It\'s Good to be King by James Lee Hoover

Hello.

I would just like to point out that one may happily explore realms of thought without necessarily being a 'believer' as you say.

Did our minds retroactively create the past universe?

Well, if it turns out the universe isn't expanding and there was no big bang, then it would go without saying that our minds entirely made up that universe.

You could say that there is no chance the big bang theory is wrong, but that would be more of an expression of belief than in the spirit of science.

Jim,

I am going to rate your essay an 8, for it is the clearest written essay on complexity so far published at the site. I believe the real Universe is unique, once. Nobody (including me) fully understands unique, once. But whether it is a macro galaxy or an invisible particle, it can only be unique, once. I know it sounds nuts, but unique is not relative. Nature only delivers whole unique units such as a whole unique elephant or a whole unique star. Why man concentrates on the repeatable commonality of mathematics to try to define a unique system beats me.

Joe

James,

To second Michael, what if the Big Bang hypothesis is just one big creation myth and not a very good one at that?

Einstein said space is what we measure with a ruler. The cosmic ruler is lightyears. You would think that if space is what we measure with a ruler and the cosmic ruler is lightyears, then if space is expanding, the ruler would be stretched accordingly, but that's not in the cards. Presumably the speed of light is quite stable and those distant galaxies will eventually disappear. So what metric of space is the speed of light reflective of, one might wonder. That I find is not a question one is supposed to ask.

James,

I understand the all too human tendency to concoct explanations out of limited information and then try to fit all subsequent information into that framework, until it eventually breaks down and a new framework starts. Punctuated equilibrium, as applied to the growth of knowledge.

Infinity is not a popular concept, because it reduces all premises to white noise, so being able to frame reality, both spatially and temporally, is a strong impulse. I tend to prefer horizon lines as frames though. There are quite a few aspects to this though, from monolithic, object oriented belief systems in the west, to it being originally proposed by LeMaitre in support of his theory of the universe as a primordial atom. I've been carrying on a bit of this conversation with Jason in another thread. To which I made the point;

"Einstein argued the contraction of mass points under the influence of gravity is a collapse of space. To balance this effect, so the universe doesn't contract to a point, he added the cosmological constant. While this was rejected when other galaxies were discovered to be redshifted, it has been resurrected by redshift not matching basic Big Bang theory. So we say the galaxies are moving apart because the space inbetween them is expanding. Yet it seems to be forgotten that galaxies are actually contracting space and according to both theory and measurement by COBE and WMAP that these are closely balanced, resulting in overall flat space.

Yet because it is now a given that the universe began at a primordial point and expanded out since, there is no consideration of how these matching effects of expansion and contraction might most effectively fit in a larger cycle.

With all the attention given to symmetries, you would think this most obvious and evident relationship would get some consideration, but not if it conflicts with any ideas careers are built on."

I just think there are far too many open questions for cosmology to be as settled as it seems to be and think it will break back open.

The point is that I think you would be suggesting that our minds creating the past including the big bang is absurd, but if the big bang and expanding universe are replaced by a different theory then it will be obvious that our minds do create the past.

You may say that our minds may have in that case created the fictious big bang, but not the 'true' past now supplied by the new theory, but too is but a theory.

Dear Hoover,

Thank you for presenting your nice essay. I saw the abstract and will post my comments soon.

I am requesting you to go through my essay also. And I take this opportunity to say, to come to reality and base your arguments on experimental results.

I failed mainly because I worked against the main stream. The main stream community people want magic from science instead of realty especially in the subject of cosmology. We all know well that cosmology is a subject where speculations rule.

Hope to get your comments even directly to my mail ID also. . . .

Best

=snp

snp.gupta@gmail.com

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

Pdf download:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/1607/__details/Gupta_Vak_FQXi_TABLE_REF_Fi.pdf

Part of abstract:

- -Material objects are more fundamental- - is being proposed in this paper; It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material. . . Similarly creation of matter from empty space as required in Steady State theory or in Bigbang is another such problem in the Cosmological counterpart. . . . In this paper we will see about CMB, how it is generated from stars and Galaxies around us. And here we show that NO Microwave background radiation was detected till now after excluding radiation from Stars and Galaxies. . . .

Some complements from FQXi community. . . . .

A

Anton Lorenz Vrba wrote on May. 4, 2013 @ 13:43 GMT

....... I do love your last two sentences - that is why I am coming back.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 6, 2013 @ 09:24 GMT

. . . . We should use our minds to down to earth realistic thinking. There is no point in wasting our brains in total imagination which are never realities. It is something like showing, mixing of cartoon characters with normal people in movies or people entering into Game-space in virtual reality games or Firing antimatter into a black hole!!!. It is sheer a madness of such concepts going on in many fields like science, mathematics, computer IT etc. . . .

B.

Francis V wrote on May. 11, 2013 @ 02:05 GMT

Well-presented argument about the absence of any explosion for a relic frequency to occur and the detail on collection of temperature data......

C

Robert Bennett wrote on May. 14, 2013 @ 18:26 GMT

"Material objects are more fundamental"..... in other words "IT from Bit" is true.

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on May. 14, 2013 @ 22:53 GMT

1. It is well known that there is no mental experiment, which produced material.

2. John Wheeler did not produce material from information.

3. Information describes material properties. But a mere description of material properties does not produce material.

4. There are Gods, Wizards, and Magicians, allegedly produced material from nowhere. But will that be a scientific experiment?

D

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 16, 2013 @ 16:22 GMT

It from bit - where are bit come from?

Author Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT

....And your question is like asking, -- which is first? Egg or Hen?-- in other words Matter is first or Information is first? Is that so? In reality there is no way that Matter comes from information.

Matter is another form of Energy. Matter cannot be created from nothing. Any type of vacuum cannot produce matter. Matter is another form of energy. Energy is having many forms: Mechanical, Electrical, Heat, Magnetic and so on..

E

Antony Ryan wrote on Jun. 23, 2013 @ 22:08 GMT

.....Either way your abstract argument based empirical evidence is strong given that "a mere description of material properties does not produce material". While of course materials do give information.

I think you deserve a place in the final based on this alone. Concise - simple - but undeniable.

Michael,

Very true, but we do switch these stories/theories on occasion, because the new one fits what is known better than the old view. Since the old view necessarily has more proponents, this change can be traumatic.

Dear James,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest.

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Hello Mr. Hoover.

I found your essay of greater interest than most because I actually understood what you were saying, but, I think you have been led astray by brain science to a degree. As a software engineer working in the field of artificial intelligence, I find it preferable to speak of the material nature of memory, the mechanics of choice and the philosophy of experience, i.e. cognitive mechanics. Something started by philosophers and strengthened by theoretical biology, and something few have a firm grasp of. The current lack of focus in neurophysiology is reflected in the work of those trying to apply quantum mechanics to computing, none of them having any idea how memory is stored within neurons and experiences in neural networks. Between them they speculate about their speculations concerning insubstantial speculations, and then, in the end, find themselves speculating about particle-wave duality and an infinite number of secret qubit inclinations. Now, I am not saying that they can not superpose a number of Bytes within a single 8 bit register comprised of qubits, but they have no ideal how to do it let alone how to extract these sets of indications (heads/tails, true/false, 1/0) in either a sequential or random order. Something that can be done on a computer hard drive, something that requires up to 21 superpositions to eliminate data, and something that funds a who industry trying to destroy data instead of finding a way to use it. Anyway, those who throw money at such research in the hope someone will stumble across a clue, are the same who fund CERN's LHC and the Blue Brain Project. There is always an alternative, but you must ask the right questions and follow the right clues, and you must call a spade a spade; a bit is data, it is an indication, and it is not information until it is taken in hand by intuition.

Thank you for your essay, and good luck in the contest.

Regards.

Zoran.

Dear James,

I, like a classical physicist, believe in the objective reality of the physical world. But how to have a conception of it without reference to mind is the problem. Can you just imagine how it appears without mind? That is why I called both information and reality, empty and blind. This is just like the absolute concept of space and time in the Newtonian system as exposed by Einstein; what is space in itself and time in itself 'without reference' to something external to them (say, change). They have no 'meaning' in themselves.

By 'It', I mean 'reality' as it is evident from the title of the essay itself.

By 'consciousness', I mean it is an innate quality possessed by the mind as a result of billions of years of the evolution of Life. To know more about it, please, go through 'biology' section of my essay in which I have clearly described how mind, through the evolution of Life acquired this innate quality by interacting with the environment; there I have said how on parallel lines the relationship existing between the evolution of Life and the evolution of the knowledge of mind can be comprehended.

Thanks for your kind query and welcome more discussions. I will shortly post my comments on your essay.

