<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Chandra:</p>
<p>Do you want to take a first crack at this? I do not want to keep
budding in on your converation</p>
<p>Wolf<br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/29/2017 1:19 PM, Albrecht Giese
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6d3ca45a-7541-370a-d55c-6aa0dc267ae7@a-giese.de">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p><font size="+1">Chandra,</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">my intention this time was to avoid a too
philosophical discussion, interesting as it may be, and to
avoid the risk to extend it towards infinity. So, this time I
only intended to discuss a specific point.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Therefore
the main point of my mail: How do you explain the process
going on in my experiment without assuming the photon as a
particle? (Details again below.)</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Albrecht</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.07.2017 um 00:28 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Albrecht: <o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Thanks for your
critical questions. I will try to answer to the extent I
am capable of. They are within your email text below.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> However, I am
of the general opinion that Physics has advanced enough to
give us the confidence that generally speaking, we have
been heading in the right direction – the laws of natural
evolution are universally causal in action and are
independent of the existence or non-existence of any
particular species, including human species. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> History has
also demonstrated (Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific
revolutions) that all working theories eventually yield to
newer theories based upon constructing better fundamental
postulates using better and broad-based precision data.
So, this century is destined to enhance all the
foundational postulates behind most working theories and
integrate them into a better theory with much less
“hotchpotch” postulates like “wave particle-duality”,
“entanglement”, “action at a distance”, etc., etc. Our
community should agree and stop the time-wasting
philosophical debates like, “Whether the moon EXISTS when
I am not looking for it!” Would you waste your time
writing a counter poem, if I write, “The moon is a dusty
ball of Swiss cheese”? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">In summary,
leveraging the evolutionary power of
self-introspection, human observers will have to learn
to CONSCIOUSLY direct further evolution of their own
mind out of its current trap of biologically evolved
neural logics towards pure logic of dispassionate
observers who do not influence the outcome of
experimental observations!</span></i></b><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> Let us not waste
any more of our valuable time reading and re-reading the
inconclusive Bohr-Einstein debates. We are not smarter
than them; but we have a lot more observational data to
structure our logical thinking than they had access to
during their life time. So, lets respectfully jump up on
the concept-shoulders of these giants, a la Newton, and
try to increase our Knowledge Horizon. Bowing down our
head at their feet will only reduce our Knowledge Horizon.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Albrecht Giese<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 28, 2017 11:55 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a
deeper path to introspection<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Chandra,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>you have written here a lot of good and true
considerations; with most of them I can agree. However two
comments from my view:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>1.) The speed of light: <br>
The speed of light when <i>measured in vacuum </i>shows
always a constant value. Einstein has taken this result as a
fact in so far that the real speed of light is constant. <span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Sorry there are no
perfect vacuum in space, or on earth. Even a few atoms per
100-Lamda-cubed volume defines an effective refractive
index for light in that volume. The outer space is a bit
more rarer.] </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">I forgot to
say: Measurement of c outside a gravitational field. - Of course
this and the vacuum is nowhere perfectly available, but we come
so close to it that we have sufficiently </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">good <font size="+1">results.
</font><font size="+1">In the gravitational field on the earth
the speed of light is reduced by round about a portion of
about 10<sup>-6</sup> . And i</font></font><font size="+1"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">n the DESY synchrotron
there was a vacuum good enough so that c was only reduced by a
portion of about 10<sup>-15</sup>. I think that this comes
close enough to the ideal conditions so that we can draw
conclusions from it. And the equations describing this can be
proven by a sufficient precision.</font><br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p>However if we follow the Lorentzian interpretation of
relativity then only the <i>measured </i>c is constant. It
looks constant because, if the measurement equipment is in
motion, the instruments change their indications so that the
result shows the known constant value. - I personally follow
the Lorentzian relativity because in this version the
relativistic phenomena can be deduced from known physical
behaviour<span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">.[I am
more comfortable with Lorentzian logics than Einsteinian.
