that both the quantum
findings and the Goedel incompleteness findings are
suggestive in this regard. At that general level, they are
doing work that healthily disrupts mainstream science.
However, in super-model theory, the pathways are a
little different, though agreeing on the feeling level, so
to speak. So what I will now venture into is a more
uncertain area, where much less empirics is available, and
we are here speaking of plausible implications of super-
model theory, rather than 'hard core' super-model theory.
Q. Granted. Get on with it!
A. In thinking about the brain, and the whole body, and
the whole person, it may be a suitable simplification that
we use the acronym "SOF".
Q. I think we have mentioned it earlier, right? Is it not
"Superluminal Organising Field"?
A. Yes. It's a phrase that to some extent is far more
precise, when used in the context of super-model theory,
than "nonlocality". We are speaking of the capacity of the
super-models for engaging in subtle activity that, as it
were, 'from within' is providing guidance to the
quantum fluctuations that otherwise might have been
scattered in all directions and thus 'cancel out' before
they reach a strength in which they can have significance
for such as the human nervous system. So, the SOF, then,
can be present in the body, in the brain, in the whole
functionality of the organism. We must then pay attention,
in order to think through how this can be of possible
value in human living, to what it means to act with the
SOFs in a fruitful and harmonious way. The chief challenge
in some cases may lie in how to resonate with these SOFs,
and how, when one does resonate with them, they can be
'picked up' by the brain--rather as how one must adjust
the antenna on an analog radio and finetune in order to
peak up a weak but valuable radio station that is just at
the audio threshold that makes listening possible.
Q. The 'mental discipline' that Varela spoke about?
A. Yes, that's part of it. There are some studies--just a
few, and they are not conclusive as far as mainstream
science goes, that some degree of quantum coherence can
arise through some features of the neuronic cells given
certain frequences of pulsating activity: Hameroff-related
articles have many examples, although I have not seen much
of them in mainstream science. But what I can say is that
it makes sense, in super-model theory, to be open to the
possibility that, given the nature of the PMW, one can
expect that SOF-activity in the human organism can arise
when conditions are such that wholeness in terms of also
rhythmic activity is stimulated. Take a stimuli like
music--many forms of music have rich patterns of
similarities, contrasts, and a reverberating wholeness of
these. When a person so to say 'soaks herself' in music of
some forms, it is likely that the neuronic activation
patterns will to a larger extend have wholeness in them.
On the assumption that there is such a possibility of some
some SOF to arise at all, it is certainly far more likely
that it does arise, or that consciousness as a feeling
whole connects to whatever SOFs are present, when there is
a wholeness of activation.
Q. Does it have to be music?
A. One of the insights that the computer age has provided
to the many is that media are inter-translatable. So, for
instance, contemplating waves and reflections on water by
a beach involves a different sensory modality, but it is
easy to imagine that the impact on the human nervous
system can be, in some ways, much similar to that of the
impact of suitable music. And so we can proceed, to touch,
dance, visual art as paintings and photos, and other
sensations, including taste, patterns of temperature, and
so on.
Q. So one thing is to make oneself receptive and
sensitive, that the fields aren't 'factorised' within the
brain, as we spoke about earlier. But certainly there can
also be an inner impulse--to prefer a certain SOF rather
than another?
A. Yes. These are possible implications of super-model
theory but we're in a realm where a lot of additional
assumptions, coming from personal intuition, are now, in
this part of this chapter, called on. But yes, let us
think of musical theory for a moment. Certainly an
emotional tone can be induced by some sets of rather
falling or not quite harmonious sequences which is counter
to such as a more optimistic tone, induced by some degree
of higher harmony and raising tones. This is a nonverbal
communmication straight into the brain. And we can then
speculate that, as you say, by consciously selecting the
type of art according to intent, we are able to bring the
brain into resonating with a SOF that further fulfills the
premises in this mood. This presupposes that there's a lot
of activity and variation available at the subtle level of
the SOFs, and that the biology of ourselves is tuned, as
it were from nature, to be able to attune and further
contribute some rather than all of these SOFs.
We will explore, as we have done before, the rather
formidable implications of such a view in other writings,
so that we don't go too far from the core theory in this
booklet.
