From Physicality to Mathematicality, to Informaticality, to Ontology, and Consciousness by Janko Kokosar

Janko Kokosar

Essay Abstract

Extraordinary mathematicality of physics is also shown by dimensionlessness of Planck spacetime and mass. At the same time the Planck granularity of spacetime also shows that physics can be simulated by a binary computer. So physics is informational. But mathematics is not everything in physics, consciousness cannot be solely explained by mathematics, and free will also not. The author claims also that consciousness without free will does not exist. Quantum mechanics (QM) is not complete, because foundational principle is not yet known, because consciousness and Quantum gravity (QG) are not yet explained, and because agreement between measurement and calculation is not everything. QG as dimensionless theory is the foundation of QM and not oppositely. The free will and quantum randomness are similar unexplained phenomena. Even philosophy is important in physics, because what mathematics cannot describe in physics is ontology. And, intuition affects what is mainstream physics. Simplicity and clearness of physics and mathematics of physics are important not only for beginners, but also for the development of the fundamental physics. Uncertainty principle is so simple that maybe it could be derived without the use of wave functions. On the simplicity and clearness of fundamental physics it can be done a lot. The reason that QG does not yet exist is the lack of knowledge about spacetime as background. QM and special relativity with less background are on a way. It is necessary to develop such QM that it will be compatible with general relativity, and that will be based on simple postulates. Mathematics, informatics, physics, and philosophy are languages, thus they need protocols and protocols are also mathematics. Naturalism seems a correct way toward foundations of physics, but deep meaning of Ockham razor in fundamental physics is expected by the author.

Author Bio

The author born 1963, graduated as B.Sc. of Physics and has since worked in steel industry. His field of work are physical measurements, simulations of thermodynamics of steel, magnetic properties, statistical analyzes, programming and analyzes in Excel and SQL, etc. In young age he also competed in chess, mathematics, and physics. He developed some theories in fundamental physics and theories of consciousness. He found some formulae for the masses of elementary particles, he offers partial explanation of three space dimensions, he developed one step toward quantization of gravity. He also tries to simplify explanations of the fundamental theories of physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Edwin Klingman

Dear Janko Kokosar,

I believe this is the best essay you have presented to FQXi. You are certainly correct to focus on consciousness as absolutely necessary to connect math to physics. You may recall that my first FQXi essay was on consciousness. I generally do not describe my view as panpsychism, but it is quite difficult for me to clearly distinguish it from panpsychism. Certainly consciousness (awareness and free will) do not arise from matter as an artifact, but are implicit in a substantial universe.

You state, "a fundamental physical theory may be composed of five elements: physics, mathematics, philosophy, consciousness, and intuition."

As noted, I treat consciousness and physics in my first essay. I treat intuition in my current essay, which I hope you will read and comment upon. I also view mathematics as a consequence of physics, i.e., physical reality.

As usual, we do not agree upon all details, but I think we are in agreement on the big picture. You see consciousness as more closely connected to quantum mechanics, while I view it as more closely connected to the physical gravitational field, but obviously, the ToE must explain the quantum and gravity, and these two must be related. You say you do not believe in completely wrong intuition of humans. That is a question I also deal with in my current essay.

It is good that FQXi provides the focus on specific problems, provides a permanent record of our theories, and provides a forum in which we can actively share our ideas. It is also good to watch the ideas become more cleanly and clearly expressed.

My very best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Janko Kokosar

Dear Edwin Eugene,

Thank you for reading my essay and for your opinions.

I am glad that we agree about existence of panpsychism. Besides, Tononi and Koch also claim this, so this claim is not a crackpot.

About intuition, I have my reference about interpretation of SR, and in a new version I will explain more about this. It is also true, that both gravitational field and quantum field are everywhere, similarly as consciousness.

I am glad also that you still remember our old conversations and opinions.

I read your essay, and you make big effort to write it clearly. But I more agree with opionions of Stoica. I will add, that you should more clearly menition that your arguments do not include test of Bell experiment with photons. I suggest also that you still more explain your section 7.

Best regards

Janko Kokosar

Edwin Klingman

Dear Janko Kokosar,

Of course I recall our discussions, four or five years before Max Tegmark 'discovered' consciousness. The FQXi essay contest is the source of original and timely ideas, so it's very good to have our thoughts on permanent record.

As for whether the basis of consciousness is 'quantum' or 'gravitational', in the end, these should agree, or the concept is seriously weakened. But the key concept, as you note, is that "both gravitational field and quantum field are everywhere, similarly as consciousness."

As for Bell's theorem, it's probably wise to agree with Cristi, until one has seen enough to convince himself. My purpose in writing this essay was to hit all the key points, with it being understood that these points were connected. Most of the connections are in the references, but a few aspects were generated after the references were published.

I also think it's wise to attempt to understand quantum theory without entanglement, the way it was generally understood until 1980. You are correct to note that I've only demonstrated how to construct a local model based on particle spin in Stern-Gerlach. One might continue to believe that entanglement survives because experiments are based on photons and I've not yet analyzed photons. But, it has been a statement of faith, the Quantum Credo, that all local models fail to produce QM predictions, and I believe my essay puts a dent in that.

Thanks for reading and for giving me valuable feedback.

My best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

George Gantz

Janko -

Thank you for the excellent essay. I think it is fitting that you have linked philosophy to physics - this is a connection that most ignore. Perhaps the next FQXi contest could be: what is the unusual (and often contentious) relationship between physics and philosophy? After all, they started from the same roots.

You stated: "a fundamental physical theory may be composed of five elements: physics, mathematics, philosophy, consciousness and intuition." Interestingly, I opened my essay with a quote from Maimonides indicating that one would "attain perfection" in the sequential study of "Logic, the various branches of Mathematics, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics."

I'm not sure I see intuition as a distinct element of a physical theory - is it not just a human shortcut - a tool we use, for example, in playing chess, since it is far more efficient than calculating all relevant outcomes (which is what the computer does).

Consciousness raises more serious questions. If, for example, "consciousness of the observer of this simulation will be also included in the hardware", how do you avoid self-reflection and the constraints of Godel's proofs?

Sincerely - George Gantz

Janko Kokosar

Dear George Gantz

Thank you for reading my essay and thanks also to others who precisely read my essay.

1. Yes intuition is more a tool of physical theory, but anyway it seems to me that it is thus an important element of physical theory, because all physical theories are also consequence of intuition.

2. "how do you avoid self-reflection?"

I tried to define primitive elements of consciousness as primitive as possible. Thus I think that a basic element of consciousness is not self-reflective. But, who knows? Some philosophical definitions of consciousness are that it should be self-reflective. But I am not familiar with these theories. Maybe you can tell more?

3. "How to avoid the constraints of Godel's proofs"

My opinion is that mathematics is not 100% building block of physics. Thus physics is not prone to contradictions shown by Godel. We see that physics is not contradictory, because it exists. But, I am not sure.

I will read your essay more precisely in the next days.

Best regards Janko Kokosar

Sylvain Poirier

Dear Janko,

I see we have very similar views on the connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. For now I just see small differences between us on this topic : you wrote "QG will also tell more about quantum randomness, what can be connected with free will". I do not think so, as I consider QG as independent of the issue of interpretation of QM with consciousness.

Also in your 2013 essay you wrote about "a mechanism how quantum coherence in the brain can last long enough". I do not consider that any such mechanism is needed, as I rather expect free will to expresses itself in the form of a selection of "observed" world only after decoherence anyway, not before. For more details of how I see this connection between quantum physics and consciousness I invite you to read my essay, A Mind/Mathematics Dualistic Foundation of Physical Reality, and the longer exposition of this Mind Makes Collapse interpretation of quantum physics I initially wrote in my web site.

I also have such concerns that you expressed for the clarification of physics, which I started to work on with my site, however for the little look I had on your presentation, my way of clarifying seems to diverge from yours. I will look at the longer version of your text later.

Joe Fisher

Dear Dr. Janko Kokosar,

You wrote: "They also argue that it cannot be seen where non-mathematics can have any impact in the physical world."

Please let me know what you think of this: This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Janko Kokosar

Dear Joe Fisher

I think that your main idea is that all in physics is unique? This is appropriate for this contest which search for differences between math and physics. I disagree with you, but your idea needs clear mathematical antiargument.

Best regards Janko Kokosar

Vladimir Rogozhin

Dear Janko,

I have read your essay with great interest. Important thoughts and conclusion:

"Thus, a fundamental physical theory may be composed of five elements: physics, mathematics, philosophy, consciousness and intuition. The argument closest to the author is that mathematics has a profound impact in physics, but it is not 100%."

"Symmetry of physics is also connected with simplicity. Panpsychism is also a way that connection of matter and consciousness is made simpler. Linearity also means simplicity. "

But it is necessary to "grab" (understand) the simplicity of the whole complexity of the Universe, including consciousness, that is construct the model "self-aware Universe" (mathematician and philosopher V.Nalimov). Is there a principle that unites "symmetry" and "asymmetry" in Nature? How to choose a path?

I started my studies 25 years ago with the concept of "consciousness - the value vector", "vector of consciousness." As a result, I have come to the problem of the ontological base of the "fundamental knowledge". Modern Mathematics and Physics- sciences without ontological justification (basification), as well as all "the fundamental knowledge". Requires deeper limit ontology and dialectic in the spirit of Plato - Cusa - Hegel: "coincidence of opposites." Requires the deepest synthesis of all the accumulated knowledge, including Tradition. The "Occam's razor" should be extremely sharp. Necessary unification "matter" at all levels in the spirit of Plato's, ontological justification (basification) and extension "space" based on absolute (unconditional, extreme) forms of existence of matter, which substantiate the triune space of limit states of matter: "continnum", "discretuum" and "dis-continuum".