However, I do not consider this thinking will remain
intact as our understanding evolves further. </span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:windowtext">]</span><span
style="color:windowtext"> </span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">Which kind of
changes do you expect?</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="color:windowtext">So, it is true physics</span><span
style="color:#6B2369">.</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Sorry, I do not
believe that we will ever have access to a final (“true”)
physics theory! We will always have to keep on iterating
the postulates and the corresponding theories to make them
evolve as our mind evolves out of
biological-survival-logics towards
impartial-observer-logics.]</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">Perhaps it
was bad wording from my side. - Whereas I understand Einstein's
relativity as a mathematical system, the Lorentzian is intended
to describe physics. That was meant.</font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>There is a different understanding of what Wolf thinks. He
has in the preceding discussion here given an equation,
according to which the speed of light can go up to infinity.
This is to my knowledge in conflict with any measurement.<span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"> [I agree with you.
All equations for propagating wave tell us that the speed
is determined by the intrinsic physical tension properties
of the corresponding mother “field”. I have not found
acceptable logic to support infinite speed for propagating
waves.]</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>2) The quantisation of light:<br>
This was also discussed repeatedly here in these mails. And
I have (also) repeatedly referred to my PhD experiment,
which was Compton scattering at protons<span
style="color:#6B2369">.</span><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[There are number
of papers that explain Compton Effect using semi classical
theory, using X-rays as classical wave packets. De Broglie
got his Nobel based on his short PhD thesis proposing
“Pilot Wave” for electron diffraction phenomenon along
with “Lambda= “h/p”. I happened to have proposed particles
as localized harmonic oscillators with characteristic
“Kinetic Frequency”, rather than wavelength (See Ch.11 of
my “Causal Physics” book). This explains particle
diffraction without the need of “wave particle duality”. I
have separately published paper modeling, using
spectrometric data, that QM predicted photon is a
transient photon at the moment of emission with energy
“hv”. Then it quickly evolves into a quasi-exponential
wave packet with a carrier frequency “v”. This bridges the
gap between the QM predictions and all the successes of
the classical HF integral. ]</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">I am sorry
that I mentioned that this experiment was intended to check a
specific property of the Compton effect. Because this fact is of
no relevance for our discussion here. The relevant point is that
an electron of a defined energy was converted into something
which we call a "photon". And after about 10 meters flight
through the air with a negligible deflection it was reconverted
into an electron-positron pair, which then represented the
energy of the original electron. And this was done for different
energies of this original electron. - My question is how this
process can be explained without the assumption that the photon
did have a quantized amount of energy, which means it to be a
particle.<br>
<br>
Regarding the particle wave question I have presented every time
at our SPIE meeting in San Diego a particle model which is in
fact a specific realization of de Broglie's pilot wave idea. I
did not develop the model for this purpose but to explain SRT,
gravity and the fact of inertial mass. The result was then that
is also fulfils the idea of de Broglie. It explains the process
of diffraction and the relation between frequency and energy. -
And last time in San Diego I have also explained that it
explains - with some restrictions - the photon.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#7030A0"> </span> An
electron of defined energy was converted into a photon. The
photon was scattered at a proton at extreme small angles (so
almost no influence) and then re-converted into an
electron-positron pair. This pair was measured and it
reproduced quite exactly (by better than 2 percent) the
energy of the originals electron. This was repeated for
electrons of different energies. - I do not see any
explanation for this process without the assumption that
there was a photon (i.e. a quantum) of a well defined
energy, not a light wave. <span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">[Albrecht, with my
limited brain-time, I do not understand , nor can I dare
to explain away everything. But, remember, that literally,
millions of optical engineers for two centuries, have been
using Huygens-Fresnel’s classical diffraction integral to
explain many dozens of optical phenomena and to design and
construct innumerable optical instruments (spectroscopes,
microscopes, telescopes (including grazing angle X-ray
telescope), etc. QM has never succeeded in giving us any
simple integral equivalent to HF-integral. That is why all
these millions of optical scientists and engineers give
only “lip service” to the photon concept and happily and
successfully keep on using the HF integral! My prediction
is that this will remain so for quite a while into the
future.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">I again refer
to my particle model as said above. It explains all the known
optical phenomena. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#6B2369">Let us recall
that neither Newtonian, nor Einsteinian Gravity can
predict the measured distribution of velocities of stars
against the radial distance in hundreds of galaxies; even
though they are excellent within our solar system.
