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

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

interesting essay touches crucial questions of physics, still unanswered

Regards

Jim,

This piece stricks a deep chord in anyone who trys to hear Pythagoras music. That which is unobserved still exists and nobody was really there to know how the Big Bang went down. I think it comes from some uncomprehensible conditions that man with limited reasoning is wont to know, but that is the hard way of seeking. The newly advancing understanding of the human brain and life is remarkable, as understanding the workings of such sources of awe brings great joy and relief to those wonderers. Yet, taken out of context for the benefit of argument where the emphasis on neuroscience to support new consious-creating ideas in physics is artificial and reminds one of eugenics and tiny pieces of Darwinian evolution being used to support strides for a master race. I am not saying cross discipline endeavors are bad, as everything stems from the same tree. But the idea that consciousness elevates us to some empowered state of enrichment, of changing nature itself or creating it, is uneccessarily being out of bound. This essay was exceptional in addressing the mental problems physicists simply do not like to talk about, yet whose bents control thinking more than any rational process.

Earnestly,

W. Amos Carine.

In response to my post.

I reread your article (I scored and read all until today).

Take the time you need, if you're interested, but maybe it's better to read those with high scores: this year some essays deserve a good waste of time.

I think that some senses are quantum perception (like the sense of smell).

I am undecided of a quantum brain (that you treat).

I am thinking that the brain work with chemical reaction, the chemical reaction are proved in the alcohol reaction in the space (low temperature, low pressure and tunneling), so I suppose that quantum chemical process must be present in the brain (not extreme environment, and little distance of the neurons), but the problem is the entity of the process (if it used to calculate, or if it used to change the behaviour like the evolution, to adapt to the environment?).

I am thinking that we cannot declare descovered theory, but some therists can try hypotheses to be tested (sometime theories walk before the experiments).

I think that a computer may contain an human brain, but without senses and interaction with the environment is a jail for philosophers.

I am thinking that if the brain is a quantum computer, then can be possible to see the quantum fluctuation working, with living insects brain.

I thought that the space-time exist if there are gravity, or interaction particles (curvatures): the presence of the observer is not required, only the measuring apparatus can be necessary (probable interaction with the conscious observer).

When I reread you essay, I can say that almost each essay deserve to be read.

Hi, James

Your essay appears to be a well-balanced survey of attitudes towards information and reality. The title seems to refer to the latter portion of the essay, about the anthropic attitude. In general the essay tends to avoid taking a definite position with respect to these attitudes, except to occasionally point out some of their weaknesses, which are further explained in your sources. (For example, I checked one of your sources concerning Penrose; your article only said that his ideas were controversial, whereby your source clearly indicated that Penrose made a botch of his interpretation of Gödel's theorem. [That fallacy is now known as the 'Lucas-Penrose' fallacy.]) If my impression is off the mark, I would welcome being corrected.

David

Dear Sir,

Your essay is a good analysis of various prevailing thoughts - most of them fiction than science. But we liked it for your style and depth. Till date we have not come across a precise definition of "what" an electron is - Bohr's description of an enigma notwithstanding. In our essay, we have attempted to do just that. You are recommended to go through it.

In one previous essay "Is Reality Digital or Analog" as well as in the present essay, we have defined three characteristics of reality. Two of those were knowability and describability - reality must be capable of being known (what lies beyond the universe is not real, because we can never know it) and composed in a language for communication to others. Of these, the first is confined to the observer and the second is between observers. Though both are information, their difference must be recognized. There are some 'knowledge', such as intense emotions, that cannot be communicated properly. We have classified information into 5 categories.

The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. Thus, it is a limitation on the knowledge of individual observers and not real. The collapse postulate leads to the measurement problem.

We have discussed the double slit experiment using protons and come to the same conclusion. Can you give us any reference to the experiments cited by you? We have shown that there is no quantum 'weirdness' in this experiment.

Wheeler's physical unit of quantum, like his bit, indicates a class or a set. There can be many elements conforming to this set. If we choose a jigsaw puzzle and intelligently arrange the pieces, we will get the picture right. All pieces or random pieces cannot be so arranged. Similarly, generalizing his "surprise version" of 20 questions may not be correct. Our consciousness loops back into the past (memory) to compare the present impulse with it and finds its similarity or otherwise past experience with yes-no questions. It does not create reality. We have discussed it elaborately in our essay.

The content of all observations is of a form: " 'I' see or feel or perceive 'it' as 'such' ". Here 'I' is the observer, 'it' is the observable and 'such' is the result of measurement expressed as a concept through a language for communication. In this format, 'it' and 'such' change with each perception, but the observer 'I' remains invariant. Communication proves that all 'I' perceive in the same manner (what one sees, others also see the same thing), though the concept 'such' may vary due to defects in the mechanism. Since there is no means of differentiating one 'I' from another 'I', it is one. But since we can not count or perceive all 'I' that exists, it is infinite.

