Essay Abstract

This paper presents a scientific approach to address the following questions: Are mathematical laws mindless? How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of (apparently) goal-free mathematical evolution? It demonstrates the power of a wholesome consciousness-integrated science to reveal the physical basis for purpose, aims, and intentions in the universe and life in it. The approach of the scientific research is three-fold. First is to complete the picture of reality via integrating consciousness into a physical model and explain the observed universe behavior resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories. Second is to develop a framework for an integrated model of matter, mind, and consciousness founded on the wholesome reality. And lastly, demonstrate how the so-called mindless physical laws lead to the ultimate purpose, aims, and intentions. A successful agreement between the predictions and empirical observations of the universe demonstrates the validity and credibility of the proposed approach. The predictions are further testable and falsifiable via future observations. The goal-oriented behavior is shown to be an orderly physical/cosmic trend governed by the laws and not an accident or an imperative.

Author Bio

Dr. Avtar Singh is the author of the book - "The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality". He obtained his Doctor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He has been involved in cutting edge research and development in science, engineering, and cosmology over the past 30 years. He has published more than fifty technical papers and two monographs. He received the 'Best Paper Award' of the American Nuclear Society, MIT research fellowship, and several technical excellence awards in nuclear, defense, and space industries.

Download Essay PDF File

You seem to trying to prove the existence of consciousness through your own Universal Relativity Model (URM) as against Einstein's theory of relativity. But, your Universal Relativity Model (URM) is not experimentally established yet. Hence, I think, while attempting to scientifically investigate topics like life, intelligence, growth, goal oriented behavior etc, you should use the already established and experimentally verified physical laws so that world can take your views seriously.

    Dear Prof. Dixit:

    You are correct but I have only used only well-established relativity theory to formulate URE, which is only an application to the spontaneous particle decay. It is not a new theory and as shown in the paper it predicts a variety of the empirical universe observations including future predictions that are falsifiable.

    The whole point of the paper is that the well-established theories need to integrate the missing physics of spontaneous decay to eliminate their current deficiencies and inconsistencies missing 96% of the universe including dark energy and dark matter.

    I attach herewith a paper that includes a complete derivation of URE based on relativity theory.

    Best Regards

    Avtar SinghAttachment #1: FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf

    • [deleted]

    • Post #4

    You gave a very nice approach sir... in your own words.... "integrating consciousness into a physical model..... and ....

    You have very nicely pointed out problems of expanding universe models based on GR like ... "the observed universe behaviour resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories" in the abstract.

    For your information.....

    1. Dark matter was not detected experimentally.

    2. Regarding Dark energy(You mentioned in Page 2 second paragraph end), if you see the Galaxies in the universe as rotating about Dynamically, then all the Blue shifted, Red shifted, Acceleratingly moving Galaxies both Blue and red side are explained.....

    3. You mentioned in Page 5 second paragraph beginning..... about Homogeneity and Isotropy in the universe. That is wrong observationally, Large voids to the tune of 1/3 of observable universe, large scale Galactic structures were observed.

    4. You are considering only 40 percent Galaxies (which are red shifted) in the Universe. You should consider the other 60 percent also before finalizing.

    And you proposed URM based on General relativity as you mentioned in Prof Dixit's reply above. Penrose-Hawkins theorem says that there will be a singularity in any expanding universe model based on General Relativity. So your URM is not free of singularities.

    Hope you will consider these points and explain

    You gave a very nice approach sir... in your own words.... "integrating consciousness into a physical model..... and ....

    You have very nicely pointed out problems of expanding universe models based on GR like ... "the observed universe behaviour resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories" in the abstract.

    For your information.....

    1. Dark matter was not detected experimentally.

    2. Regarding Dark energy(You mentioned in Page 2 second paragraph end), if you see the Galaxies in the universe as rotating about Dynamically, then all the Blue shifted, Red shifted, Acceleratingly moving Galaxies both Blue and red side are explained.....

    3. You mentioned in Page 5 second paragraph beginning..... about Homogeneity and Isotropy in the universe. That is wrong observationally, Large voids to the tune of 1/3 of observable universe, large scale Galactic structures were observed.

    4. You are considering only 40 percent Galaxies (which are red shifted) in the Universe. You should consider the other 60 percent also before finalizing.

    And you proposed URM based on General relativity as you mentioned in Prof Dixit's reply above. Penrose-Hawkins theorem says that there will be a singularity in any expanding universe model based on General Relativity. So your URM is not free of singularities.

    Hope you will consider these points and explain

    I am sorry I was logged out in my earlier post, I dont know i was logged out automatically during the middle....

      Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,

      Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

      Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

      One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible "wholesome consciousness-integrated science to reveal the physical basis for purpose, aims, and intentions in the universe and life in it."

      The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

      A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Mr. Gupta Ji:

      Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

      Correct - "Dark matter was not detected experimentally.: Dark means unseen and immeasurable.

      There is no singularity in the model as I derive a simplified GR model based on spontaneous decay and not use the mainstream GR theory that has singularity.There are no singularities in my model as shown in figure 8 of the attached paper showing details calculations of the model for R ranging from -infinity to +infinity.

      Further total mass of the universe in the URM contains all galaxies, no galaxies are neglected.

      Best Regards

      Avtar SinghAttachment #1: 1_FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf

      Dear Joe:

      Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

      Agree with your comment -"One real visible Universe must have only one reality. "

      However, this ONE reality is seen as many relative realities by less than fully conscious (V

      Dear Joe:

      Sorry, my post got truncated. Here is the rest of it.

      However, this ONE reality is seen as many relative relative realities by less than fully conscious (V

      third try:

      However, this ONE reality is seen as many relative relative realities by less than fully conscious (V less than C). Only a fully enlightened (V equals C) observer sees only ONE reality as you describe.

      Regards

      Avtar

      Dear Avtar,

      Each real eye can physically only see real visible infinite surface that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. It needs no abstract invisible "enlightenment" in order to do so.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Mr. Avtar Singh

      In the spatially finite, but time eternal universe (in past and future) there are Galaxies (10^ Sun masses), 8.745 * 10^12 at each time point. This is based on my Theory. To what extent this result meets your findings? Nature does not care how much we are away from each galaxy and red shift dependent on the distance.

      BTW, where are from equations (1), and (2).

      Regards,

      Branko

        Dear Mr. Branko L. Zivlak:

        Thanks for reading my paper and asking great questions.

        Please see Figure 5 in my contest paper that gives the number of galaxies vs. redshift Z. The maximum number of galaxies are about 3.5 x 10E12 at lower redshifts and deceasing to about 6 x 10E11 at redshift of 20.

        Equations (1) and (2) are derived in the attached paper.

        I would appreciate it greatly if you could please rate my paper.

        Thanks

        Avtar SinghAttachment #1: OPJ_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Spontaneous_Decay.pdf

        Dear Avtar Singh,

        i read your essay and i feel that you thought hardly about the question your son asked you in the first place. I think you derived at the right answer, namely that consciousness should be considered as a fundamental ingredient - one way or the other - in the universe. I especially like your lines of reasoning that self-induced motion (e.g. of photons), birth/decay of particles, wave-particle duality and the sheer existence of order and physical laws in the universe should be treated as significant hints - because not only consciousness is possible in this universe, but because it also is able to assimilate all these phenomena and conceptualize them.

        I never heard of the assumption that the root of consciousness could rest upon spontaneous particle birth/decay, and this was a positive surprise for me. The attempt to conceptualize the dynamics of conscious agents by means of self-induced changes of material states via particle birth/decay is a nice result in my opinion; it emphasizes a connection between mind and matter, a commonality, which could be circumscribed as energetical vibrational patterns. At page 6 i had to read the reference 14 you mentioned. I didn't knew of the work of Joachim Keppler, although he also lives in germany. His work is fascinating for me and i thank you for having mentioned it in your essay.

        Maybe the ZPF and the dark energy /dark matter issue are intimately related or somewhat identical, but i am not an expert on this field and also not on the large-scale structure of the universe / galaxies, so i cannot comment on these things.

        I congratulate you to your deep and well elaborated case for consciousness as a fundamental ingredient in the grand scheme of things and i liked reading your essay. In my opinion, it has much substance to it, especially in connection with the work of Keppler, which i also highly recommend to be read by everybody interested in the hard problem of consciousness.

        Best wishes

        Stefan Weckbach

        Dear Stefan Weckbach

        Thank you very much for reading my paper as well as your kind comments.

        I would appreciate it very much if you could please rate my paper.

        Best Regards

        Avtar

          Dear Avtar Singh,

          your essay is clearly written, not obfuscating. You lay out properly what you mean. I gave you my rating also for the content of your essay, for you came up with an interesting new approach (ZPF) and cited the relevant reference. Thanks for your participation!

          Dear Avtar Singh,

          Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have now read your essay and agree that we see consciousness as inherent in the physical universe rather than an artifact, almost an afterthought, that emerged in unplanned fashion. If this were the case, it could just as easily have been that consciousness never arises at all.

          I agree with you that "a common set of physical laws govern the functioning and behavior of matter, mind, consciousness, intentions, aims, and purpose at all scales in the universe." and that "laws are not mindless but the very mind of the universe and goal-oriented behavior is not an accident..."

          Your focus is heavily on the cosmological problems of dark matter and dark energy. I have not quantitatively pursued my theory in this direction, so I cannot compare our results. My focus has been on the physical interaction of the field with neural networks of the brain, and of the field with itself.

          As Harry Ricker points out elsewhere, physics suffers from "underdetermination", in which case two or more theories fully comply with all the verification evidence. This is exacerbated when the theories do not fully overlap in their applications. The significant thing is that we draw the same conclusion that consciousness is inherent in the universe, not an 'after-the-fact' artifact, nor anything that arose from 'mindless math'.

          Best regards,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Avtar,

          Essay is personal and well thought out. Your URM acts to connect the human / conscious and the inanimate, along with the whole of the universe into a functioning whole with meaning and goals.

          I believe I make the same connections but perhaps with less skill as stated by you: "URM demonstrates that a common set of physical laws govern the functioning and behavior of matter, mind, consciousness, intentions, aims, and purpose at all scales in the universe."

          Well done, Avtar.

          Jim Hoover

            • [deleted]

            • Post #19

            Hi Jim:

            Thanks for reading my essay and thoughtful comments.I would greatly appreciate it if you could please provide your valuable rating to my essay.

            I very much enjoyed reading your paper as well. Your paper addresses all the key goals, purposes of human life beyond the ere mere survival of species on this planet earth. The mainstream science has to go a long way to see beyond the inanimate matter and biological-only evolution to recognize deeper cosmic and universal realities. I am particularly impressed by your expressed thoughts in your paper -

            "So we use these piecemeal guides of mathematical laws, hoping, like a piece of life's puzzle, we can put them all together into a universal whole. We wonder about ourselves, a living, breathing scalar example of universal things that live and die, achieving this cycle on a much smaller and less cosmic scale than a galaxy, composed of stars, planets, black holes, and gases, or the entire universe."

            The key theme of my paper is to provide a quantitative scientific model to address the above with empirical evidence and test-ability in future.

            Best Regards

            Avtar

            Avtar,

            I checked to make sure that I rated yours. Of those I have read so far, I have only rated those I'm sure of the high quality, and yours was one of two. The other was Mr. Klingman.

            Jim