Let us conclude by reminding ourselves that, in the
super-model theory, the manifest universe is assumed to
be discretely woven, as it were, by nodes of an
algorithmic kind, along the lines of the FCM network in
G15 PMN. The discreteness is, at this level, assumed to be
so that it is plenty of room indeed for subtle activities,
and particles, which express themselves at the much more
crude level of Planck's constant. The size of this, which
was determined empirically to some precision already early
in the 20th century, is approximately 6.6260704 X 10^(-34)
when measured in J*s, before any division on two times pi
(in conventional quantum theory, these two constants have
been denoted, respectively, h, and h with a dash over it).
In super-model theory, we admit for the possibility of a
certain number of subtler levels, each with their own set
of very much smaller constants. We do not regard any
present listing over assumed 'fundamental building blocks
of the universe', such as the Higgs boson and other
particles listed in the socalled "Stanford model" as
anywhere near complete; besides we consider that the point
of research into the field of physics must go conceptually
much deeper than merely provide schematic listings over
particles and concern an understanding of the order of
the universe or multiverse or what we call it. Too much
focus on particles merely distracts from the fact that
mainstream physics has incoherence in the ground theories.
We apply D. Bohm's measurement theory, in asserting that
any measurement where this constant is directly relevant,
or at any rate where some form of nonlocality is involved,
can only be analyzed by considering the measurement
instrument as a material object in nonlocal interaction
with what is measured on. From this we get the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle, but see also our ideas of further
interpretations of HUP around in this and related texts.
There are as said several organising factors. One is
gravitation relative to mass, which is approximately
6.67408 X 10^(-11) when measured in N * ((m/kg)^2).
As organising factor in motion, connected to the idea of
a flashback factor during interaction between light and
matter, and more generally between any phenomenon that is
"L-tagged" (as we say), is that of the L-speed, which is,
as meter is defined, 299,792,458 m/s. But when objects in
space, according to objective coordinates, pass one
another, the normal calculation of velocities apply, so we
are not saying that the relative speed of light, when
unmeasured, is always this speed (although it could be).
Further, during gravitation and acelleration phenomena,
there's an effects of the super-models so as to create the
effect of time dilation--not as a mere appearance, but as
an actual slowing of processes. We do this, as we have
seen (cfr the formal illustration), without presuming that
there's a lengthening or stretching of the map of space
and time coordinates; thus we get a straight space which
is simpler than Einstein's form, but the complexity of
change is rather handled by the added features to the
pilot waves, or super-models more precisely, organising
this space.
As relevance for biology, we are pointing out that the
algorithms don't merely exist on their own, but are to
some extent being regarded as expressions of an
underlaying Gestalt-oriented feature of reality, which we
call the PMW, or Principle of tendency of Movement towards
Wholeness. This allows for the arisal of some sort of
nonlocal feature at macroscopic levels also, when it is
so to speak 'picked up' by the PMW so that a super-model
somehow gets 'hooked up' to the processes, involving, for
instance, subtle modifications of the quantum fluctuations
there. These fluctuations are then not random but rather
semi-random (or, possibly, considering yet more levels to
reality beyond the Planck level, not random at all--this
is open to exploration, of course).
The fluctuations and interactions often (but not always)
take place via a number that can be considered a sort of
rotating vector, here called 'pathfinder number' (cfr the
formal illustrations).
We have argued of the existence of the PMW through
several pathways, also by means of the pure logic of the
goedelian kind, and we have made a note of the point that
due to its very nature, it suggests that the theory of
science has to move from a popperian kind to something we
have suggested can be called a 'neopopperian' kind.
Q. And yet, that's less of change-about in concepts, is it
not, than that which Einstein on his side, and Bohr & co,
on their side, claimed that had to happen. For in going
from popperian science to neopopperian science we're not
upsetting spacetime, we're not upsetting the notion of
some sort of objective motion, and we're not upsetting the
idea that reality can be visualised. We are merely saying,
are we not, that intuition as for clear ideas has to be
at least as important as empirical studies when it comes
to theories.
A. Yes. Rather exactly that. So when it comes to deriving
some sort of life philosophy out of this, I suggest that
we use such concepts as Q-fields and SOFs, and with great
care that we aren't carried away but apply careful
intuition, as best we can, when we do so, and, from time
to time, go back to this more sober summary of the
gigantic sense of potential associated with this our new
theory of, and in, science.
==========================================================
END OF BOOKLET