The brain cells and microtubuli within the cytoskeleton of the brain, though belong to the micro world, are instruments of measurement or hardware and not conscious, because they exist as such even immediately after death. The electrochemical energy of one conscious mind that carries information in 100 billion neurons with 1000 trillion connections can channel countless sub-atomic particles like an inert super-computer, but not into a consciously assembled reality. Our body including the neural network of the brain or our eyes etc. are not the observer, but only an instrument for observation. Equating an instrument with the observer is not correct. It is because consciousness never acts, it only observes. It is the 'I' part of observation, neither the hardware nor the software. It remains invariant as 'I' in all perceptions, just like space and time - they do not interact with objects, objects evolve in them. The "conscious mind before encased in a human body, itself an assemblage of some seven octillion atoms (7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 7*1027)", does not "create physical reality", but merely observes it. The Moon continues to exist when we are not looking at it. Observation is meaningful only to the observer for his information and does not change physical reality. The cat will lead its life. Observation will only report its state, neither will it kill nor make it come alive. There is nothing like a 'undead' cat. Our ignorance of its state does not change its life history.

How do they define consciousness? If it evolved from fish like ancestors, then either the fish would have been most intelligent or the humans would have evolved out of fish - both of which do not stand scientific scrutiny.

We do not accept inflation, but have repeatedly advocated the opposite mechanism - rapid expansion leading to a bow-shock effect slowing it down till it stops at a boundary and retards - gaining momentum to repeat the process again and again within these boundaries, so that at the present rate of expansion, the positioning of galaxies would appear to be more than it could have shifted had it moved at a steady rate. We also do not accept Big Bang, but advocate the Big Bounce - a self recreating universe that is not "dependent on extra dimensions, string theory and branes, or a Multiverse with all probable outcomes".

We have also refuted the idea of singularity by showing here in various threads and elsewhere that division by zero is not infinity, but leaves the number unchanged. We derive the Big Bounce from simple laws of conservation and inertia and not loop quantum gravity.

We have repeatedly asserted that entanglement is not an exclusive quantum phenomenon and does not continue ad infinitum. It's over in a few kilometers. A pair of socks or gloves is also entangled. We impose our ignorance to an imaginary superposition of all possible states. The result of measurement is always related to a time t, and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc, when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are combined together and are called superposition of states. In the case entanglement, there are only two fixed states and once our observation determines the state of one, the state of the other is automatically known - it does not come out of a superposition of all possible states.

There is no proof that "ancient gods took larger-scale human forms and interbred with humans". We cannot "project our consciousness into the fabric of space". Sorry to disappoint you, but we apply our mind independently. Outside this forum, you can write to us at mbasudeba@gmail.com.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear James

Nice collection and overview of presumptions about the truth of the universe. Though, "Plank length" over "Planck time" measure unaltered speed of light. It would be nice to hear an argument, what is the difference in perception of duration of time and propagation of space inside "our" system and, for example, the system of the "Primordial soup"? There are fairytales about kings and there are fairytales about the universe. The King is naked and the universe doesn't wear a crown :).

Regards

Andrej

Dear James,

Your essay is one of the few that I printed out, it is usefull information and adds to my own perceptions of reality.

Your perception is what i call one of the "infinite" life lines that are available in Total Simultaneity (see also "The Consciousness Connection, a Metaphysical Concept" http://vixra.org/abs/1211.0019). Behind the Planck length and time I "created" this Total simultaneity with our non-causal part of consciousness that is "entangled with its causal part. It is our consciousness that is defining not only the future but also its history. So the BB is just one of the possible "life-lines" in TS. Humanity is creating through research and thinking the origin of its "reality" or "existance". Each day we are "finding" more details through microscopes and sattelites , but also these microscopes and satelites are results of the past researches of our causal part of consciousness. Each "history" is a life line of probability points of the what I call Eternal Nows, that efectually are already in our past in the causal universe.

So I see no problem in the macro and micro observation of our realities, the deeper we go the deeper we think we are consciouss, the higher we go the hogher we think that we ra consciouss. The BB is just one of the many solutions we THINK that are a real history.

I introducesd the word "Creality" because the word Illusion is negative, but my perception is that everything is CREALITY.

best regards and thanks for your thoughts (Crealities)

Wilhelmus

PS I hope you can also rate my attribution "THE QUEST FOR THE PRIMAL SEQUENCE"

topic 1810.