[merlin wood]

[edit]
...could be called a General Theory of Natural Organisation. And such a theory would not be concerned with unifying the four forces or reconciling Relativity with quantum theory.

But rather we hold that:
(1) Quantum theory and relativity are irreconcilable basically because the general theory of relativity explains the behaviour of of matter and energy by finding, justifying and describing enough details of a cause from its effects upon objects in motion, whereas the quantum theory of the standard model describes particular forrms of behaviour of quantum objects called wave, spin and entanglement that are not so explained. As a consequence, while quantum theory explains much about the various properties of matter and the energy it radiates in terms of the behaviour of quantum objects, it does not explain how this quantum behaviour is possible and so, in general, how matter can be and remain organised into atoms and molecules despite the forces acting within and upon it.

(2) By acting with a continually varying strength the forces of gravity and electromagnetism can only produce effects that that themselves continually vary and so are of no particular form, and unlike the behaviour that can be uniquely detected and described of quantum objects. And so no unified theory of these forces alone could explain how the universe is of its particular form as the elements and compounds of matter, the species of living organisms, the galaxies of stars and planetary systems or of galaxy clusters and cosmic voids.

Whereas a general theory of natural organisation would begin by developing a quantum hypothesis from a nonlocal causal interpretation of quantum physics like that of David Bohm, but would find means of justifying and describing more details of a non-locally cause from its effects than is presently describribed in this interpretation..

So that, as it acts at a distance to produce quantum entanglement, a non-local cause cannot be neasured to act with any strength of effect. But means can be found of representing a cause that, by possesing no strength that can vary with distance - and hence can act at any distance between objects without varying in ant way- cannot be described as surrounding objects in three dimensional space. Such a cause cannot be directly represented since it could only act from additional dimensions of space. But a method of diagrams can be used to represent essentially how a cause could relate in space so as to peroduce its effects as it act upon worlds and objects of less than three spatial dimensions.

Then reasons can be found to consider that a cause of the simple quantum wave behaviour can be diagramatically represented in more detail. So that this would be a non-local cause and effect account of how the quantum wave is produced and produces its diffenrent types of polarisation and of why its energy varies according to its wave legth or frequency. This account, that relates quantum wave behaviour to Big Bang cosmological theory, then justifies a cosmolocal theory which describes an extra dimensional nonlocal cause acting together with gravity so as to produce the large scale structure of the universe, including the cosmic voids and filamentary structure of galaxy clusters and the spiral form of galaxies. And hence this account would obviate the need for any WIMP dark matter that has yet to be directly detected in any experiment.

Also, we find that this nonlocal hypothesis could explain those features of large scale uniformity and flatness that are currently accounted for by cosmic inflation theory. And it can be considered whether nonlocal causation - which could also be said assist in stellar and planetary system formation -- could contribute to the energy generation of stars in addition to nuclear fusion.

Finally, by relating the diagrammatic represention of an extradimension non locally acting cause as this would act upon living organisms as well as atoms and molecules to the problems of many unique and immaterial minds and the indivisibility consiousness we find that these problems can be resolved. From the quantum hypothesis we can also describe the cause as possessing an organisation mainting property from the effects of quantum entanglement and th Pauli principle and a form conserving property by producing the quantum wave behaviour in electrons and photons in particular.. Then by considering the form conserving property to the behaviour of living organisms we can propose that certain general behaviour of organism can be explained by the action of a species form conserving cause. Such behaviour including reproduction and parental and communal protection.

We suggest that the above cosmological hypothesis can be further developed and supported by measurement and calculation and additional observation and experiment.

[humanbydefault]

You mentioned a key point when characterizing what quantum mechanics can and/or can not explain: THE VERY EXISTENCE OF MATTER>>> which also means REALITY.

QUANTUM MECHANICS IS THE NET PRODUCT OF OBSEVATIONS DONE WHILE EXPERIMENTING BETWEEN MATTER ["ALREADY THERE"] AND RADIATION ENERGY.

It can't be put simpler and I invite you to look into the insides of quantum mechanics [origin and development] and you'll see my point. The determination of the electronic orbits in the hydrogen atom and the latest advances in physics where the sole result of energy [radiation] and matter interaction. The determination of considering every single "quantum" sometimes called particle and other time wave as it pleases us, is no other than a convenient tool to find the laws that govern the micro-world. Quantum mechanics responds very well to simple atoms and it finds in troubble when it comes to complex and heavier ones because it is incapable to consider a more holistic series of transformation within the system itself. Things in one way or another are entangled with each other. We are far from understanding the very basic principles that govern that "weird" and "strange" set of rules that makes for the resulting interactions. As atoms and molecules link each other in chains the system becomes incomplehensibly hard to follow as in the case of our own DNA... just to make an example.
Isn't it ridiculous: we praise ourselves for being able to interpret the elemental orbits of electrons around simple INDIVIDUAL atoms and we thought that we discovered a science that could explain everything... Nonsense!
Not until we understand the true nature of matter and why it is not made of the lucky aglutination of wavi-particles we couldn't even predict anymore, we won't be able to trully "see" into the world of interactions occurring inside matter, decay and genesis of matter throughout the universe.
My opinion? It's going to take a while until that moment comes... if it comes in the first place.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[merlin wood]

"My opinion? It's going to take a while until that moment comes... if it comes in the first place.2"

Well, my hypothesis foe a generaal theory of natural organisationi is at
http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com.
I inist that this well reasoned argument from enough natural and experimental evidence, especially given the diagrams I have devised to represent how a non-local and form conserving cause would act to produce its effects upon mattter and the energy it radiates.

