|Subject: René Thom
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:36:39 +0200
From: Dimi Chakalov <email@example.com>
To: Marek Czachor <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Professor Czachor,
It is a real pleasure to read your latest article on quantum morphogenesis [Ref. 1]. I am sure René Thom would have greatly appreciated it, but he left the spacetime a few days ago. God bless him.
May I try to add a few comments to your wonderful paper.
Regarding Sec. IX, Morphogenesis of complementarity [Ref. 1], please recall that the feedback may come from Sheldrake's morphogenetic field [Ref. 2], which can not, even in principle, be located on the spacetime hypersurface,
I also believe that non-commutative propositions can indeed be separated into independent parts without any destruction or "collapse". They might co-exist peacefully in a special propensity-state which is both 'one' and 'many' (hence a natural solution to Russell's paradox). This special propensity-state is just UNspeakable,
We can verify it with our brains, although it can not, and should not be found in the Hilbert space due to the linearity of standard QM. I believe its mathematical description is utterly needed for a complete theory of quantum gravity, but that's a bit different thread,
Wishing you and your colleagues all the best,
[Ref. 1] Marek Czachor et al.,
Quantum morphogenesis: A variation on a theme by R. Thom. Mon, 18 Nov 2002
[Ref. 2] R. Sheldrake (1989). The Presence
of the Past. Morphic Resonance and the Habits of Nature. New York:
Vintage, p. 306: "Second, the assumption of the hypothesis of formative
causation that morphic resonance takes place only from the past may be
wrong. It may emanate from the future as well, or even instead."