E.Husserl gave good tips in "Origin of Geometry": "Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise , that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense."

I believe that only the deepest ontological turn of the fundamental science will provide an opportunity to get out of the "crisis of understanding", "crisis of interpretation and representation" to the new heuristics.

I invite you to see my analysis of the philosophical foundations of mathematics and physics, the method of ontological constructing of the primordial generating structure, "La Structure mère" as the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, the core of which - the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory and information - polyvalent phenomenon of the ontological (structural) memory of Universum as a whole. I believe that the scientific picture of the world should be the same rich senses of the "LifeWorld» (E.Husserl), as a picture of the world poets and philosophers.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

James Hoover

Janko,

Your discussion regarding quantum randomness in the classical world is one for the ages.

I cite this question from the problem-solving perspective of a theoretical physicist who tries to explain how the European robin navigates N to S and back, attributing it to interaction of an avian chemical compass, the robin having a protein capable of generating entangled electrons and the weak magnetic field.Also cited is the process of photosynthesis and photons efficiently converted to energy through the avenue of superposition.

I would agree that quantum physics is served at the molecular level with non-random actions of living things.

Jim

James Hoover

Janko,

Thanks for checking out my essay. You pose a number of interesting questions. I have noted studies on the sense of smell being quantum related. It sounds similar to the robin's receptors for the magnetic field as opposed to difference in atom types engendering smell distinctions.System biology's cell signaling must have a quantum basis as well.

I had not heard of the search for antigalaxies, but see that the space station has a study.

I am revisiting essays I've read for rating. I see that I haven't rated yours yet. I will correct that.

Jim

James Hoover

Janko,

Looks like you got some "Trojan" ratings w/o comments. It happened to me disguised during comments by Peter Jackson.

Jim

James Hoover

I gave you a 7.

Joe Fisher

Dear Janko,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga

Dear Janko Kokosar,

thanks for the comment. I also had the chance to have a look into your essay.

Interesting mixture of topics. I remember on a discussion with bio-physicists. Now there is more and more evidence that Consciousness (as caused by thehuman brain) is strongly related to quantum mechanics. The quantum nature of some processes in the brain is maybe the root of Consciousness.

I think that at the end elementary particle physics can also explained simple. Currently we work on a topological model (based on the braid model of Bilson-Thompson). Maybe it is a way in this direction.

I rate your essay with seven.

Best

Torsten

Branko Zivlak

Dear Janko

You wrote:

When Planck dened his constant h, and then dened his time tpl, the distance lpl, and the mass mpl, he also reached dimensionless nature of physics and thus mathematics was approached to physics.

Namely, thus the masses of the particles can be described dimensionlessly...

The results of this your attitude can be found at: http://vixra.org/abs/1403.0069

Incorrect you say:

later it was discovered that the universe is, the most probably, finite.

It was known long before. For instance you can see at RuÄ'er BoÅ¡koviÄ‡ "Now, although I do not hold with infinite divisibility, yet I do admit infinite componibility". Therefore I say: the mass, radius and any other Fenomenon is finite but the number of their combination is infinite.

In my essay, you can see the use of Cycle defined as exp (2pi), which is used to determine the dimensionless relations of physical quantities, especially Planck values. Maybe another exponent exp (i * pi) = 1 (Euler's identity) can be used in relation to Consciousness, which is a topic that you know well. Your essay is comprehensive and very high level, and deserves high rating.

Regards,

Branko

Sylvain Poirier

Dear Janko,

Sorry I was late to reply to your post in my thread but then I did it last week, and I also wrote the explanation of U(1) in Peter Woit's thread. I also recently expanded the list of essays I found interesting (still not finished) in my review of this contest.

Patrick Tonin

Dear Janko,

Your essay is full of interesting points. I particularly enjoyed your paragraphs "Dimensionless nature of physics" and "Consciousness".

You say "matter (physical world) arises from processes in the consciousness, panpsychism".

I believe that consciousness creates the coherent world that we live in (made of coherent information) but also consciousness can only exist in a coherent world, it is a bit like a chicken and egg situation.

You can take a look at my model if you have time, we seem to have some similar views on certain things. There is also my essay, although it is just a list of equations.

All in all, I believe that your essay is one of the best ones in this contest, well done.

All the best,

Patrick

Franc Rozman

Dear Janko Kokosar

The essay understandably presents a demanding physical topic. It does not provide final answers, but unveils new aspects of physics and it opens new physical questions, according to readers. I will not go into specific substantive differences between the content of the essay and those of other physicists. After reading the essay I got the idea that even communication between physicists is already very difficult, but still more with nonphysicists. Not because they were incapable of communicating physics, but because the structure of the universe so far exceeds our ability to perception. Your essay laudably adds a stone in the mosaic of knowledge about physics and thus adds a clear picture of the universe, an image which will likely to be more or less veiled for a long time to us nonphysicsts.

Best Regards

Franc Rozman