Essay Abstract

The fundamental assumption we should examine is this: That awareness - the subjective experience occurring in alert human minds - is not a basic feature of matter that must be explained by a complete theory of physics. Physics attempts to understand the world around us, the world in which we find ourselves, and its phenomena. A skeptical position requires us to question all the sacred cows - to apply rational thought and the scientific method to all physical phenomena. We can ask, "How does the classical world emerge from the quantum world underlying it?" Brains are in the classical world. Awareness clearly is intimately related to and dependent on brains. Awareness is an undeniable, given, basic, phenomenon that arises in the classical world from the quantum mechanical world.

Author Bio

Rikki is a citizen scientist and graduate of UC Berkeley in Biochemcial Genetics, working in the field of trusted computing. She lives and works in Santa Cruz, CA.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

Rikki,

Love your essay. If I may offer up a few possible answers, I would start with the last; What is our purpose on earth? Looking at it in simple biological fractals, as the earth evolves into ever more of a singular organism, it develops a central nervous system, the medium of which appears to be humanity. Given that we are currently top predators in a collapsing ecosystem, getting there from here will take serious doing. Typically the development of complex nervous systems is energy expensive. Well we are certainly that. What is our function once we are there? For one thing, the purpose of a central nervous system is primarily the integrated survival of the organism and the perpetuation of it as a species. This may involve seeding other planets, or it may involve something of a far more spiritual nature, but we are not to that point anyway.

As for information, hanging around physicists, I'm getting a little sick of the term. Frankly most are craftsmen obsessed with the craft, not visionaries looking beyond it. Information naturally creates endless self referential feedback loops.

Energy manifests information and information defines energy. At best, information is just subjective, reductionistic framing. In my entry, I make the point that we are looking at time backward. By treating it as a measure, physics focuses on the effect of time, the sequence, not its cause, action. It is not a linear progression from past events to future ones, but the changing configuration that collapses potential into actual and replaces it with the next, ie. the future becoming past. Not the earth traveling the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becoming yesterday because the earth rotates. This makes time an effect of action, rather than a foundation of action. It is similar to temperature. Time is rate of change, while temperature is level of activity. Change the level of activity, as happens to quantum processes in gravitational fields, or in accelerated frames, and the rate of change is affected accordingly. The twin in the accelerated frame simply ages faster. It isn't traveling into the future faster, but the past faster.

The sequence of change is information, while the dynamic reality of the present is energy. As the energy is constantly evolving, it goes from past to future events. These events, being configuration states, are information and they go from being in the future, to being manifest, to being past.

Since our living brain is composed of energy, it goes from past to future events, while our mind, as the processing of that information, is a recording of those events receding into the past.

Think of it in terms of a factory; The products go from initiation to completion, while the production line points the other direction, consuming raw material and expelling finished product. Our brains process the input of raw information and quantize it as singular thoughts, which then are replaced by the next and recede into the past.

When we treat time as a progression from past events to future ones, it becomes a singular narrative, but when we think of it as a sea of interaction, these threads of individual motion are parts of a larger tapestry that is not going anywhere, since it is the only reality.

Quantum mechanics uses an external timeline and ends up in multiworlds, which makes sense, when you go from a determined past into a probabilistic future, where the only solution is to presume all possibilities must happen. On the other hand, if we view time as emerging as a consequence of action, the fate of the cat is determined by events. Future probabilities collapse into actualities. To use a real world example, prior to a race, there are multiple possible winners, but after it, there is only one actual winner.

We cannot fully know the future, even if the laws deciding its outcome are deterministic, because the lightcone of input doesn't exist prior to the occurrence.

As animate organisms, our bodies even have separate systems to process information and energy. While the central nervous system handles information, the respiratory, digestive and circulatory systems process energy.

It should also be noted that the two hemispheres of the brain, the left, linear logical and the right, intuitive, non-linear are at their primal core, a clock and a thermostat. The right brain perceives the multiple energetic actions in the environment, while the left, linear side navigates a singular, sequential path through that environment, making judgements and decisions in order to do so.

Keep in mind that only the measure of time is regular motion. Without the irregular motion, there would be no arrow, just a constant cycle.

Cause and effect is energy transfer, not sequence. Yesterday didn't cause today, any more than one rung on a ladder causes the next. It is the sun shining on a rotating planet which causes this sequence of events called "days." Thus the "events" can seem disconnected and random.

The problem with our current preferred religious model, monotheism, is the absolute is basis, not apex, so a spiritual absolute would be the raw essence of awareness from which we rise, not an intellectual and moral ideal from which we fell. Good and bad are the biological binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken, yet there is no clear line where the chicken ends and the fox begins. It is just a constant cycle of building and crashing complexity.

Even monism is problematic, since a universal state would be neutral, ie. zero, not one. While form requires dichotomous comparisons; expansion/contraction, positive/negative, up/down, conservative/liberal, youth/age, etc. Knowledge is a function of subjective framing. We can't see both sides of the coin at once and combining multiple perspectives results in loss of detail. Universal theories are reductionistic and generic, while attention to detail requires ignoring other information.

