Dear Wilhelmus de Wilde,

It's been obvious for years that you are extremely focused on consciousness, so I'm not surprised.

I very much like "searching for the announcer in the radio".

When I first read your essay I started to give you 10, but everyone I pushed to the top so they would receive more visibility immediately got shot down by whatever troll lurks beneath the FQXi bridge biting passersby with 1's.

Also, I wanted more time to digest the meaning of your essay. While I think your scheme is magnificent, I was unsure how literally you meant it. For me experience of physical reality is key, but current projections of structure on physical reality are confused at best. Essays on consciousness seek to gain 'respectability' (the coin of the realm) by tying their systems to physics (the holy word of the realm). If the physics is mistaken (as much today is) it can take a perfectly good understanding of metaphysics in the wrong direction.

You work your way through various physical concepts and introduce 'limits', the speed of light and Planck time and length, then concede that Planck units do not exist in reality as we experience it. I would instead choose the speed of light and Planck's minimum interaction, h, both of which do exist. The Planck time and length are derived units, which, as you say, are unreal. My argument is for a physical continuum, not captured by mathematics, but closely approximated.

So I see the Planck Wall as a mathematical projection, having no physical reality. [In fact, you compare it to an abstract mathematical structure: Hilbert space.] You then construct an abstract 'space' called Total Simultaneity, based on the conception of Eternal Now Moments. I tend to view our universe as existing in one ENM, and all local consciousness partakes of this Now.

I do not buy the Copenhagen interpretation (or any other current interpretation) of quantum mechanics so I don't see observers as 'collapsing' a superposition of wave functions, and "creating" reality. QM is a statistical theory that describes averages when particles with always-associated-wave properties experience different paths. The idea that they experience this all-at-once as a superposition of probabilities is a projection I do not buy into. As I said in my essay: the statistics work, it is the interpretations that are in error. As you note, most experiments have been performed with photons, not particles, and certain aspects of photons have been unclear since Planck. I will not be able to resolve these in the comments. Nevertheless, I do not accept 'retrogression' as an acceptable way around built-in errors. Neither is this the place to argue entanglement. For more info, see:

The Nature of Quantum Gravity

Spin: Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Dirac, Bell

I do believe in a physically real universe, but GR and QM have confused the issue via erroneous projections that are (at the moment) given credence. The universe will not simply vanish when these errors are corrected, but certain mystical and unphysical conceptions will vanish.

In short, I think you've developed a powerful way of describing the experience of local conscious beings in a unified reality existing Now. I think you should not try to tie it too closely to mystical elements of current physics which will not survive the century. Hopefully, not the next decade. As metaphor I buy your beautiful system. As physics I do not buy it. Clearly, over the sequence of FQXi essays, you are getting closer to the truth. I am sure you will continue to do so. By the way, I chose your figure 1 as the cover for my first book on consciousness, Gene Man's World, ISBN-13:978-0979176555.

My very best regards; keep up the excellent work.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Klingman,

I read your essay with great interest. This has some similarities with my essay, 'No Ghost in the Machine,' but also some important differences.

Similarities: Brain as learning neural network

Differences: While you see LSD-induced altered consciousness as an insight into an underlying "consciousness field", I see dreams as an insight into an agent-generating virtual reality construction that constitutes consciousness. No special field is needed, and I suggest that a similar structure may be implemented in an electronic system (although this has yet to be demonstrated). Also, I do not see any need for a quantum basis for consciousness.

I would be interested in your comments on my essay.

Alan Kadin

    Dear Alan Kadin,

    We have, in past essays, agreed in general but differed in the details. For example, the wave aspect of fundamental particles reflects internal rotating vector fields while the external motion follows classical particle trajectories. Entanglement is rejected.

    Similarly, we do not believe mind and consciousness to be related to quantum effects on the atomic level. [Or 'large' molecules, such as micro-tubules.]