Best regards,

Sreenath

Jim,

Thank you for a superb essay. You've put much thought into the topic at hand with emphasis on the role of consciousness and its nature. I enjoyed your entire essay. Your discussion of the number of neurons (100 billion) and connections (1000 trillion) "channeling countless sub-atomic particles in a consciously assembled reality" was excellent! As was collapsing the electron into one state when observed, versus all states when not observed! And the "unimaginable assemblage of trillions upon trillions of ... particles [from the superposition state]" into a cat! In short, you put the "It from Bit" picture into clear perspective. It helps to bring all scales into view, as opposed to focusing on one particle. Yet your subtlety may be unappreciated. Instead of attacking an idea, you simply express it in terms designed to showcase the absurdity of taking the premiss at face value.

So marvelously worded, as when you discuss Wheeler's 'surprise' version of 20 Q: "questions that built on one another until the interchange itself determined the reality of the solution", leading to 'It from Bit'. Related without a hint of how little relevance this analogy or metaphor has to actually creating physical reality simply by asking questions. And again, "QBism stated that the observer employs the wave function to assign his or her personal belief that a quantum system will have a specific property." You then dryly ask if each had his or her own individual observation state for each particle. Priceless!

In short, your presentation of absurd concepts using non-judgmental wording may throw some for a loop. They may have been so conditioned to reading absurd statements from physicists that they miss your subtle barbed humor! You even present the 'microtubule' theory of consciousness without negative comment, except to note that it is neither quantum (as implied by its name) nor does it offer viable quantum-level arguments. [But you must admit he has impressive pictures!] Your surveys of various speculative ideas of reality partake of both broad scientific knowledge, and, unmistakeably, of delicious satire. And appropriately so.

Congratulations on an enjoyable and superbly written essay. I concur with you: "What we see is real -- not our own creation."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

James,

After defrocking so many kings with no clothes I think you've earned yourself the job! I'm sure you won't listen to those peddling invisible unreal 'cover ups' of real physical problems. If you get bored with that career there are plenty more openings in my essay!

I enjoyed you nice clear writing style, with all the inforamtion coming across smoothly in one 'read through' without having to keep going back and decyphering things. That's certainly the sign of good writing to me. You already have a double word score bonus for your cool comment on mine so it looking good for numbers!

Conciousness does seem as slippery as 'time' to define. You do a good job of addressing it but I do have this inkling that it may be far older than we could ever imagine. That comes from a recycling re-ionization model of the universe that wants to emerge from the logic of the discrete field model I describe. In that case there would be infinitely many previous universes, and each oscillating ion would have been part of infinitely many previous conciousnesses. Perhaps that may even help explain deja vu and other 'psychic' effects!

Excellent job, well done.

Peter

Hi James,

Not an essay to read once and throw away. I love the satire..."Step back from that mirror. Our presence is not that long and our shadow is not that large. We were not there when the universe was born. We are presently here to observe, reason, and speculate. What we see is real - not our own creation". Who can argue with you? Certainly, I wont.

However, having said that, if pushed to a corner and forced at pain of death by the king to admit that physical reality must be created from binary units, two mutually exclusive choices represented by 0 and 1, THE ONLY CHOICE I will murmur is existence/non-existence. The king must spare my life or prove my answer wrong! And I have managed to persuade a few essayists that this bit must also be listed among the available list of binary possibilities.

Again, for those who bring to the argument Qbits, which are bits that must be carried by a physical thing, e.g. photons, electrons, etc I have asked what physical thing can carry the non-existence information? One honest reply agrees that that is one bit that cannot be carried by any IT. I am also yet to imagine a super-position of existence/non-existence but I am still trying.

Certainly, good to be a king sitting on imaginary throne and wearing imaginary crown!

All the best and good luck.

Akinbo

Jim,

Well written, good use of history and you've certainly told the reader a story. Flowed superbly too. The conclusion that we are not divine yet observers was nice.

You've covered a lot of ground in a very clear and concise way.

Great job!

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear James,

As you kindly asked me to tell you something about your essay, here are a few (preliminary) comments

1) Wheeler is not a prophet in the religious sense and it is not necessary to be a believer for becoming enthusiastic in quantum information theory, as I am. Certainly, Wheeler anticipated much of the subsequent progress coining the words "it from bit", or may be also in his mind "it from qubit". It is true that quantum theory questions the meaning of reality and we are now quite sure that a quantum state is created (not by the consciousness of the observer) but by the choice of the measurement apparatus. In my essay, I try to look at the roots of contextuality by introducing concepts close to the structure of the measurement space.

2) May be we have no other choice than to be anthropocentric, at least at some level in questions regardig the quantum world, the consciousness (which is not the same), the evolution of species and so on. The nature of knowledge itself is a deep problem for which I don't have answers. I understand that you are addressing these important questions. I don't.

You essay is well written and interesting.

I wish you success.

Michel