Update on the Transactional Model of Brain Dynamics

The Unexpected Transition from idealism to Realism
Reciprocal Information Transfer
Introduction.
General. There should really be nothing tricky or mysterious about faith values, whether the reference frame belief is theosophist, atheist, scientologist, agnostic or their variations. In normal, healthy human beings all beliefs have a common denominator, either they are rooted on sensory (phenomenological) factual observations, measurements of physical objects or events or rooted on extrasensory (non-phenomenological logical probabilities that can be inferred from those descriptions) explanations. The credibility of any ensuing judgment depends on the falsifiable consistence and predictability of the occurrence in question under standard environmental conditions during a given moment in time and space location. Another important aspect of the credibility of a given judgment is related to the probable truth content of either the sensory experience (ontology) or the extrasensory logical inference (epistemology) directly relevant to the occurrence being analyzed for reliable truth content.

It should be obvious that the sensory ontological/physical presence is directly verifiable whereas the extrasensory epistemological/metaphysical ‘presence’ is based on their probability of occurrence. Please consider that the object or event may be physically present but outside the threshold of the human brain sensory resolution (such as microorganisms, molecules, atoms, etc.). In this case its physical but invisible presence has to be established inferentially by the predictable consequences of its probable presence if and only we can justify with logical arguments a probable direct causally efficient agency responsible for the predictable consequences epistemologically. In the absence of direct sensory information we now properly substitute the perceptual information with temporary, reliable cognitive information, the epistemological inference. Hopefully in the future a positive prediction of the occurrence is reinforced by instrumental micro descriptions of the direct causally efficient physical agents. It is also possible to infer a probable physical causal agency by functional criteria based on their predictable influence on specific brain loci activity as indirectly measured by falsifiable f-MRI recordings. Notice how we depart from a direct sensory experience to an indirect instrumental equivalent. Can this equivalence still reside inside the ontological domain of discourse, quare.
But, what if a direct or indirect physical causal agent may not even be ontologically described or epistemologically explained?

Specific. Enter the domain of the hybrid model-poem ‘singularity’ we have baptized as the ‘epistemontological’ biopsychosocial (BPS) unit model of brain dynamics. We hope that by attempting (an unfinished work yet) a reconciliation of the well documented and reliable ontological and epistemological literature it will provide another credible and truthful restatement of the age old question ‘what is the absolute nature of human conscious existential reality’. In so doing it will add added another dimension to the ongoing discourse on the evolution of complexity as it underscores the human species biopsychosocial survival imperative against natural destructive odds and the human exclusive capacity to transcend the primitive BPS mode to create the unique civilization no other advanced species can. The transcendental escape from the limiting 4-d space-time Minkowsky biosphere into transfinite manifolds is an ongoing effort to search for credible and convincing answers to explain the elusive conundrum of human life and consciousness that survives across generations while other better adapted species become history.

Unfortunately, many intelligent and well educated humans have not been able to escape and transcend the limiting scope of the exclusive BPS existential reality and use their natural intellectual endowments to pursue the self indulging conveniences of power, wealth and control, many a times at the expense of the less fortunate citizens that are entitled also to be healthy, happy and cooperatively convivial so they can actively participate in the creation of our progressive civilization to the extent of their endowed capacities. Consequently, there is no doubt about the biological survival priority of preserving all life, that is the proper role of organized religions in the Judeo ChrIslamic tradition and their equivalent belief systems whether atheistic, agnostic or scientological. Once this neuro-humoral control of the emotional aspects of ongoing existence that properly creates the psychosocial emotional experience of blind faith when exposed to it, it now needs to add another dimension of belief for those with those interests, commitments, curiosity and abilities to carry them on as documented in recorded history accounts as the life of the prophets. These prophets and their equivalents are the few ones that have carried the burden of preserving human lives against unfavorable odds across generations.

What institutions will produce the new prophets of the 21st. Century, the materialist cults, the radical extreme religionists, the Sartrean hedonic existentialists or the updated religious institutions? The update consists in providing additional rational arguments for those already enjoying the emotional faith to consolidate their belief. We have seen how as the result of the technological information explosion new generations have evolved free from the shackles of radical extremists in the Middle East and in our local midst. In a more sophisticated way the technological information explosion has also generated the means of creating controls, greed, wealth and power for exploitation of the ‘condemned of the earth’ as we witness the globalization of the economy and the monopolistic capitalism effort to control the means of production at the expense of others less fortunate in resources to survive the new technology demands, a new version of survival of the fittest at any cost and it may worsen as the traditional religious organizations continue their rituals ignoring the societal unrelenting evolutionary paths towards an exclusive materialistic interpretation of reality fueled by the information explosion. Adherents of the physicalist cults are now geared to grab attention and power using epistemological tools and unconvincing arguments suggesting that theoretical constructs of reality can create reality. Like suggesting predicates or attributes of objects/events like shape, form or color can exist independently from the object/event that made it possible! The map representation created the territory being mapped!