    You discuss consciousness and intelligence, but is not clear to me that you define them exactly as I do. The key point is that you find it feasible that consciousness is a virtual reality simulation, rising from biological neural nets, perhaps from the dynamics of classical nonlinear systems.

    I believe that we have enough similarity in our theories of fundamental particles and associated physics, and in molecular biology of the cell and neural networks that I do understand your model. I've designed robotic systems and hold robot patents and I've thought for decades on the issues involved, and I'm simply unable to believe that mechanisms become aware through added complexity. Of course, given awareness, they become more 'intelligent' with increased neural capabilities. It is an enticing narrative for reductionist thinking, but not susceptible to proof. Therefore it is truly a choice. You choose to believe that evolved structures lead to self-awareness. I do not believe this. AI has been hyped since ELIZA in the 60s or 70s and we're still no closer as far as I can tell. Like quantum computing, AI will fund endless papers, while robots will become increasingly effective for working in controlled environments, but "emulating" consciousness does not yield consciousness. Nor do I conceive of an agent-generating virtual-reality structure that "constitutes consciousness". I believe these are projections and extrapolations. You believe no field is needed. As neither of us can demonstrate proof of concept, it remains personal choice as to what's deemed more feasible.

    I fully agree with you there is no need for a quantum basis for consciousness. If by this you are referring to Penrose, Hameroff, et al. If you are referring to my 'qubit model' in my endnotes, my primary reason for including that was to demonstrate how easy it is to project qubits onto physical reality, potentially obscuring everything but the 'two states'. It really has nothing to do with explaining consciousness. Finally, as I propose a real physical field, not an immaterial field, I too avoid the "ghost in the machine".

    Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I always enjoy reading yours.

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Thank you Edwin for the open mind you are showing.

    As different as we both are we are searching for the same solutions, without different colours there is no beautifull rainbow.

    You say "I tend to view our universe as existing in one ENM, and all local consciousness partakes of this Now." This is exactly what I mean to argue, My Derived Local (in space and time) Consciousness in a flowing time-restricted reality is a expression of Total Consciousness in Total Simultaneity. The NOW that that consciousness (field ?) is experiencing includes the whole historical flow towards this NOW Moment.

    "The observer isn't the cause" of a wave collapse" In my perception the fact that the observer (agent) is "measuring" an event that is from the past (he cannot measure the NOW because that is immediatly past...), one part (position or velocity) is fixed, the observer is NOT the cause of this so called collapse, it isn't even a collapse it is a search for position/velocity in the flow that exists only in the observers consciousness. So it seems as if the observer is the cause but he is not, the result is just as lost as is the future.

    So you see that we agree more as you thought...

    best regards

    Wilhelmus de Wilde

    PS I never received a 10 in the beginning , the first rating was a 9 from another particpant, the second a six and then three trols arrived with three ones on a row without any comment why the essay was so bad...

    Dear Edwin,

    i just finished reading your essay. I like your general education and how you treat numbers and cite Kronecker. I also do believe that the existence of math could be exactly due to the boundary you described: 0 and 1 do appear. I once wrote an article which considers numbers and all the rest of maths to have come into existence by a simple split process (for example of a circle, divided by its diameter, resulting in Pi). I have further investigated why Pi is quantitatively and qualitatively what it is.

    I also like your citing of maps versus territories. This is always a good picture to start from. Further i like "Maps from fundamental particles to self-aware humans are too complex for us to distinguish abstraction from physical reality." Yes, even if there would be such a map theoretically, how can one establish it objectively?

    I also take it as a good idea to list the three credos. As i noted in another comment to you (on my essay page) it nonetheless makes sense to take these credos for real and look where they lead to and if there could contradictions arise.

    Another important point, raised by you:

    "...many successes of the Big Bang model "can be traced to the initial conditions postulated ... and put in by hand, without justification, other than to retrofit the data."

    Yes, here we are in the realm of reverse engineering tasks. As you may know, the mathematician Edward Moore published a theorem in 1956 (Gedanken-experiments on sequential Machines) which states that a consistent induction scheme's 'implications' cannot automatically be considered as necessarily meeting reality, because there can exist a multitude of different schemes, all matching the observational data (of a black-box; rightfully you note: The number of potential math models of physical reality is unlimited). This is really a problem, and Moore showed that it is related to the problem of induction.

    Since inductions are concerned with observed regularities or quasi-regularities (as in QM), the problems of the relationship of credos with reality are serious. Therefore personally i tend to extrapolate these credos, and especially the ones that aim to give a final answer to such questions as why is there something rather than nothing up to the point where it becomes clear to me that these credos cannot be a logical explanation of the content of our black-boxes and their shere existence.

    I also agree that either one seamless reality exists or the whole thing is just inconsistent, means absurd.

    You further wrote:

    "If consciousness is awareness plus volition and intelligence is consciousness plus logic (i.e., physical structural instantiations of AND and NOT compatible with Darwinian evolution of function via surviving structures)".

    Here the thought arose to me why i intuitively think that many explanations of consciousness in terms of feedback-loops and iterative processes as well as mappings of representations are all insufficient: They are objective tools of logical thinking, deduction and induction at the level of a conscious mind. Feedback loops for example are present when one contrasts two mutually exclusive concepts like the wave-particle behaviour. There is a direct feedback from the particle picture towards the wave picture and vice versa. This is a logical feedback loop. Heraclites of Ephesos (520 B.C - 460 B.C.) presumably was the first who termed the dynamics of oscillations between two truth values within an antinomy as an 'enantiodromy'. Iterative processes are also well known in the course of pondering over some complex questions. And the results of these ponderings for such complex questions must be coded within a logical figure (a 'representation') to further operate with it. All this can be introspectively examined and i have the strong impression that these many explanations i mentioned above have taken these intuitively known dynamics to project it down to the next few hierachical levels of description. I do not exclude that at these levels, the mentioned dynamical processes also are executed, but the question arises how logical principles like these are able to facilitate conscious awareness in the first place. I therefore think these explanations, as important as they are, miss something and are incomplete.

    I liked your analogy to expose a blind person for 12 hours to visual impressions.

    You wrote:

    "If mind couples to the physical brain, it is not surprising that chemically induced states of consciousness will differ from normal consciousness."

    Your exploration into the phenomenon of LSD-induced awareness is interesting and it surely is also important, since we gain knowledge by differentiating. And since a normal state of awareness is much different to an LSD-induced awareness, one should be able to conclude something from these differences. The pictures of the different brain activities show that awareness and consciousness are not localized somewhere special in the brain. By the way, LSD was also used in hospices and as i remember, the persons who had this unity-experience weren't anymore afraid of their dead. Since fear is a Darwinian mechanism, one now can ask how it can be counteracted by some 'chaos' which was induced into the brain by a chemical that is well known to also initiate nightmares, fear of death and psychosis. The only question left here is how your conscious field does interact with the particle like structure of the brain - and what does this field being aware of if no brains would be existent (say, in the outer spaces)? I would also be interested if your view of physics is deterministic. Because i didn't properly grasp your take on QM and how you interpret it. Could you comment on that a little bit more?

    You wrote:

    "I have awareness of only one physical universe, but I have many maps of the universe, and I use experience of the physical universe to qualify the maps."

    This is a very wise decision, as is also the whole gamut of your essay to question on a logical basis what is widely assumed in scientific circles to be known for sure.

    Thank you for an essay that lays down that with high probability some known paths have to be revisited by taking different paths and to examine what this could say about paths in general.

    Best wishes,

    Stefan Weckbach

      Edwin,

      I appreciate your essay very much.

      Your treatment of mathematics should be a revelation to those who mistake it for physics.

      I especially like:

      "The math is a formal byproduct [of mind], having nothing to do with giving rise to awareness, volition, or purpose."

      "Is consciousness real? I can sense it, so it meets that criterion."