However, Huygens postulate (Newton’s contemporary) of wave
propagation model of leveraging some tension field still
lives-on remarkably well. This significance should be
noted by particle physicists!].</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="+1">I do not see
what in detail is not postulated regarding the stars observed.
My model also explains phenomena like Dark Matter and Dark
Energy if you mean this. And my model of gravity (which is an
extension of the Lorentzian relativity to GRT) is since 13 years
in the internet, and since 12 years it is uninterruptedly the
no. one regarding the explanation of gravitation (if looking for
"The Origin of Gravity" by Google). Maybe worth to read it. </font><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:BN6PR05MB3234214AC7832905E176B00E93BF0@BN6PR05MB3234.namprd05.prod.outlook.com">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>How does this fit into your understanding?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Best wishes<br>
Albrecht<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>PS: Can I find your book "Causal Physics" online?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Am 26.07.2017 um 18:52 schrieb
Roychoudhuri, Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">Wolf: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You have said it well:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Concentrating on finding the
mechanisms of connection between the Hallucination and
the reality is my approach. I think the constant speed
of light assumption is one of the first pillars that
must fall. If there is such a constant it should in my
opinion be interpreted as the speed of Now…”. </i><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Yes, “constant c” is a fundamentally
flawed postulate by the theoretician Einstein, so fond of
“Gedanken Experiments”. Unfortunately, one can cook up
wide varieties of logically self-consistent mathematical
theories and then match them up with “Gedanken”
experiments! We know that in the real world, we know that
the velocity of light is dictated by both the medium and
the velocity of the medium. Apparently, Einstein’s
“Gedanken Experiment” of riding the crest of a light wave
inspired him to construct SRT and sold all the
mathematical physicists that nature if 4-diemsional. Out
of the “Messiah Complex”, we now believe that the universe
could be 5, or, 7, or 11, or, 13, …. dimensional system
where many of the dimensions are “folded in” !!!! By the
way, running time is not a measurable physical parameter.
We can contract or dilate frequency of diverse
oscillators, using proper physical influence, not the
running time. Frequency of oscillators help us measure a
period (or time interval). <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Wise human thinkers have recognized
this “Hallucination” problem from ancient times, which are
obvious (i) from Asian perspective of how five blinds can
collaborate to construct a reasonable model of the Cosmic
Elephant and then keep on iterating the model ad
infinitum, or (ii) Western perspective of “shadows of
external objects projected inside a cave wall”.
Unfortunately, we become “groupies” of our contemporary
“messiahs” to survive economically and feel “belonging to
the sociaety”. The result is the current sad state of
moribund physics thinking. Fortunately, many people have
started challenging this moribund status quo with papers,
books, and web forums. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, I see well-recognizable renaissance
in physics coming within a few decades! Yes, it will take
time. Einstein’s “indivisible quanta” of 1905 still
dominates our vocabulary; even though no optical engineer
ever try to propagate an “indivisible quanta”; they always
propagate light waves. Unfortunately, they propagate
Fourier monochromatic modes that neither exits in nature;
nor is a causal signal. [I have been trying to correct
this fundamental confusion through my book, “Causal
Physics”.]<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Coming back to our methodology of
thinking, I have defined an iterative approach in the
Ch.12 of the above book. I have now generalized the
approach by anchoring our sustainable evolution to remain
anchored with the reality of nature! “Urgency of Evolution
Process Congruent Thinking” [see attached].<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, one can immediately bring a
challenge. If all our interpretations are cooked up by our
neural network for survival; then who has the authority to
define objective reality? Everybody, but collaboratively,
like modeling the “Cosmic Elephant”.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Let us realize the fact that the seeing
“color” is an interpretation by the brain. It is a
complete figment of our neuro-genetic interpretation! That
is why none of us will succeed in quantitatively defining
the subtlety of color variation of any magnificent color
painting without a quantitative spectrometer. The “color”
is not an objective parameter; but the frequency is (not
wavelength, though!). One can now recognize the subtle
difference, from seeing “color”, to <b><i>quantifying
energy content per frequency interval.</i></b> This is
“objective” science determined by instruments without a
“mind”, which is reproducible outside of human
interpretations.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, we have already mastered this
technology quite a bit. The biosphere exists. It has been
nurturing biological lives for over 3.5 billion years
without the intervention of humans. We are a very late
product of this evolution. This is an objective
recognition on our part! Our, successful evolution needed
“instantaneous color” recognition to survive for our
day-to-day living in our earlier stage. We have now
overcome our survival mode as a species. And we now have
become a pest in the biosphere, instead of becoming the