I think the confusion with epistemology is that many a times a deliberate attempt by some scholars to market their ideas with no concern for their probable truth content, so long as their ideas’ sales pitch look brainy and elegant; it’s mostly about self-indulgence. If everybody, anywhere, always, in a predictable and consistent way gets sick with same signs and symptoms because of their traceable common denominator experience of e.g., eating dirty fruits or never washing your hands when eating, then it is not necessary to always insist on the healer to demonstrate a sensory-based identity of the offending bacteria/microorganism to relieve a patient of his ailment. One can cognitively posit the presence of offending microorganisms invisible to the naked eye when based on the epistemological knowledge of the consistent and predictable consequences of their environmental physical presence. This is the easiest scenario for illustration purposes.
The confusion arises when dealing with very complex events dynamically evolving. In this scenario the indirect knowledge of a causally efficient agency may properly substitute the factual, phenomenological agent perceptual identification until the latter can at least be temporarily inferred from the obvious consequences it causes.
The confusion is compounded when the predicate consequences become ‘animated’ by their users and are made to become a magical mysterious reality independent from the physical causal agent that made it possible!!
Unfortunately there will always be consistently-experienced consequences that will escape sensory description or even explanatory epistemological inferences when linguistic precision is absent. This last scenario is the fertile soil that breeds the model poems of reality appealing only to the emotional component of our existential reality that all religions properly encourage to keep people safely alive, feeling happy and socially/cooperatively convivial.

But we cannot leave out the rational component for the sake of completeness, we need to integrate both the physical ontological-perceptual description and the metaphysical epistemological-conceptualization of coexisting/interacting dynamic variables awaiting representation in symbolic or sentential logic format that facilitates their analysis.

If we can distinguish the epistemological conceptual explanation from the ontological perceptual description of the same object/event and see the need to consider both as a complementary unit whole; the empirical with the ideal, then iy shouldn’t be so difficult to understand the details of the complex argumentation that follows.

To better appreciate the overwhelming complexity of an objective analysis, it should be noticed the number and quality of the physical ontological descriptions of the object/event as perceptually sensed, measured or observed, directly or indirectly with instruments, from metaphysical, epistemological conceptualizations explanations directly or indirectly derived from such sense-phenomenal object or event. The conceptual representation may be expressed in symbolic or sentential logic for ease of analysis. We need also to distinguish the invariant from the variable parameters dynamically interacting or not as Dirac’s model genially conceptualized. (see below) Equally relevant are clear distinctions between the inherited or acquired origin/source of the information content. As we discover more and more examples of microorganisms and chemicals ability to modify and causally influence the RNA/DNA transcription process the less importance we should give this distinction between the inherited and the learned.
Last but not least in importance is the language syntax structure of the adopted language when reporting, in either subjective first or objective third person, a narrative account of the occurrence.
Almost exhaustive searches for the simplest analytical tool capable of generating a credible model poem encompassing all the identified relevant complex variables at play, suggested a combination of Cramer’s ‘transactional model’ and Dirac’s analytical approach, all being published in numerous blogs and many books sold by Amazon Books, Inc. including a “Treatise on Neurophilosophy of Consciousness, a BPS Model of Brain Dynamics” and 6 volumes of textbooks with similar titles. Most of this content can be found in our family domain site at .

We found it convenient to adopt and modify Dirac’s model to account for the space-time evolutionary path of a dynamically evolving supercomplexity we briefly discuss below as ‘speculations and conjectures’.
Perhaps the most important feature of this model approach is the distinction between the invariant features of the unit microscopic physical particle component as they interactively aggregate into the total macroscopic bulk with characteristic measurable identifying attributions we describe as their predicates. We will stress the importance of model representations which must derive from solid falsifiable inputs of information as illustrated by the ‘twistor’ theory.