But then I'm afraid that when, and I emphasise when, this account will be recognised by any prominent scientist as being a valiid scientific argument I simply cannot predict.

[dleviwing]

Andrew;
As long as mankind remains arrogant in believing his mind and consciousness is something special to the universe, he is doomed to travel the path of ignorance and eternally blinded to reality. The mind and consciousness are pure physical motions and interaction of matter. It is truly difficult for human beings to accept that they are no more important to the universe than a grain of sand on the beach.

BTW: I liked your paper even though I was unable to agree with its suppositions.
Welcome to ToeQuest.

[merlin wood]

Having mentioned my blog at: http://foranewageofreason.blogspirit.com and in response to dleviwing, in particular, I thought I'd better copy here the beginning of my blog. This is the introduciton to a 15,800 word argument that justifies a diagrammatic nonlocal causal hypothesis from the experimental evidence of quantum physics, and which is then supported firstly by Big Bang cosmological theory and observable astronomical evidence, and then by living organisms with regard to certain problems of mind and consciousness and general features of their behaviour.

Introduction - the problem of natural organisation

The conclusion could be that the findings of modern science show that life does not have enough purpose or significance from a human point of view. Or, alternatively, from what can be considered that science at present doesn't adequately or saisfactorily explain of matter and energy in general, we might wonder whether the last universal scientific discovery could prove otherwise. Although we need to bear in mind that, like all discoveries that can be properly called scientific, such a discovery would need to be made and supported by examining just the ordinary evidence that can be consistently confirmed.
So we can propose that there are, at present, inadequate scientific answers to three major questions concerning the nature of the universe that includes life on Earth and, in the hypothesis that follows, these are considered together in relation to the available natural and experimental evidence.

These questions are:

(1) Given the known action of the forces, how can matter be or remain organised out of its smallest or subatomic parts?
So although a mathematically complex and successful quantum theory has been developed that explains the visible, chemical, radioactive and electromagnetic properties of matter in terms of the behaviour of the subatomic parts of matter, such theory cannot explain the behaviour that can be uniquely described of quantum objects called wave, spin and entanglement in terms of the invisible and variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion. Only this behaviour can be described as being universally of a certain form and the wave behaviour of the electron - as the universal outer component of atoms and molecules- can be said to prevent it from falling into the atomic nucleus. And for such reasons the conclusion could be that only a sufficient cause and effect explanation of this quantum behaviour in terms of quantum objects in motion would account for how matter can be and remain organised out of its subatomic parts, and despite the forces acting within and upon it, and so how matter in any form can exist at all.
Given the interpretations of quantum physics that have been most widely preferred by physicists such a causal explanation would be impossible in principle. But there is just one kind of mathematically detailed interpretation with its own quantum mechanics, which was first successfully devised by David Bohm and published in 1952, that does describe a further cause to the forces from its effects upon quantum objects in motion. One can argue that this causal interpretation has been unpopular amongst physicists largely for historical and for no adequate scientific reasons.
For there is no measurement problem in the Bohmian determinate account, as is encountered in the indeterminate Copehagen interpretation; it is the only account that to any extent explains the experimental results in terms of the hidden variable behaviour of quantum objects in motion and it is consistent with a wide range of quantum evidence. Also, with regard to all the evidence of matter on the smallest scale, especially given the powerful action of the forces and that its subatomic components are measured to be so small that matter in any form consists almost all of the space between these components, one can reasonably hold that an additional cause needs to act so as to maintain or conserve the natural form and organisation of matter as atoms and molecules.
However, neither the existence nor nature of any additional cause to the forces - or its effects upon matter or energy - can be both sufficiently justified and described just from any of the evidence found of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale. And nor could the nature of such a cause be described by any mathematical argument from any of this evidence.

(2) How has the universe on the scale of planets, stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters evolved into this organised form?
So at present there needs to be a theory of cosmic inflation where, within the first minute fraction of a second at the beginning of the expanding universe a period is required when. it seems, at least, the expansion defied special relativity by accelerating to faster than the speed of light and then somehow decelerated back to less than this speed. The strength of this theory rests on the fact that, while assuming the action of the forces alone, only it accounts for certain large scale general features concerning the uniformity, 'flatness' and structure of the observable universe. Although that this inflationary period actually occurred cannot be confirmed by any direct observation.
Then to explain other general features including the speed of orbital motion of stars around spiral galaxies, according to present calculations that assume only the action of gravity on the large scale, at least 90% of the matter in the universe needs to consist of an unknown type of non-reflecting matter. No such dark matter, however, has been directly detected by any means despite over twenty years of experimental research. While a very recent development is to replace the idea of dark matter with an updated conception of the ether.

(3) What is the true nature of the mind and consciousness?
So while much is now known about the workings of the brain and nervous system, the questions of how consciousness is possible and whether the mind exists as an invisible or immaterial entity in its own right in addition to the body and, if so, how it could so exist, remain a complete mystery to established science, at least.
-----
Here we find that all three of these questions could only be answered by examining enough natural and experimental evidence together so as to find, justify and describe enough details of a cause that could only be described from its effects and that would act universally and constantly in addition to all the forces.

So, in general, we can consider that by being causes that either push or pull objects with a continally varying strength of effect the forces of physical contact, electromagnetism and gravity can only explain efects upon matter and energy that continually vary.

Whereas the universe of atoms molecules, living organisms, radiant energy, galaxies of stars and clusters of galaxies is of a particular form, which therefore does not vary continually. The evidence indicates. however, that the known forces are the only causes that act universally in three dimensional space. While the only effects at a distance between objects that have been measured to occur in addition to the forces in any physics experiment are those of quantum entanglement, and these effects have no measurable strength and are not measured to vary in any way at any distance and so any cause of these effects could not, like all the forces, be described as acting locally to objects.

Hence one could expect that, if it could be developed, a General Theory of Natural Organisation would justify and clearly describe enough details of a non-locally acting cause only when considering from a range of larger scale natural evidence in addition to that found of matter and radiant energy on the smallest scale. And any such theory would need to be be quite unlike any other presently found in physics or the other natural sciences...

[JAK]

Originally Posted by merlin wood Introduction - the problem of natural organisation

Originally Posted by merlin wood (1) Given the known action of the forces, how can matter be or remain organised out of its smallest or subatomic parts? (2) How has the universe on the scale of planets, stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters evolved into this organised form?

It would seem that a simpler approach would be acknowledgement of attraction forces (gravity, strong & weak force, octet rule, etc.) which bind matter together systematically. And life is born of dynamical systems which rely upon covalent bonds, ionic bonds, metallic bonds, hydrophobic qualities, etc. born of these forces. With the onslought of entropy, only dynamical systems can climb toward negative entropy (Schrodinger & Kauffman) and survive.

(3) What is the true nature of the mind and consciousness?

Brain/mind/consciousness mimics "survival of the fittest" (see my thread in Neuroscience). Consciousness is a defensive state of mind (see Venault & Chompothier as well as J. Allen Hobson) where adaptive behavior is created ("rehearsal work" as Freud called it).

To go deeper into "first causes" invokes laws and systematic processes as well. If God created anything, He, too, must have a systematic basis (otherwise, creation was a random event). Ultimate creation is outside the realm of the scientific method and can merely be conjecture at this point.

[merlin wood]

Originally Posted by JAK It would seem that a simpler approach would be acknowledgement of attraction forces (gravity, strong & weak force, octet rule, etc.) which bind matter together systematically. And life is born of dynamical systems which rely upon covalent bonds, ionic bonds, metallic bonds, hydrophobic qualities, etc. born of these forces. With the onslought of entropy, only dynamical systems can climb toward negative entropy (Schrodinger & Kauffman) and survive.

Originally Posted by JAK Brain/mind/consciousness mimics "survival of the fittest" (see my thread in Neuroscience). Consciousness is a defensive state of mind (see Venault & Chompothier as well as J. Allen Hobson) where adaptive behavior is created ("rehearsal work" as Freud called it).

Originally Posted by JAK To go deeper into "first causes" invokes laws and systematic processes as well. If God created anything, He, too, must have a systematic basis (otherwise, creation was a random event). Ultimate creation is outside the realm of the scientific method and can merely be conjecture at this point.

But see the full hypothesis at my blog, JAK

[merlin wood]

So it can look very much like you can't find out the facts from the natural and experimental evidence especially given the interpretations of quantum phyisics that are most widely accepted by physicists.

But one of the most crucial facts is the Bohmian mechanis works as a systematic mathematically justified argument for a nonlocal hidden variables hypothesis. And it is arguable that this hypothesis is the only interpretation that makes any real scientific sense. See:

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/qm-bohm/

[JAK]

Originally Posted by merlin wood http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/qm-bohm/

Whoa ... that's gonna shut me up for a while.

Thanks for the link. I'll start reading.

I'll be back later.

[dleviwing]

Who among you have actually performed any experiments that required the use of quantum physics? Until you do so, don’t refer to the quagmire of misinterpretations of Broglie-Bohm theory