Paul,

I don't think that my essay is anything about consciousness, so this is not a place to discuss it. Also your post look like a bunch of statements, not questions to discuss.

Anyway I decided to say at least something on these statements of yours :

1. Consciousness subjective process is based on information written on the objective physical carrier (brains, circuits, etc.), so nothing occurs previously to anything. Just physical interaction, nothing more, objectively speaking.

2. See above.

3. There is no "conversion" of physical input to perception; according to my approach perception is physical process taken from a particular "subjective" point of view, i.e. in subjective reference frame.

4. Again, in my approach past and future both physically exist in the present, only their existence is different than the existence of the present itself. Past physical existence is represented by forms of space and energy, future physical existence is a little more complicated and is represented by so-called "key", "triggering" states of the matter (this is far far away from the matter of the essay itself)

Valentin

I did not say your essay was about consciousness. I just picked up an indication that it was considered that the subsequent processing of physical input received by the sensory systems/brain had some effect on the physical circumstance. Which it does not, it determines the perception thereof, which is not physics. And listed a number of reasons why this must be so, what you refer to as a "bunch of statements".

Re 1, it does not matter what consciousness is for physics.

Re 3 "There is no "conversion" of physical input to perception".

So what is seeing, feeling, hearing, etc, then?? A brick receives light (which is physically existent), so does your mouth. But if your eye receives it then it can be processed and the possessor thereof become aware of the receipt, since it is the front end of an evolved system which can convert it to a perception. The physics ends at the interaction of receipt. Though, obviously, it is important to know how the sensory systems/brain works so that from the perception we can extrapolate (after eradicating individualism as well) what was physically received. Subjective references are irrelevant. Though, by definition, any statement (eg measurement) is a comparison to identify difference, which necessitates a reference. So if the reference is an observer, for example, then the key point is relative spatial position, because light travels from the occurrence, not what the observer thinks, etc. Since, as I said, one of the proofs that the subsequent processing has no effect on the physical circumstance, is the simple fact that that circumstance has already occurred. And in this reality, a subsequent physical effect cannot have a physical effect on a physical circumstance which occurred previously.

Re 4 "Again, in my approach past and future both physically exist in the present"

Only the present is existent. The past is a present that has ceased to exist. The future is non-existent, it is a present which will subsequently occur as a function of the previous present. You cannot have "different" forms of existence. Either something is physically existent, or it is not. What does occur, but this is not what you are saying, is that a physically existent representation of something which was existent can persist in existence. It is called light. And we can receive light that is up to billions of years old.

Paul

25 days later
8 days later

Hello Valentin,

I've only had time for a quick scan of your essay this evening, but will look more thoroughly over the weekend.

I like your conclusion that the truth, more likely lies in "It from Bit and Bit from It". Please take a look at my essay and consider if we have and common ground, as the conclusion suggests we might have.

I look forward to reading your essay in more detail - it certainly has caught my attention.

Best Wishes

Antony

    Dear V. Koulikov,

    I think your statement listed after k. is of the most physical importance to the fundamental questions in the physics community today. Your finding, or creation, of this new principle may indeed be of some value to those who believe in physical unification as a route. It seems evident that the scale of future contemplation must be smaller than what has been in the thinkers mind in the past. It's like we're looking for micro-reasons for the big picture view of things.

    When I hear words like "observer causality" or "fragmented" and kaleidoscope, I think that I'm reading from a rich document. So it was an enticing read, no doubt!

    But moving on, however legit your beginnings seem, there is a caution against stressing perfect symmetry that I feel should be sounded. This comes even though pursuing anti-symmetric views from the get-go may be problematic, for the insistence of symmetry remains, in my mind, an arbitrary creation of thought imposed on nature.

    You have a very interesting fundamental question under 4. yet a voice says "further, farther back still." This view is supported by the fact of clocks going slower in a gravity field with a little consideration and all. Gravity would slow down this change then, with black holes as stationary lack of information exchange. Having space and time points must be avoided in our minds if we want to remain completely unbiased.

    The paper looks like it is doing work on important questions- and the time dimension view is neat! But as a final word, I'd let nature speak, and if it says contrary, I would wonder if all the work amounts to anything... Which usually isn't the case. So I see a lot of math connections but where is the tie into nature?

    Under heading 6. what is the driving force for these loops to spin? I ask because they seem too flat.

    Also, at the risk of talking about a technical aspect without knowing the details, you made an analogy of energy and momentum to time and space, but do you have maths for this? I think this is the crux of the situation at present. The phase space view may be very tricky when electrons are considered.

    Best,

    W. Amos.

      10 days later

      Hi, Dear Valentin,

      I have read your essay but it is difficult to well understand your work (perhaps because of my poor English!) Meantime I have find there main important thing that is in your conclusion:

      ,,All of what has been written in this essay tells us that the phrase "It from Bit or Bit from It" is a wrong dilemma"!

      I think the same that you can see on the top of my essay (in bold)

      Essay

      Please find time to open it, I hope we can find common points.

      Pishite mne ottuda, pojalusta.

      Sincerely,

      George

        7 days later

        Hi Vladimir,

        Thank you for the interest to my essay; related works in English are listed in References to the essay. You may search for other articles by my name in Philica also. Unfortunately I don't have any published work on this matter in Russian. I will read your essay and make comments.

        Valentin