Argumentation.
The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (TIQM) still faces a number of valid challenges. We will briefly address some of the fundamental criticisms mentioned in the Introduction above. According to the original account (See Cramer 1986), a transactional interpretation (TI) explains a transaction as a four-vector standing wave whose endpoints are the emission and absorption events. Its usefulness has been challenged on the basis of its actual 4-dimensional space-time process or is it just taking place on a level of possibility rather than actuality.
In my opinion, many learned scientists and philosophers scholars have neglected to consider that either interpretation is inevitably the account version of a human being linguistic narrative to other human beings with all the species cognitive and sensory limitations that it entails as briefly exposed below.
Mathematical justifications and precision. In my personal opinion the ‘offer waves’ (OW) fit of the Schrödinger equation and its expansion to include negative domains by using complex numbers makes it possible to posit the presence of ‘confirmation waves’ (CW) fitting the complex conjugate Schrödinger equation. While I may agree that a transaction is a genuinely stochastic event, I disagree with the certainty that TIQM does not obey a deterministic equation. Stochastic events are so complex in nature that give the human observer the appearance of being random in nature, until an instrumental measure is performed (double slit experiment). Experimental results based on completed transactions provide a reliable derivation of the Bohm Rule rather than assuming it exclusively applies according to the standard Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum mechanics (QM). However, the big challenge of proving if the transactional interpretation (TI) will ever be testable in the laboratory remains.
My short quip answer to the conundrum is to recognize the superiority of sense phenomenal validation for ontological macro objects/events such as those we can experience if we walk inside the house blindfolded or, in a given moment we walk outside the house in a clear, starry night and observe the puzzling recursive cycles of predictable cosmological complex order we humans cannot control/influence and which cannot spontaneously be generated and sustained as also predicted by the entropy physical laws of nature.. But just as convincing is the presence of those objects/events we all consistently, falsifiable and predictably experience that escape sensory detection or sometimes even a linguistic description? Are we justified in denying their vital presence in the existential reality of our environmental midst? Instead we can always explain their occurrence rationally using symbolic or sentential logic representations and using epistemological, mathematical logic tools, be they quantum logic and/or conditional/Bayesian probability calculus. The arguments we have defended is that neither the physical phenomenological nor metaphysical theoretical abstractions can exclude each other because they constitute a complementary/functional unit whole to compensate for our human physical brain perceptual and conceptual deficits compared to other better adapted species sharing our biosphere environment.
While TIQM may not be currently testable in classical labs, that may be the consequence of our human limitations and should not be a deterrent to adopt it because it has been proven capable of generating new testable predictions on the basis of the probability of their occurrence as witnessed by the unrelenting march of technological and other complex developments. Keep in mind that even our most intelligent, better adapted chimp brothers and sisters can never accomplish that feat. In whose hands then are we leaving our civilization to develop as humans complete their life cycles? Do we have a responsibility for future generations? Or do we live just to satisfy the biopsychosocial (BPS) imperative that we share with other evolved species? The TI is not an exact interpretation of classical QM Bohm Rule and the Copenhagen Interpretation demands but, like the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), TI provides a logical physical map to follow with all the formal symbolic/sentential logic representations as a compass guide into a possible evolving reality as detailed in the Bohm Rule. It is a probable road map path to ideally explain that which the senses cannot describe as complexity continues its unrelenting evolutionary progression into the future.
Just as ‘untestable’ it appears to be my proposed theoretical blueprint sub-model of a dark baryonic DNA/RNA receptor codon in neuron networks to bridge the connection between unidentified coordinates in transfinite n-1 dimension space-time and the human pre-motor neocortex attractor phase space. I hope it can be experimentally shown to control the reciprocal information transfer as detailed elsewhere and briefly mentioned here. This has been my incomplete partial reply to another challenge to the Copenhagen interpretation: “Where in space-time does a transaction occur?” So long as the brain dynamics map representation is not conceived as causally efficient in generating the neocortical tissue territory it is describing, as some radical theoretical exclusivists and religionists would have it to fuel hidden political agendas. IMHO, any justifiable explanation that works and can keep humans alive, biopsychosocially happy and socially accepted so (s)he can continue participating –to the extent of their inherited or acquired resources- across generations in the creation of this wondrous civilization that no other species can, is welcome.
Another causal efficiency issue has seriously challenged the consistency of the TIQM especially when combined with the super symmetry requirements of ‘string theory’, ‘loop’ variation. The formal arguments are beyond the scope of this brief presentation but a related explanation is available in the ‘Twistor’ theory. (See below) But first, the foundations of TIQM as modified and adapted to our own BPS Model of Brain Dynamics in “Neuro-philosophy of Consciousness.”
Non locality Argument.
This is perhaps the most important and most controversial aspect of TIQM. We need an explanation for the consistent, mysterious measurements correlations between the properties of distant systems that remain operationally linked through non-local influences across space where no light signal can travel. The best known example of the invisible link is provided by the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen/Bohm (EPR/B) strongly suggesting it. In a nutshell, as seen in the diagram below, if particle spin pairs are separated and emitted in opposite directions from a source, they remain mysteriously entangled as measured by spin meters instruments capable of measuring spin components along various directions even when situated miles apart as shown below.

