Imagining the future humanity by Margarita Iudin

Dear Margarita,

As I promised in my FQXi page, I have read your nice Essay. Here are my comments:

1) I think that not only human life's position changes with time in the hierarchy of cellular life, but also other kinds of life.

2) Acknowledge the consciousness of individual cellular life forms, the quorum consciousness and the great engineering skill of total cellular life looks consistent with anthropic principle.

3) I agree with your statement that "for present humanity it would be better to match human interests with the interests of total cellular life and to anticipate climate change in the interests of total cellular life".

4) I think that placing straightforward imitation before an understanding is a mistake.

5) In my opinion, the greatest example of imitation and understanding of cellular life is nano-technology.

6) Nonlocal consciousness is also consistent with anthropic principle.

7) Concerning analogous imagining, you were correct in claiming that I used it in my Essay. I also agree with you that it is very important to "steer the future" of humanity.

As your Essay enjoyed me a lot, I am going to give you an high rate accordingly.

I hope you will find the time to read, comment and rate my Essay.

Best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Margarita,

I left a message for you in my forum.

James Putnam

Margarita,

With regard to my mention of temperature at my forum, It was with regard to thermodynamic entropy. I wrote a page titled the Unknown Thermodynamic Entropy. I wrote that thermodynamic entropy, discovered by and defined by Clausius is unknown to this day. The reason it remains unknown is because its definition includes temperature. Temperature is an indefinable property along with length and time and mass. Temperature, as well as was mass, was improperly declared to be an indefinable property. In my work I define both mass and temperature and explain what thermodynamic entropy is. As you can see, my work is very different from accepted theoretical physics. This is just to let you know what I alone think. My essay for last years contest explains all this and more.

James Putnam

Dear Margarita,

I have remarked and read your essay when it was published (chrologically it was no 114/153)It is remarkably original and creative. It has no references and this is a proof of moral courage- we are faced with the ideas of the author herself and not with some authority in her field (no "post-logical thinking, bravissimo!

I am no expert in biology, so I cannot judge or appreciate the senses and consequences of the starting concept of the essay- "hierarchy of cellular life"

and its relationship with what we call Evolution. I also have problems with the global cellular life and our position in it.I had the impression that human brain cells are a superior form of cellular life due to the marvel of thinking- per se.

I think this essay open a way toward a better future. More instructions how to go will be welcome

Peter Gluck

Margarita,

Your essay sprawls, yet it sprawls over some very rich territory, where its very form reflects the content in a stream-of-consciousness narrative as close to art as to science. Like cut crystal, it is multifacted and beautiful.

What I take away, is that the integration of nonlocal consciousness with local experience is dynamic and free ranging over all scales of metaphysically real interactions -- and I hope I'm right.

Reading your piece leaves me with some regret that at this late date, I will have missed other such jewels among the dross. I can only do what I can, rating wise, to try and elevate attention.

You might resonate with the portion of my essay that expands on: "... there is no principle difference between the logical design and methods of the capital recycling(formidably described by great logician K. Marx) from one side and logical design and methods of energy-information recycling from the other side."

All best,

Tom

Margarita,

Many thanks for your post on my essay. I reproduce my response here for your convenience. Reminded by James I did indeed rate yours. I never declare exactly what but it always reflects my comments, clearly favourable. I also haven't rated some. I hope we can discuss my (full!) response, ..as follows;

~

"Thanks for your interesting post. I agree rating is inconsistent between authors. I consistently use the criteria, which I think mine fits well, but we do wrongly tend to favour things we also 'agree' with. Mine seems to be love or hate, I've had many '1' scores with no comments upping the total. Few seem to identify fundamental 'cause' of change as opposed to 'symptoms', but history's clear, it's new understanding of nature and technology that brings revolutionary advancement from stagnation.

On scores; I showed last year they mean little, but they do bring attention, needed in this case. The table is in the end notes, which is what they're for, and are findings of a REAL experiment! The essay discusses an important new conceptualisation of the real physical mechanism which QM entirely lacks, but is certainly nothing AT ALL like the draft scientific paper I promise! (you'd find an early draft buried on 'classical sphere's'.

Your comments on "form/conceptualisation" and; "something that may exist" confuse me. I'm not sure if you realise that QM entirely lacks BOTH of those! It always has. That (we may agree then?) along with a concept of 'time' inconsistent with relativity, is why it retains the EPR paradox and no classical (physical) explanation. THAT is what I now provide; the simple physical geometrical model to reproduce the findings that 'QM' claims are only explainable in terms of 'probability'.

You then say; "I think your model assumptions are incorrect. You may want to find somebody in the field and have alive conversation and verify your assumptions." Which assumptions? I find remove more (unsupported) hidden ones than I invoke, and I invoke only known science from other fields, and give references! They are;

Electron spin flip, Gauged helicity, Non-mirror symmetry of spin, (see the ref's or just google) and the fact that opposite spin hemisphere's rotate in different directions (Earths N= anticlockwise, S = clockwise) with a non-linear distribution of rotation speed between pole and equator. All I've done is bring those coherently together.

Now if you still do think any are incorrect do please identify so I can check!

