RussianWhat language do you speak?
RussianWhat language do you speak?
We have several Russian speakers on the forum who could translate what you write in Russian and translate it into English for you. That way whatever you have to say should come across quite accurately. That way you could network more using the DeepL translator for things that are not too complicated, you would have help with those things that you need a specific translation for and, you may pick up a little English while doing so.Russian
That's a good answer, I'll take that into consideration. Thank you.We have several Russian speakers on the forum who could translate what you write in Russian and translate it into English for you. That way whatever you have to say should come across quite accurately. That way you could network more using the DeepL translator for things that are not too complicated, you would have help with those things that you need a specific translation for and, you may pick up a little English while doing so.
I don't want to push you, but the Cs have said many, many times how important it is to network. So I'm just giving you a few ways that would help you to do this if you want.
You can always say at the beginning of your post that you would need a little help in translating what you want to say, write it in Russian, and, then, when someone is available, they can translate it into English for you.
It's up to you, though.
That is a very interesting point, and something that I have seen first hand with friends and relatives. Before Covid, we had many conversations about current events, and I would be injecting alternate views of what could be happening, and they would listen, at least.Over the last twenty years, I have shared with most of my friends and family some of what I learned while in graduate school. They all know that I am a Biologist and that I got my graduate degree in genetics and bacteriology/virology. So they often used me as a resource when they had questions about science, and they trusted what I shared because I always look at all sides of every story before making a decision, as is dictated by those who practice science as it SHOULD be practiced.
That trust ENDED with the COVID pandemic.
I have heard one problem with orch-or is that the timescales don’t match up, ie the events are too short lived, or that the temperature for potential carriers like phosphate molecules are too short lived.From the February 10, 2018 session:
Penrose's decoherence time equation for consciousness (and his quantum mechanics interpretation in general) is t=h/Eg where Eg is a gravitational self energy so it kind of is consciousness replacing time being an inverse of gravity.
A paper I found interesting:
Tony Smith for years did the decoherence time calculation using only the dipole electrons themselves and that timescale works fine for matching with brain wave frequencies.I have heard one problem with orch-or is that the timescales don’t match up, ie the events are too short lived, or that the temperature for potential carriers like phosphate molecules are too short lived.
What role do you all think spin may play into this?
also, from what I understand, the Cassiopaens have implied that Minkowski spacetime is not the correct framework since Lie groups ‘Lie’ and Lorentz violation is possible. This would favour a non perturbative theory (exact solutions instead of approximations)?? and suggest an underlying microstructure behind gravity - as gravitational waves carry consciousness according to another one of their transcripts, perhaps it is here we should search, emergent gravity theories where the underlying degrees of freedom are nonlocal such as strings/branes??
I wonder what role quantization plays into all of this, and how this affects the appearance of matter from virtual particles/mind.
Also, I’m super super new to physics and math so I would really appreciate others chipping in!
perhaps we could form a physics/math group?
Thank you, @John G, will check out the Tony Smith link and quite a bit to consider here. What do you mean by being much more set on physics ideas versus consciousness ones? I am certain, getting the geometry/physics right is key to being able to solve the hard problem of consicousness. I think transcendental numbers/classes of infinities should be relevant too - need to check out the quantum fractal book by Ark. What do you make of it? And wondering, have the Cs said anything about dark energy, dark matter, or negentropy? Seems like then the Cs are pointing in favour of emergenr gravity, and this seems to be counter to dark matter.Tony Smith for years did the decoherence time calculation using only the dipole electrons themselves and that timescale works fine for matching with brain wave frequencies.
Penrose/Hameroff have done calculations for bigger structures than just the electrons and that doesn't work timescale-wise. That paper I referenced earlier does mention long lived (hundreds of milliseconds) dipole states. I am though much more set on physics ideas than consciousness ones. The Cs preferred geometric algebra over big Lie algebras. You can derive small Lie algebras from geometric algebra including the Lie algebra for Ark's conformal gravity and the Cs do seem to like Ark's conformal gravity with a 4,2 metric as well as bimetric gravity ideas that Ark has mentioned. Thus Ark would not be using a simple 3,1 Minkowski metric. The Cs mentioned you can use Lie algebra if you are careful and perhaps this means to make sure they fit with the fundamental geometric algebra structure.
You can think of strings as worldlines between geometric algebra branes (the Cs did seem to like it when Ark mentioned branes) including conformal worldlines (kind of hyperbolic paths using circular spacetime dimensions). For me, physics-wise, you can get spin components from geometric algebra and quantization is often just a doubling of the degrees of freedom (creation/annihilation operators). There is an outer space/inner space science forum here where you can certainly start a topic.
I'm more certain of the math of physics than the biology of consciousness. I tend to think a particle like an electron has a little bit of consciousness as well as a little bit of mass. They just build up differently and you have to add in biology for consciousness. Classes of infinities are good for a geometric algebra universe state and connections for multiple universe states. The connections/branching could very much relate to surreal numbers which include transcendental numbers. The conformal degrees of freedom Ark uses for gravity have been used by people like David Finkelstein for dark energy. This could also get rid of needing dark matter for galaxy rotation curves but you still could need dark matter for missing mass reasons. Quantum fractals/jumps (EEQT), like Orch-OR and GRW, is an interesting self-collapse model. It has patterns created by computer algorithms so it's not easy to know what's happening exactly. Orch-OR by the way has the wrong calculations for small numbers of particles to be a replacement for GRW thus Tony Smith has both GRW physics as well as using the Orch-OR calculations for consciousness.Thank you, @John G, will check out the Tony Smith link and quite a bit to consider here. What do you mean by being much more set on physics ideas versus consciousness ones? I am certain, getting the geometry/physics right is key to being able to solve the hard problem of consicousness. I think transcendental numbers/classes of infinities should be relevant too - need to check out the quantum fractal book by Ark. What do you make of it? And wondering, have the Cs said anything about dark energy, dark matter, or negentropy? Seems like then the Cs are pointing in favour of emergenr gravity, and this seems to be counter to dark matter.
I am certain, getting the geometry/physics right is key... have the Cs said anything about dark energy, dark matter, or negentropy?
(Ark) Yeah, I want to ask... I was always interested in what is called the Fine Structure Constant in physics. It's approximately 1/137. I wrote some papers where I quoted Mr. Armand Wyler who was kind of a crazy mathematician who worked on this. Now, what is this constant? This constant is very important because somehow it's one of these very important constants of the universe. We know speed of light, gravity constant, the Planck constant, or the elementary electric charge. But this fine structure constant is a combination of these, and it's just a number. It's not like a centimeter or a kilogram or whatever. It's just a pure number.
(L) What does it relate to?
(Ark) This pure number appears in a Dirac equation which tells how light interacts with electricity. So when you see stars, and spectra of stars, and you can analyze this spectrum in a subtle way you see this number in the light from the sky. Or you see in some very subtle experiments. You can measure it.
(Pierre) What you describe is light or photons. Where does electricity intervene?
(Ark) Because this light that comes is created by scattering or hitting one electric charge, or antimatter and matter colliding, or...
(Pierre) Okay, that's the source.
(Ark) So, this Mr. Wyler claimed that he mathematically derived this number. Physicists have no idea why it's just this, and nothing else.
(L) He derived it from what?
(Ark) He derived it from some kind of geometrical consideration. Higher dimensions. Six dimensions, seven dimensions, blah blah blah. He derived this number, and he gave the formula which was approximately the same as physicists are measuring. But no one could understand it. I couldn't understand it either. I was in Marseille at the time, I studied this paper, and I couldn't understand. Then he got invited to Princeton in order to explain his derivation because Americans of course, they want to have everybody who does anything original. So, he spent like half a year in Princeton. Apparently, he did not succeed in explaining. He came back to Europe, and was put in an asylum for crazy people. He didn't write any more after that. He disappeared, essentially.
(Pierre) So nobody knows what it really means or the reasoning behind it.
(Ark) No. Now, there is a certain other mathematician who is a very famous one named Michael Atityah. He's a Fields medal winner in mathematics who is 89 years old. Recently at the end of September, he wrote a paper about fine structure constant. He derived it in a completely different way. That's what he claims. So, he explains that in the paper that I have here (waves sheaf of paper). Of course, physicists started laughing. "Oh, this is old. We don't understand, it doesn't make sense to us," and so on. But I look at this paper, and I see certain keywords there. I don't understand. It's too difficult for me right now. But I see things that I always considered as important. There are quaternions there, there are octonions, there is a lot of algebra, there is Mr. Von Neumann with his infinite-dimensional algebras. So, it all kind of fits for me, but it has very detailed relation to this other mathematician, Wyler. There is some overlap, but it's different.