My own explanation, within the context of my proposed transactional reciprocal codon receptor in neurons linking/entangling/bridging a transfinite n-1 dimensional source and an acceptor brain site at the pre-motor neocortex. They are functionally coupled and influence each other by spin coupling as published in detail in “Neurophilosophy of Consciousness”, Volume IV under “Speculations and Conjectures.” Chapter I argues for the “Reciprocal Transactional Information Transfer Neocortex Transfinite” where neocortex refers to the decision-making machinery in the premotor area of the human neocortex attractor phase space whereas transfinite refers to a set of undefined spatial-temporal coordinates outside our local Minkowsky macro 4-dimensional sensory space situated at n-1 dimensional transfinite space coordinates. It all boils down to an (metaphysical) explanation and not an ontological (material physics) description of objects and events of experimental data by the Bell experiments testing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen/Bohm (EPR/B) actually implying non-local events. The unexpected results suggested to me the possibility of an entanglement between the coordinates in the extrasensory non-local space time realm and our local premotor area of the brain where probable solutions to ongoing problems are considered before their neuro-humoral mediated motor execution.
In my model the communication between a transmitter and a receiver is mediated via a receptor bridging a transfinity source of cosmic radiation and a brain premotor area receiver via a dark baryionic receptor transduction DNA/RNA codon. Cramer’s original model explaining entanglement between source and destination was rudimentary and did not involve either reciprocity feature or a mediator receptor of dark baryonic matter to mediate the transfer when Cramer studied the olfactory system. I modified Cramer’s model by including reciprocal transmission and suggesting the dark baryonic codon mediator. This allowed me to extend the application beyond the olfactory system by generalizing the transfinite cosmic radiation effects to general modifications in the translation/transduction processing of genetic codons information into altered enzyme production without being detail-specific about any particular enzyme protein modification. The brain neuronal circuitry I proposed represented a cooperation between the slow poke synaptic information transfer and the faster than light non-local entanglement providing the means of spontaneous spin-spin coupling and synchronization we experimentally measure between transmitter and receiver are separated by great distances.
The details of the non-local effect suggests that the particles have a random spin when they leave the source in opposite directions and become definite only with the first spin measurement implying that the outcome of this measurement is a matter of chance. IMO a stochastic progression needs not to be random, only more difficult to ascertain its location experimentally. Be it as it may, if, e.g., the first measurement is set for a z-spin measurement on the L-particle, the L-particle will register a spin either clockwise (spin up) or anti-clockwise (spin down) about the z-axis (perpendicular to the 2-dimensional x-y plane) with an equal chance of producing an instantaneous change in the spin orientation of the distant R-particle by non-local spin coupling we call entanglement. The explanation is given as a ‘collapse’ of a traveling Schrodinger’s wave function. In my view, the experimenter causes a collapse of a particle being carried by a wave (de Broglie’s ‘wavicle’), wherever that particle may be. Particles generate waves, waves never generate particles in our human experience!
A proper human understanding of TIQM requires a special self directed introspective distinction between the “I” observer and that ‘other’ object/event being observed. This effort allows you to adopt the proper perspective (framework of reference) before your analysis. I feel there are too many brilliant people either paying too much attention to a branch of the tree and losing perspective of the forest or the reverse, generalizing too much about the forest ecosystem and not being very detailed about the specifics of a particular branch in a given tree. Or none of the above for the known listing trollers that joke or demonize with ‘ad hominems’ instead. 🙂 That distinction will help to understand better what a ‘wave function collapse’ is. IMHO it was all about an attempt to explain the mystery of the Einstenian ‘spooky actions at a distance’ or non-locality requiring ultra luminal speeds. I call it a mystery because the Bell’s speculations results from falsifiable, consistent probability-filtered measurements but lacking solid ontological/phenomenological underpinnings and thereby not amenable to experimental testing on its truth value certainty. But, sure as hell, valid to understand spin-spin, matter-antimatter coupling and instantaneous phase synchronization between particles separated by distances measured in cosmological units. Here is the way I explain it to myself how the whole panoply of facts and fancy about TIQM come together in a nutshell:
I will start with a reply to a well known theoretical mathematician/physicist who still challenges the necessary requirement of identifying at least the probable location of a causally efficient force responsible for the consequent results he can only formulate in symbolic or sentential metaphysical abstractions he swears by as an exclusive necessary and sufficient explanation. Here was my reply to a discussion of ‘twistors’ relation to TIQM theory when I challenged the necessary assumption of a random spin orientation of the particles when leaving the source in opposite directions of a stochastic/chaotic travel. (refer to figure above):
“Unless I am overlooking something important here, the causally efficient force (f=ma) is accelerating a physical mass spin particle being carried in a wave (de Broglie’s ‘wavicle’) across a magnetic field. Conservation of energy principles drives the particle (photon?) across the least resistance path as a spiraling ‘twistor’ to minimize the anticipated frictional resistance of a linear path. Light cannot exist without a source (the particle photon or an unidentified outside source (cosmic radiation from transfinite sources?). According to the transactional model (TIQM) the photon continues the twistor path below and above the light cone while the light enters the ‘twistor’ (left  right) and exits the ‘twistor’ in the opposite direction (right  left) soon after spiral completes a 90 degrees rotation. IMO, what is important to notice here is that the accelerated massive particle remains entangled with the carrier wave (‘spooky’ non-local action at a distance) -now in a negative domain after completing a full rotation- even though it the spin particles left the source in opposite directiondirections. This leads me to suspect that it is the photon particle itself the source of ‘light radiation’ through perhaps a nuclide radioactive(?) decomposition. Light needs a material particle to produce it, like other predicates of matter (shape, form, color, etc.).
.Why Epistemology. Finally, another argument about the necessary but insufficient exclusive consideration of the phenomenology-based Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of human existential reality as opposed to the modified TIQM BPS model incorporating also the metaphysical aspects of our real time, ongoing human experience into a unit ‘epistemontological’ hybrid wholeness rooted on measurable human brain dynamics. This comes about because, as it seems, our lab researchers and arm chair theoreticians have neglected the obvious fact that ours is a human story of our lives narrated in our adopted language, with all the implications of our human brain limitations in the cognitive epistemological explanations of those vital aspects of species survival we cannot describe adequately on a phenomenological/ontological basis.
As it happens many times there are always many consistent invisible objects/events in nature present that even escape linguistic explanations where no distinction is possible between the state of a natural object/event and what I cognitively know or could conceivably know about it because experientially there is only an awareness of its consistent and demonstrable presence by their causally-linked effects or qualia experienced. This is intrinsically the case for the distant n-1 dimensional cosmological macro object /events or the 4-dimensional micro objects/events about atoms and electrons, quarks and strings, we can only indirectly measure or consistently observe their effects that we then represent as metaphysical logic symbols to epistemologically substitute for the more reliable but absent phenomenology. Enter TIQM to reconcile the fundamentally conflicting positions of the phenomenal realism of the seen and the unquestionable presence of the unseen as developed in the unmodified Cramer transactional model poems and the necessary but incomplete physicalist positivism of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
Once we become aware of our human species comparative limitations in sensory and brain combinatory resolution of reality, it leaves open the question of whether or not there could be possible to have an absolute macro description of phenomenal reality as a fact. We can detail similar arguments to our conceptual explanations of physical reality below the threshold of human sensory resolution. We believe, however, that both analytical considerations can compensate each other’s limitations and a hybrid Epistemontological theory is possible.

