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

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.

Hello James

Nice essay. I thought the idea of retroactive control of the universe was interesting. I guess, if the laws of physics actually don't have a preferred direction in time, then this might hold a grain of truth. Think of the lotteries I can retroactively win!

Hope you like my essay.

Stephen Anastasi

Dear James

Wheeler's many fans are here in force among this contest' contributors. The more reason to admire your courageous and well-reasoned debunking of the Anthropic Principle and its descendants. Your beautifully-written analysis makes the right points.

My own objections to the Anthropic Principle appears in my own essay "The Cloud of Unknowing..." as follows:

" Nowadays we have almost lost our confidence in the reality of Reality. We accept the observer-centered world of Relativity Theory and the Copenhagen Interpretation without batting an eyelid. We seriously consider ideas such as the Anthropic Principle that the Universe was created just so, to enable us human beings to come into being. We ask if IT is from BIT - i.e. whether the Universe grew out of BITs such as those we regularly manipulate in our computers and devices to email jokes and play Tetris. It is time we stopped being too clever for our own good and make a concerted effort to rid physics of its current bedeviling philosophy: The lack of confidence in the absolute existence of physical Reality in which we live and breathe."

...and pinch and squeeze, one might add, after seeing the "Good to be the King" clip on YouTube!

With best wishes

Vladimir

Hi James,

Thanks for your comments over on my page - I found this link which elaborates on the stress engineering concept you mention.

The maths here is relatively simple, which is always a good starting point for a good theory. I think that minimum energy states are important when we're transitioning from 3-dimensional space towards singularity, as they perhaps define certain "boundaries" or borders which are crossed.

Also this ties in nicely with the entropy aspect of the Fibonacci approach.

Thank you for highlighting another part of the ubiquitous nature of the Fibonacci sequence.

I agree with what you say and think you perhaps have hit on a way to perhaps test my theory.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear James,

As the wave particle duality has constrains on describing the nature of observational information continuum, we may assume a generic spiral propagation of string-matter segments, in that the Quantum foam devised by John Wheeler is in analogy with the tetrahedral-brane ascribed in this scenario. Thus cosmic connectivity of the biological systems is descriptive on this in accordance with anthropic principle.

With Best wishes,

Jayakar