caretaker of it for our own long-term future. <b><i>This
is the sad break in our wisdom.</i></b> This is why I
am promoting the concept, “Urgency of Evolution Process
Congruent Thinking”. This approach helps generate a
common, but perpetually evolving thinking platform for all
thinkers, whether working to understand Nature’s
Engineering (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc.) or, to
carry out our Social Engineering (Economics, Politics,
Religions, etc.).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sincerely,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
General [<a
href="mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a>]<b>On
Behalf Of </b>Wolfgang Baer<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 26, 2017 12:40 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a
href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [General] Role of observer, a
deeper path to introspection</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Chandra:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Unfortunately the TED talk does not work on my machine
but the transcript is available and Anl Seth states what
many people studying the human psyche as well as eastern
philosophy have said for centuries , Yes we are
Hallucinating reality and our physics is built upon that
hallucination, but it works so well, or does it? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>However as Don Hoffmancognitive scientist UC Irvine
contends <a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p>What we see is like the icons on a computer screen, a
file icon may only be a symbol of what is real on the
disk, but these icons as well as the "hallucinations" are
connected to some reality and we must take them seriously.
Deleting the icon also deletes the disk which may have
disastrous consequences.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>For our discussion group it means we can take Albrechts
route and try to understand the universe and photons first
based upon the idea that it is independently real and then
solve the human consciousness problem or we can take the
opposite approach and rebuild a physics without the
independent physical reality assumption and see if we
cannot build out a truly macroscopic quantum theory.
Concentrating on finding the mechanisms of connection
between the Hallucination and the reality is my approach.
I think the constant speed of light assumption is one of
the first pillars that must fall. If there is such a
constant it should in my opinion be interpreted as the
speed of Now , a property we individually apply to all our
observations. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>best<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Wolf<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>Dr. Wolfgang Baer<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Research Director<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Nascent Systems Inc.<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>E-mail <a href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">wolf@NascentInc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 7/23/2017 2:44 PM, Roychoudhuri,
Chandra wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Dear
colleagues:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Lately
there has been continuing discussion on the role of
observer and the reality. I view that to be healthy.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">We
must guide ourselves to understand and model the
universe without human mind shaping the cosmic system
and its working rules. This suggestion comes from the
fact that our own logic puts the universe to be at
least 13 billion years old, while we, in the human
form, have started evolving barely 5 million years ago
(give or take). </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">However,
we are not smart enough to determine a well-defined
and decisive path, as yet. Our search must accommodate
perpetual iteration of thinking strategy as we keep on
advancing. This is well justified in the following
TED-talk. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Enjoy:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><a
href="https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality?utm_source=newsletter_weekly_2017-07-22&utm_campaign=newsletter_weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_content=talk_of_the_week_image</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:14.0pt;color:#1F497D">Chandra.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<pre>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre><a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>><o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre>Click here to unsubscribe<o:p></o:p></pre>
<pre></a><o:p></o:p></pre>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div id="DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable"
style="border:none;border-top:solid #D3D4DE 1.0pt"
cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:41.25pt;border:none;padding:13.5pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="57">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img
style="width:.4791in;height:.3055in"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif"
moz-do-not-send="true" height="29"
width="46" border="0"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
</td>
<td style="width:352.5pt;border:none;padding:12.75pt
.75pt .75pt .75pt" width="415">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height:13.5pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#41424E">Virenfrei.
<a
href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"> <span
style="color:#4453EA">www.avast.com</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" moz-do-not-send="true">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" moz-do-not-send="true">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>