You also suggest I; "look into the vorticity and gyroscope models in 2D and 3D and potential vorticity maps" They were indeed early starting points, and all valid, viz; Imagine holding a gyro by the spin axis poles. Look from one end, it's clockwise, and opposite from the other. Now look at the middle, it's either spinning 'up' or 'down'. QM goes no further than considering a single snapshot. I just point out that the ends can be swapped (by switching EM field direction). Now imagine doing so, by switching the poles round between hands. You now find spin UP from the SAME 'particle', with conserved OAM! That inherent duality is what current QM doesn't recognise or accept!!

Of course I've discussed it with many 'in the field'. Some recognise it and are scared that the beliefs embedded in their psyche may be wrong, most scream and look away. We can't advance science by checking it against past science to ensure it's the same! The model is scientifically falsified, but needs the 'new way of thinking' that Bob demonstrates reveals the answer, which allows unification of the two "great pillars" of physics, called the Holy Grail of science. I've identified that history shows that only that can let us escape from this rut and progress! In fact the changes to QM are quite small and reflect von Neuman and Godel's conceptions. Uncertainty is only relegated to the next gauge down. It's the implications for other physics that are wider.

I'm disappointed I didn't get that across to all, and that you disagree. If it's the latter pleased do specify with what. It may be wrong or incomplete but I can't find where. Part of the value for all here is the wide falsification of hypotheses.

If you wish more technical details do see my last post to Tom (under Doug 17/5 above) though Tom isn't 'in the field' and does have his own agenda. Thank you for expressing your doubts and giving me the opportunity to address them. I do look forward to any further specifics."

Best wishes

Peter

Hello Margarita

I enjoyed reading your very-well-written essay. You are absolutely right in stressing the significance of how cellular life has adapted itself and created methods of communation and data transfer - one can call it that - in living systems. In fact in my physics theory Beautiful Universe I have noted that " The human brain evolved over millions of years in organisms that interacted directly, causally and locally with inanimate nature on a molecular scale[15]. Is it too much to ask now that our understanding of Mother Nature should also be as simple, direct and realistic as possible?"

From there to the human scale it is a large leap, and I am a bit doubtful that absolutely everything human beings have created or will create has an analogy in cellular life. This idea denies the creative inventive process. A cell invents ways to survive and procreate. Do cells fall in love, write poetry, harbor thoughts of future security or revenge, or dream or are self-aware? Analogy needs to be stretched to the breaking point to explain the present (and future) human situation.

It struck me that two aspects of your essay hover near religious ideas: the Jain religion in India sanctifies life, even to the smallest insect (and I suppose cell). And your idea of enlightenment is close to Zen 'satori'.

My essay is very different from yours, but hope you will read it.

Best wishes from Vladimir

Dear Margarita

I believe this book:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229710.800-all-systems-tao-holistic-view-of-lifes-networks.html?full=true#.U4_yHXKSz1B

The Systems View of Life: A unifying vision by Fritjof Capra and Pier Luigi Luisi

Published by: Cambridge University Press

speaks in the favor of your ideas, essay

Peter

Hello Margarita, I share my thoughts after reading your essay, and offer a suggestion.

You present a new way of looking at things. At first it seemed a new paradigm of evolution. You assert (p. 2) that "we do not really know how life forms [were] transformed in the past" (arguably true), and that "we have all right to think that [these] transformations... have something to do with fine sensation and control management" (yes, we do). Here I thought of the current paradigm, which is neo-Darwinism. I wanted to compare neo-Darwinism with your own paradigm and learn what the differences might be, and so better understand yours. But I soon realized that your essay is scoped much larger than evolution, maybe even larger than biology. So I lost my frame of reference. It's as though you were speaking a new language for which there's no Rosetta Stone (no key, no dictionary). I didn't understand.

I suggest it would help to take a comparative approach. For example you would write, "Here's how people look at S today...", where S is something simple. "Here's how I suggest we look at S instead... Here's the difference between these two views (old and new)... Here's what I think their respective advantages are... And their disadvantages..." Then you would do the same for T, U, etc. which are different things. Only once the reader understands your new viewpoint and learns to adopt it himself/herself would you dispense with the comparative approach and just speak of X, Y, Z, etc. from that viewpoint alone.

Mike

Dear Margarita Iudin,

I acknowledge the consciousness of individual cellular life forms [see my 2009 essay] and I agree with you about the futility of trying to control climate.

You say: "Imitation and understanding of a logical design and its physical implementation are possible because of analogous imagining... which transfers meaning from one context to another." That is nicely stated.

I do have a theory of "imagining" but it does not fit into a comment. And I do agree that it is possible to "steer the future" of humanity by means of analogical imagining.

I do not understand exactly what you mean by "nonlocal consciousness" which you claim is a phenomenon common to all living things. I view consciousness as a field phenomena which would make it nonlocal, so if this is what you mean then we are in full agreement. Of course the field interacts with all matter and at the level of the cell the organization of matter supports many many layers of logic and thus allows rudimentary "thinking".

Your focus on cellular consciousness is very compatible with my ideas, and I thank you for writing an interesting and entertaining essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman