When I gave a plenary talk at the First International Conference on Consciousness, hosted by the United Nations University, the chairman (a physicist) asked me to summarize my views on consciousness and reality in a brief "haiku". (The complete talk was included in the conference book, and is posted at https://arxiv.org/abs/q-bio/0311006.)
The haiku I chose was:
Reality is strange but real
We need more color in our lives but less in our quarks
Please notice that I am one of those crazy heretics who, like Einstein (and Karl Popper and Ayn Rand and VI Lenin) persists in believing that there is such a thing as objective reality, even though I fully understand the arguments of Heisenberg and Bohr against the idea.
The followers of Heisenberg have made a very important point: they have a workable mathematical model, consistent with the quantum effects we see in the lab, while Einstein never did.
For many years, I have worked to address that point, by developing a new family of theories capable of addressing what we see in the lab, but consistent with the idea of objective reality. The past few weeks, I have made significant further progress towards that goal. I have even identified a specific mathematical theory of physics which might just "explain it all", and (being impatient and old)
posted it just yesterday at the "arxiv for heretics":
I did not even try arxiv, since I know the idea of objective reality is now considered as heresy by most apparatchiks, just as neural networks were considered as heresy for many, many years. (Now the very same people in AI who said for decades that neural networks would never work are trying to claim leadership in telling us what they are and how they work. Sad. But it taught me a lot of lessons about today's culture, how it worships innovation while doing its best to shield itself from it.)
Regarding "strange but real": in today's culture, some folks love "strange," and some others
(like 'tHooft) want to get back to real, but very few people can fully accept both at the strange time.
Louis de Broglie and Erwin Schrodinger were among those rare people, who demanded realistic models of the electron even as they fully appreciated noosphere and Sufi concepts, respectively.
If only such people were in key positions in our culture today!!
One caveat on the new paper:
section 1.2 is both too short and too long. Maybe, for the restrictive rules in journals today,
it would be better just to start from the mathematical issues (the main topic of the paper), and move all the context to an appendix. After all, who really cares about how the universe works? Such odd curious eccentricities as wondering how the universe works should best be moved to a final discussion section, But on the other hand, anyone really familiar with those issues will see that a lot more could be said... and I hope they would notice citations of previous work taking care of most of those other issues.
In the end, I expect people's religious blinders will be too great for them to really notice, let alone to
do the follow-on work which will be essential, UNTIL and UNLESS the key experiments are performed, in the realm of MQED, which do at least prove that there some basis for hope in this kind of endeavor.
In the meantime, there was a nice article recently in Scientific American, showing how the mapping of dark matter has demonstrated a kind of vast network, connecting all the galaxies in our cluster of galaxies at least. Just as we need to clean up certain basic points in QED before humans can appreciate the "standard model" issues in my paper, we may need to clean up the bigger issues with "standard model" physics before we are ready to really, serious take on the full complexity of dark matter, which after all is the bulk of the matter in the universe and what connects the ecology of the universe. But even my new paper.. well, the model does predict SOME aspects of dark matter, if one applies the statistical and thermodynamic tools I cite briefly.
'tHooft has occasionally said that he too firmly believes in objective reality, and has faith that chaos theory will somehow find a way to explain why quantum mechanics emerges as a higher-level statistical description of reality, and that this will somehow get us beyond the barrier implied by the Bell's Theorem experiments. I am ever so sad that he does not connect this deep and enlightened view with the concrete challenge of how to make it real. The CHSH theorem is a THEOREM, and theorems don't just go away; one must accept the need to pay attention to the conditions of the theorem, which have the implication that we MUST have a new formulation of measurement in QED in order to explain QED as such an emergent phenomenon. We now do have such a formulation of QED, and lack only for the key experiments to be done. What that does is then open the door to the kind of issues discussed in the new vixra paper... and, I hope, open the door to people who can demonstrate they can do that kind of algebra better than I can. The cause of objective reality certainly deserves better than my own meager best.