One and oneness are not the same. Oneness is connectivity, while one is a set. There is necessary connection, as one frequently slides into the other, much as an entangled state condenses into bits of information, or liberalizing social policies congeal into political fiefdoms. Energy expands, while mass contracts.

Obviously you have asked some very broad questions and hopefully I've given you food for thought, but I better shut myself up for the moment.

Hello Rikki,

I enjoyed reading your essay. I agree with you. The 'mindless universe' of physics cannot sensibly explain the world. And leads us instead deeper into a rabbit's hole of metaphysical beliefs. More phantasmagorical than anything from the past. In my essay, "The Metaphysics of Physics", I write

"... if the view leads to physical explanations [based on mathematics] which are counter-intuitive and defy common sense, or become too abstract and too removed from life and not supported by life, than we must not confuse mathematical deductions with physical realism. Rather, we should change our view!"

And also,

"The failure of Modern Physics is in not providing us with a 'physical view' that makes sense".

You write,

"The possibility fluctuations show up as waves when you want to see that, or particles when you look for that. But it really is neither. What is it? No one has any idea. "

You will find my answer to just this question in my essay! Please read, comment and rate it!

Best wishes,

Constantinos

  • [deleted]

Nice overview of physics absence of a definition for the awareness that all things must have..from photons to electrons to protons to atoms to molecules to bacteria to elephants..

To satisfy the rigor of physics, tho, we need a model that exhibits the probable property(s) of panpsychism and emergentism..

My essay proposes such: To Seek Unknown Shores

聽聽 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

Maybe you might read, comment, and rate it.. ?

8 days later
  • [deleted]

Hi Rikki,

Well said. I enjoyed your essay. I agree that consciousness is "the elephant in the room", and I think that pan-psychism is the only possible logical explanation for subjective experience.

In my essay "The Universe is not like a Computer" I also connect information with subjective experience.

Lorraine

Rikki,

You definitely strike to the heart of questions I was too timid to address head on.

I graduated college thinking I wanted to study Artificial Intelligence, but in the 80's it seemed to be mostly addressing how to make fingers and toes or making better 'logical systems' for playing chess and that AI failed to address anything close to what it means to be human or conscious.

Several years later, in a discussion with a nuclear physicist, I suggested that until physics understands what is required to sustain life and consciousness it would fail. He ridiculed me saying "physics has nothing to do with those things." I said, "Exactly" and just smiled. That was around the time I first discovered entanglement and have been chasing meaningful physics for such phenomena ever since.

I've come to see entanglement, superposition and the random nature of quantum phenomena to be comprehensible, but it requires a serious mental re-visualization of Reality. Once you get more than a few particles together, the mathematics of the wavefunction tends to becomes *dominated* by what Penrose calls "such matters," but it is assumed they can safely be ignored and assumed to cancel out. (It works, but this ignores the question "how then is the randomness generated?)

I don't buy that the nature of entanglement and superposition can be ignored any more than consciousness can be ignored.

I believe your intuition on this subject is quite strong. As I said, I was too timid to express in public--at least in my submission--but I am very glad that you were willing to make a much bolder pronouncement.

You might like how I take some of the 'magic' out entanglement and superposition in my essay, maintaining its empirical and mathematical grounding, without denying its existence or making it any less astounding! I also try to give a way to intuit these entanglements in a way that preserves relativity and might be less offensive to those who shut down as soon as someone says 'superluminal' or 'faster-than-light.'

In any case, boldly done. Good luck in the competition!

Dean

P.S. I don't believe I covered randomness in my essay, but there seems to be a viable connection between that and entanglements as well. My essay if you are interested: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1527

16 days later

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Rikki,

In your essay you intuitively try to confirm, that awareness is something basic. Maybe the deepest your sentence is:

"How could it be that this self, is an effect of a kergazilion vibrations in a googlplex of universes of quirky quanta? Then why I feel so real?"

Because, my answer on this is, that the quantum randomness is a primitive consciousness, in the opposite case such confusion cannot give consciousness.

In my essay, section 7, you will see that I agree with and that I have one model for consciousness.

I claim that consciousness is in heart of physics. I even claim, that research money for consciosness will give more results than for CERN.

Best regards, Janko Kokosar

P.S. grammar correction: ITT -> IIT

    • [deleted]

    Dear Rikki M. Westerschulte,

    so glad I have read your marvellous essay. The title had put me off reading it sooner. I agree that awareness has to be included. I think you are correct to identify a role for information.I have a place for both within my explanatory framework. I like the why not ending very much, an invitation to an exciting adventure. I think it is a direction that has been some what neglected but the role of information is being discussed in a number of essays. Very readable, positive and well set out. I would like to spend more time with it to see what I have missed. Good luck, kind regards Georgina