James,

Thank you for stopping by to review my essay and for the kind words. Funny thing, I was just reviewing your essay yesterday and was going to request your email address to run some questions by you, but you beat me to the punch. What is your email address? Or you can send me an email to: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

Thanks,

Manuel

Jim,

I wish all the essays were written this well. As a public service, you should give a workshop on how to write an essay, so I never have to muddle through another poorly written essay ever again. You clearly explained the principles at the heart of the debate, defined the debate and showed the reason for your side. You have a style that "lets the reader in", keeps the reader interested and you even added a little bit of humor.

I have said this before in other reviews, the theme for this contest is not clear. If the theme of this essay constant was "what is the nature of observed reality or does reality need an observer?", then you have nailed it. I honestly do not know if that was the topic of the contest or not. I wish you had written the topic, because then the topic would have been clear and concise.

I think what Wheeler had in mind was an "interaction" and not a true "observation" made by a human or Paleozoic worm. If all that is needed is an interaction then the first interactions could occur moments after the Big Bang. We would not need the "chicken or egg" problem of an observer needed for the universe to be, yet the universe is needed for the observer to be.

Thank you for the essay.

I hope the mysterious rankings treat you well,

Jeff

Thanks, Jeff, your comments are very kind.

Of course, we all like to be appreciated and rewarded for our long hours of work and thought, but in my retirement, I am having a good time writing fiction, writing online columns, spoiling my grandchild, and sharing my thoughts with others.

Cosmology was the place to go. Poetry of the past described the Hubble images:

In what distant deeps or skies.

Burnt the fire of thine eyes?

On what wings dare he aspire?

What the hand, dare seize the fire?

Jim

Hello Jim,

You did a great analysis of the present essay fundamental knowledge in the spirit of Descartes, "has come under has come under doubt". You have correctly pointed out: «After all, ancient gods took larger-scale human forms and interbred with humans, even today's superheroes are in our basic image. Our pets and children's fairy tales still see the attribution of human characteristics. While Christian, Islamic and Jewish traditions generally avoid anthropomorphism, connections between the divine and the human world are in doctrine and images.» The crisis of modern fundamental science (especially physics) - this is a "crisis of interpretation and representation " (T.B.Romanovskaya) . And Alexander Zenkin was right in his article "The scientific counter-revolution in mathematics" offering "constructive way", which is true not only for mathematics, but for all basic science era of the information revolution: «the truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to "an unlimited circle" of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.» http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

Your good conclusion: «Empowered by a visual clairvoyance, we can project our consciousness into the fabric of space. Perhaps as our embedded consciousness stretches we can call it white energy, realizing hegemony over an ever-expanding sensory space.» This proves only one thing: an old unsolved problem of the structure of space is an important issue of fundamental science. However, always in search of the truth should bring a very sharp Occam's razor. Looking into the past - it is a look into the "memory of the Universe" - Ontological memory. And the human mind ("consciousness is a vector quantity - a vector of consciousness) has the capacity due to the presence in the universe of the ontological (structural) memory. Matter is that from which all is born (Plato), the Ontological memory is that all breeds. And you said, well figuratively about "lightning consciousness»: «While we're still here, it would be nice to be god-like on our own Olympus, throwing thunderbolts of consciousness and assembling a beautiful world in our own images.» I think , these are the images of Einstein built when trying to unravel the idea of the Creator to the creation of the Act (especially the last thirty years). I am sure that you come up with the correct name of your very essay - without the quotes ... Jim, I have not found your post, my ideabank@yandex.ru

Regards,

Vladimir

    Thanks, Yuri, I look forward to reading your essay.

    Having spent many hours researching and writing my topic, as I'm sure you did, may I ask your evaluation of my essay?

    Jim

    Vladimir,

    I rated yours on 6/30 and I assume you rated mine when you commented above.

    Good luck.

    Jim

    Dear Lee,

    I think you already forget me(see my post above.) I hope yet to hearing your valuable opinion to my work.

    Regards,

    George

    Hi Jim -

    I agree with you that both consciousness and the Anthropic Principle get a lot more play than they deserve, in speculations about quantum physics and cosmology. Though I would guess that it's a minority of physicists who take these ideas very seriously. I don't believe either plays any role in any accepted theory.

    I think the basic problem here is that we have no well-developed approach to the physics of measurement... I try to explain the reasons for that in my essay. Quantum theory makes it pretty clear that the determinate states and properties of things depend in some way on the processes that make them observable. If we had a clear idea of what "observing" means in physical terms, it would never have occurred to anyone that consciousness was involved. I don't think there's any strong inclination among physicists to "self-idolatry"... except maybe for some who write books for the popular market.

    Thanks for the nice piece of writing -- Conrad

    James

    Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

    said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

    I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

    The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

    Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

    Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

    I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

    Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

    Good Luck!

    Than Tin

    Hi James,

    I got ready for your essay by getting familiar with "A History of the World Part 1". It was just wonderful.... Mel Brooks is King of comedy!

    After reading your essay I got the image of Dolly Parton doing a southern accent saying "That Wheeler chap sure does get carried away" :) Who would have thought a FQXi essay could be so enjoyable.

    High marks for King James, Thanks

    Don L.

    4 days later

    Hello James,

    Nice critical essay!

    I'm critical of quantum mechanics myself*, although I'm even more critical of the community of quantum physicists - I think it's the paradigmatic example of what a scientific community should *not* be.

    Anyway, to stimulate further critical thinking I have given your essay a nice rating.

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    * That is, I find (nonrelativistic) quantum mechanics an elegant theory and I'm compelled to accept that it has some merit, but I do not believe that it is the final answer regarding the fundamental workings of the universe.

      5 days later

      Dear James,

      Well written essay with focussed critique on several speculative anthropomprhic ideas and claims. I enjoyed the satire running through consistently.

      Felt, however, that perhaps you did not want to directly address or take sides on the issue of ontological relativity of Bit or It, which of course is also a position one can take. The implied criticism gives the impression that you are leaning on matter, though!

      Unnikrishnan

        Thanks, Marcoen.

        I believe that diversions from accepted concepts are not an attack on quantum mechanics but perhaps a recognition that our understanding may depend on jumping new hurdles in quantum knowledge. Otherwise we would be maybe a type 2 civilization rather than a type 0.

        Jim

        Dear James

        I read your essay and found it interesting and well structured. It seems that you would like to analyze information from the perspective of consciousness. I'd like to make some comments on your essay.

        You: "participatory anthropic principle," meaning we are necessary to bring the universe into being. Such human activity connections were not considered in the classical world of physics.

        This reminds me of the ancient Greeks who used to say that things only exist when we look at them. Nowadays,we believe that whether we are aware of things or not they exist. This is the view that there is a world or reality independent of whether there are observers or not. The word "participatory" seems to revive the old view of the Greeks.

        You: Accordingly, he said, such entities exist in a probabilistic limbo.. ... classical physics did not see.

        By the middle of the 20th Century, important experiential human events... ...so it was no surprise that we should become active agents in a causal role regarding the mechanical workings of nature,

        I think that classical physics disregarded the fact that the measurement affects the system under study because the measurement, for practical matters, doesn't perturbs the macroscopic system. When experiments were aimed at studying microscopic systems and other no "ordinary" phenomena (such as the splitting of light spectra) the measurements play an important role. And physicists realized that the mechanical picture of the world was not enough. This led to the development of GR and QM, which promote the understanding of the world only in mathematical language. However, very recently new classical experiments are shedding light on the behaviour of the microscopic world, I believe things are gonna change in the following years. The work of McHarris is an example of this. I think that physics not only has a mathematical description but also an intuitive explanation. Please take a look at my essay, and leave some comments.

        With respect to consciousness. Many people think that there are questions that can be answered and others that cannot be answered. I deep thought of the problem of consciousness suggest that this is one of the difficult questions, (just as the question of what is time?). So I think that science is not yet well equipped to give an answer to how consciousness emerges, I think we are very far away from that answer.

        You also mention about the inflaton field, as far as I know, the inflation model is being discarded because it has some many problems (http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=13030079). The Big bang explains several observations but it also still has big problems to solve that has led many physicists (such as Roger Penrose) to claim that the model is totally incorrect.

        Best Regards

        Israel

        Your essay is refreshing because it is one of the few (that I have read) that takes the age-old strong materialist position. Also, your prose was clear and well articulated and free of esoteric maths. At the end of the day, the strong materialist position is not only safe but also comforting. It omits many intriguing New Age-type things that are fun to consider but ultimately tend to lead to confusing and conflicting ideas that promote a god-like ideology among adherents, to borrow your language. My way of phrasing your conclusion would be: There are forces at work that are greater than us and that have been around much longer than us.

        - Kyle Miller