Summary and Conclusions.

The Unexpected Transition from Idealism to Realism.
The information explosion we have witnessed in the last two decades has unexpectedly accelerated the relentless, forward evolutionary process of complexity as experienced and narrated by human language accounts in communications. There is an insurmountable amount of verifiable evidence sustaining the ‘real’ demonstrable fact that only the human brain and that of our primate relatives have the ability to pay attention to objects/events in the audio-visual scene without always looking or listening at them directly. This is done by recreating an internal map of the previous sense phenomenal world we experience by mapping our sensory field onto specific brain cells. The mapping includes local and non-local verifiable observables. This is the existentially real case whether the ‘wave’ or ‘field’ particle carrier we conveniently derive as an ideal notion fits the previous consistent falsifiable experience or not. Thus, the local quantum physics interpretation implies being bounded within a finite space-time region where an observable object/event exhibits a ‘real’ behavior conditioned to the relevant environmental circumstances properly belonging to the space-time region itself. This is the classical Copenhagen Interpretation (CI). It is along these lines that the algebraic approach focuses on ‘real’ physical local and ‘ideal’ metaphysical non-local representations (symbolic or sentential logic) on a probability basis emphasizing that the notion of a field or wave is only a convenient derivative notion from the ‘real’ local actual measurements that preceded the ‘ideal’ non-local explanation.
The competing model-poem that ‘ideally’ explains the same ‘real’ phenomenological description of the object/event sensory reality that preceded it is called the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics TIQM. The advantage of the transactional interpretation is, in my opinion, that it incorporates probable interpretations of ongoing verifiable existential experiences that are irreducible to linguistic coding in symbolic or sentential logic representations. It’s emphasis on sense-phenomenal empirical ‘reality’ descriptions are more reliable especially when the Transactional Interpretation (TI) predictions are confirmed. Consequently the Lagrangian Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is our most empirically well-confirmed physical theory where the ‘ideal’ explanation of the metaphysical component of ‘real’ empirical object/events descriptions harmonize. The reliance on verifiable sensory facts excels in the expediency of calculations and their intuitive understanding because it is closer to phenomenological experimental manipulation in the physics lab. That makes the derived metaphysical ‘ideal’ model poem more credible when applying the theory to make predictions. Anytime that a pragmatic empirical ‘reality’ description of the occurrence of an object/event and an ‘ideal’ metaphysical logic sophistication explanation (i.e., there is an isomorphic mapping of the elements of a C*-algebra into the set of bounded operators of the Hilbert space.) lead to the same existential reality conclusion, then pragmatic ‘realism’ trumps mathematical rigor due to the resulting simplicity, efficiency, and ease in understanding. When TIQM is mathematically modified further to incorporate the speculative probability of identifying the n-1 dimension space coordinates of probable sources of cosmological information input located beyond our local 4-dimensional space-time, the TIQM becomes a superior ‘ideal’ model when also explaining non-local sources of information input (e.g., measurable cosmic radiation) causally efficient in influencing the human evolving complex ‘reality’.
The TIQM model superiority is best illustrated by the Dirac notation, an empirically based ‘ideal’ representation where the ‘entanglement’ coupling is based on the complementary pairing/coupling of opposite spin unit particulate matter. The mechanism needs to be at the subatomic micro level but two macromolecules like DNA or RNA can be functionally coupled iff their micro components are spin-coupled first. That way local or ‘non-local transfinite information’ input can gain empirical ‘de facto’ codon control of the transduction/translation genetic genotype machinery resulting in verifiable empirical phenotype results as observed in experimental labs as an induced re-arranging of the corresponding polynucleotide helical structure and the subsequent functional enzyme production.
It should be noted that the sophisticated mathematical axiomatic (logic) ‘ideal’ representation of the verifiable ‘real’ fact observation of an object/event in a derived wave or field conveyance regards the conveyance conceptualization as the fundamental notion for no convincing reason other than the symbolic/sentential representational elegance. The ‘ideal’ elegant map sophistication has unjustifiably become more important than the ‘real’ empirical territory it observes! Thus, the Wightman axiomatic quantum field theory (QFT) becomes thereby superior to the algebraic QFT even when both are abstract explanations of an ‘ideal’ field with infinite degrees of freedom for sub-atomic quantum particles that appear in special circumstances.
As noted earlier, the less mathematically elaborated algebraic QFT abstraction originated from observables in the measurable local and the probable non-local environments whereas the more mathematically sophisticated axiomatic approach is limited to a conceptual elaboration of the field, a derived carrier model notion from local quantum physics. Furthermore, in the classical local quantum physics interpretation an observable is regarded as a property belonging to space-time region itself, i.e., Higgs Bosons ‘creating’ something out of a nothing vacuum? Is this a new mathematical ‘Genesis’ criticizing the ‘Delta Function’ as improper and laden with self contradictions as Von Neumann opined?
Fortunately, as it turns out, von Neumann was the proponent of a new ‘ideal’ framework based on Hilbert’s theory of operators and Dirac was the proponent of a ‘real’ framework of reference amenable to the rigors of testing of the local phenomenal events in the biophysical chemistry labs (e.g., optogenetic testing to cover the micro invisibilities) and the non-local events in the astronomy observatories covering the cosmological invisibilities.