(Pierre) And they reach the same result? 1/137?
(Ark) Yes. In fact he gives this number the Russian letter "Ч" ("ch"). This is very strange in an English paper. This is a British mathematician, a "Sir", and he uses this Russian letter for this constant? I have no idea why he's using a Russian letter. But I'm so interested and I've always been interested. So I would like to know if this 89-year-old mathematician Mr. Michael Atityah, with his idea about this fine structure constant that no one understands, is onto something?
A: He is definitely "onto something"!
Q: (Ark) Now my question is whether it is first priority for me to understand because it may open...
A: It will certainly help!
Q: (Ark) Yes, it will help, but I want to know if it is the first priority?
A: No
Q: (Ark) What is the first priority? Can you help?
A: Memories and "reflections" will help.
Q: (Niall) A trip down memory lane?
(L) Why did you put "reflections" in quotes?
A: Maybe something should be reversed?
Q: (Ark) Okay. Reverse. Probably gravity.
(Joe) Reverse gravity.
(Ark) Yes. [laughs] Thousands of physicists are working on dark matter and dark energy which no one can see, but it's like Ptolemy, epicycles and such, and apparently the universe consists of 80% of things we don't see. With the help of this dark energy and matter, they are able to explain things they observe in the stars. But there is another school that says we don't need dark matter or energy, but instead we need to modify gravity. I want to know which way is better?
A: Modifying the concept of gravity may help. But consider dark things in terms of your former question about fine structure and its relation to light and "electricity".
Memories and "reflections" will help
That is a very interesting point, and something that I have seen first hand with friends and relatives. Before Covid, we had many conversations about current events, and I would be injecting alternate views of what could be happening, and they would listen, at least.
But it seems a switch was thrown with covid.
First thing I noticed was the bombardment level of the media. It seemed every channel was saying exactly the same thing, repeated ad nauseum. Didn't matter if it was a news channel, a chat channel, the weather channel, all seemed to get switched on at the same time. Even though I knew I was immune to the programming, I thought that very few would be able to resist it. And sure enough, that has come to pass.
It is one thing to say that you believe something in good times, when things are easy, but where the rubber hits the road is, can you stay true to your beliefs when things get tough. When you have to take a different tack to the rest of the world. Most people can't do it. That is what I see right now.
Repetition of a fragment of a false statement lends credibility to it because of the concept of cognitive ease; if it's easier for our brain to process, it's more believable.
An elementary example of a random walk is the random walk on the integer number line,, which starts at 0 and at each step moves +1 or −1 with equal probability. Other examples include the path traced by a molecule as it travels in a liquid or a gas (see Brownian motion), the search path of a foraging animal, the price of a fluctuating stock and the financial status of a gambler: all can be approximated by random walk models, even though they may not be truly random in reality.
As illustrated by those examples, random walks have applications to engineering and many scientific fields including ecology, psychology, computer science, physics, chemistry, biology, economics, and sociology. Random walks explain the observed behaviors of many processes in these fields, and thus serve as a fundamental model for the recorded stochastic activity. As a more mathematical application, the value of π can be approximated by the use of a random walk in an agent-based modeling environment.[1][2] The term random walk was first introduced by Karl Pearson in 1905.[3]
Various types of random walks are of interest, which can differ in several ways. The term itself most often refers to a special category of Markov chains, but many time-dependent processes are referred to as random walks, with a modifier indicating their specific properties. Random walks (Markov or not) can also take place on a variety of spaces: commonly studied ones include graphs, others on the integers or the real line, in the plane or higher-dimensional vector spaces, on curved surfaces or higher-dimensional Riemannian manifolds, and also on groups finite, finitely generated or Lie. The time parameter can also be manipulated. In the simplest context the walk is in discrete time, that is a sequence of random variables (X
t) = (X
1, X
2, ...) indexed by the natural numbers. However, it is also possible to define random walks which take their steps at random times, and in that case, the position X
t has to be defined for all times t ∈ [0,+∞). Specific cases or limits of random walks include the Lévy flight and diffusion models such as Brownian motion.
Random walk - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org