The Dirac Delta Function is limited in scope when defined over the ‘real’ line, is zero everywhere except for one point at which it is infinite, and yields unity when integrated over the real line. Von Neumann promotes an alternative framework, which he characterizes as being “just as clear and unified, but without mathematical objections.” He emphasizes that his framework is not merely a refinement of Dirac’s; rather, it is a radically different framework that is based on Hilbert’s theory of operators-valued distributions. When objectively analyzed both arguments have their own merits but would be incomplete if either one claims exclusivity. If we had to choose only one it is clear that when pragmatics and rigor lead to the same conclusion, then, as I said above, pragmatics trumps rigor due to the resulting simplicity, efficiency, and increase in understanding made possible. Most important, however, is that it allows for unexpected new environmental circumstances as they get empirically detected. In other words, the TIQM approach adopts the pragmatic orientation in the Lagrangian QFT (based on perturbation theory, Feynman’s path integrals and renormalization techniques). The “axiomatic” QFT refers specifically to the ‘ideal’ component of existential reality based on operator-valued mathematical distributions.
The undersigned is not that familiar with the Weinberg ‘real’ pragmatic formulation that allegedly zeroes in human physical intuition and provides heuristics that are important when performing calculations; however, the mathematical theorists do not consider it mathematically rigorous enough and pay little attention to the fact that their proposed mathematical structure does not provide any techniques for connecting with experimentally determined quantities. It is clear that these two approaches to QFT, the rigorous axiomatic and the Lagrangian pragmatic are rival research programs. I think we can get the best of both propositions that harmonizes with ongoing complex phenomenal reality as it evolves and I satisfy my curiosity as to their philosophical foundations. Then, because of my neurophilosophical interests in using the best available strategic tool when analyzing the mysterious struggle of our human species trans-generational survival against odds I compare the competing mathematical strategies and wonder why use the infinitesimals of classical quantum physics when you can use n-1 dimension transfinite parameters, more meaningful in the analysis of current existential reality.
Who, when leisurely meditating on the issues of life and human consciousness upon retirement, has not immediately reckon the relevance of particulate brain matter in reciprocal motion inside and outside a physical brain and the force(s) fueling the massive unit particles to exhibit dynamic reciprocal motion according to the well established laws of physics? It was all about analytically speculating how such motion carrying the invisible micro unit dimensional particle in a putative field (electric, magnetic or both) or wave conveyance can be explained best using the available mathematical logic metaphysics tools. Dirac’s pragmatic approach proposed the equivalence of matrix mechanics and wave or field mechanics by using the Delta Function, an improvement on the Hilbert Space use by incorporating scalar metrics definable in terms of the mathematical scalar’s complex conjugate (a coupling/conjugation of a ‘real’ number + an ‘ideal’ imaginary number). That strike of genius makes possible to analogize such coupling with the mysterious experimental non-local coupling of opposite spin particles (Φ is the topological anti-dual of Φx) at a distance when the source fired them in opposite space-time directions. The double slit experiments show their remaining entangled connectedness even when miles apart. The stochastic nature of the particles as they travel in opposite directions until one of them ‘randomly’ selects one of various spin orientations available in the instrument after which the other particle mysteriously selects only the opposite complementary orientation, a ‘spooky’ action at a distance as relativity considers the result. I personally think they remained coupled when they left the source. Our human brain limits in both the perceptual and conceptual resolution capacities makes my speculation impossible to measure but neither is it justified to assume their original randomness. How else can we simultaneously measure the position of a unit mass particle ‘m’ being accelerated ‘a’ a causally efficient force ‘f’ according to f=ma when the ‘ideal’ operators have no eigen values or eigen vectors? Here is the opportunity to calibrate the adequacy of competing mathematical physics ‘ideal’ algebras, one based on ‘real’ experimental observables related to bounded space-time locations like the finite double cone where light traveling in opposite directions intersect or an ‘ideal’ algebra based on ‘real’ relativistic QFT interpretations? You be the judge stay with the ‘ideal’ axiomatic version about how things should be (a la von Neumann) or transition to the ‘reality’ based version about how things probably are or predictably will be (a la Dirac), all things existentially relevant to human beings reality being considered. Dirac’s Hilbert space assigns generalized eigen functions to unit particle mass ‘m’ position and their instantaneous velocity ‘v’ from measurable F= mv momentum operators resulting in the nuclear spectral theorem where Φ and Φx remain connected as mathematically derived by an algebraic QFT of observables in 4-dimensional Minkowski space-time.
It is argued by professional mathematical physics theorists that by conditioning the mathematical operations to conform the standard ‘real’ locality axioms e.g., isotony, locality, covariance, additivity, positive spectrum, Dirac’s theory can be extended to reach the cosmologic invisibilities of transfinite space-time beyond. For the reasons stated above about the human species brain perceptual and conceptual resolution limitations, I am not including an unjustifiable inclusion of a mysterious and unique invariant vacuum state. This is the basis on which I am still working on an all encompassing TOE model poem of human existential reality incorporating TIQM and proposing the measurable details for the corroboration of a ‘Transactional dark baryonic reciprocal receptor DNA/RNA mediating information transfer between un identified transfinite space-time coordinates and premotor cortical acceptor in neocortical attractor phase space as published.

o Along the same lines as the ‘real’ versus ‘ideal’ justifiable arguments we now add additional evidence in behalf of the anticipated eventual transition from the abstract ‘ideal’ to the measurable ‘real’ paradigms explaining existential reality:

The report “Breakthrough Study Reveals Biological Basis for Sensory Processing Disorders in Kids.” constitutes the general explanation of the specific sensory processing disorders we clinically see in autism and the attention deficit hyperactivity disease (ADHD). It also underlines the importance of the human brain’s right hemisphere first impact with sensory input from ‘real’ environmental (external or body proper) input sources of new or familiar information before an adaptive response is either subconsciously implemented reflexly or after further analytical processing especially when processing unfamiliar sensory inputs. The master control nerve networks of frontal brain neocortex is continually processing information input arising from right hemisphere initial effort to coordinate ongoing activity from multiple sources such as Left temporal and parietal lobe multisensory input and Left frontal language processing Broca’s area. The frontal neocortex brain is continually assessed of the ongoing ‘real’ environmental biopsychosocial circumstances, from passive meditation to active social partying. When the new or familiar input is received at the Right hemisphere the master frontal neocortex analytical sorting of available response alternatives present in the neocortical pre motor attractor phase space. This is subsequently followed by a conscious activation of the adaptive motor choice neurohumoral response, all things considered. What is important to notice is how the brain synaptic ‘real’ time processing precedes in time the ‘ideal’ adaptive motor response especially in the presence of new/unfamiliar information sense-phenomenal input arrives in Right brain hemisphere. All of this complex analytical sorting immediately follows after a subconscious reflex motor response is released for the overall biological preservation of the human species priority as previously published and discussed by me in various HiQ listings and fora. This detailed explanation hopefully supports my biased view about the importance of the ‘real’ preceding the ‘ideal’ solution.

References:
Maudlin (1996, 2002) has demonstrated that TI is inconsistent.
Berkovitz, J. (2002). “On Causal Loops in the Quantum Realm,” in T. Placek and J. Butterfield (Ed.), Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Modality, Probability and Bell’s Theorems, Kluwer, 233-255.
Cramer J. G. (2005). “The Quantum Handshake: A Review of the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” presented at “Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics” Conference, Sydney, Australia, July 23, 2005. Available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Sydney_20050723_a.ppt
Kastner, R. E. (2006). “Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation and Causal Loop Problems,” Synthese 150, 1-14.
Marchildon, L. (2006). “Causal Loops and Collapse in the Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” Physics Essays 19, 422.
Daniel F. Styer, Miranda S. Balkin, Kathryn M. Becker, Matthew R. Burns, Christopher E. Dudley, Scott T. Forth, Jeremy S. Gaumer, Mark A. Kramer, David C. Oertel, Leonard H. Park, Marie T. Rinkoski, Clait T. Smith and Timothy D. Wotherspoon (2002) “Nine formulations of quantum mechanics,” American Journal of Physics 70, 288-297.
Family Domain site: http://delaSierra-Sheffer.net
Blog site: https://angelldls.wordpress.com/;
Books published: ;

Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq Deltona, Florida July 2013

About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at: http://delaSierra-Sheffer.net/
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s