      "If mind is as primordial as physical reality, then it is best conceived as a field."

      "The brain as neural networks coupled to a consciousness field"

      "The word is a symbol; the act is an experience."

      I believe our perspectives are complemental. Please have a look at my "Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness."

        Posted to Vladimir F. Tamari's essay:

        You mentioned the world turned upside down with special relativity and velocity-dependent attributes. In my mind this is another case of focusing on the mathematical projections imposed on reality by physicists. I believe in the physical reality and seek to understand such reality through appropriate models. For example, I believe the appropriate model for special relativity is the "radar" model. My radar sits in my rest frame in London and sends a pulse at the speed of light toward a V2 rocket headed for London with velocity v. When my pulse strikes the nose of the V2, it returns to me at the speed of light. But a portion of the radar pulse wave-front continues toward the tail of the rocket. While my pulse travels to the tail fin at c, the tail fin is traveling toward me at v, and analysis of the return pulse implies that the V2 rocket is shorter in length than is actually the case.

        Since I cannot reach out and touch an object in another inertial frame, but can only send and receive messages traveling at the speed of light, [even if that varies from place to place or time to time!] then Newtonian physics dictates a "length contraction" for objects so measured in a frame moving with respect to myself. I see no reason to believe the V2 has turned into silly putty. I simply see that communication at the finite speed of light complicates analysis of communications between moving reference frames.

        Similarly, the "clock model" that times 'ticks' in terms of the round-trip travel between a source and detector on the floor of the railroad car and a mirror on the ceiling will show time dilation for moving clocks, compared to the identical optical clock stationary in the station. Again, essentially the radar model. No nonsense about "perfect" clocks. Along these lines the use of the term "simultaneous" when what is really being discussed is "synchronous", has convinced many that simultaneity has no meaning in the universe. This too is nonsense.

        I agree that the Equivalence Principle has problems. It completely fails when either tidal forces or local rotation cannot be ignored. Why choose a fundamental principle that has glaring exceptions? The main consequence is that the gravitational energy of the field can always be transformed away in a suitable reference frame, yielding a purely geometric formalism. This follows from ignoring the Maxwell-Einstein gravito-magnetic aspects of dynamic gravity. If these aspects are considered it plays havoc with the Equivalence Principle and also with Copenhagen 'particle-wave duality'. The gravito-magnetic wave induced by ultra-dense matter (such as electrons) cannot be ignored. It is primarily due to the statistical/thermodynamic Partition function that the wavelength of this field can be related to energy and hence probability, resulting in the endless confusion known as QM.

        I am amazed and pleased that your summary diagram on page 6 is almost 100% compatible with my theory of reality (with the possible exception of the bottom left corner [21st c]). You have been very busy my friend!

        To tie some of this together, I hope you find the time to look at my recent paper

        The Nature of Quantum Gravity

        I think you will like it. The issue with Bell derived from his projecting the 'qubit' "two state" model onto a simplistic interpretation of Stern-Gerlach. But there is no fiercer branch of the QM religion than the church of the entanglement, so that is a fight to be avoided if possible. Thank God as you note, there are competent thinkers outside the establishment to do the work that must be done to escape the mess we're in.

        I am in full agreement with viewing gravity as aether that acts as an optical field of variable index of refraction bending light. Since local gravity (aether) did not change for Michelson and Morley, wherever in orbit, they should've expected null results!

        I showed in my dissertation that any axiomatic theory of physics can be formulated as automata. An example in my endnotes shows the mapping between the canonical form and one of Feynman's path integral terms. I also observed that the automaton's 'next state address' is conceptually equivalent to potential (as shown in the example.)

        Vladimir it is so rewarding to see that many here continue to improve their theories in their essays every year. You and I are converging in many areas. That is so pleasing.

        My very best wishes for you,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Wilhelmus,

          Thanks for clarifying your 'collapse' argument. You are correct, we agree more now than I thought. Also, I said above I 'started to', or 'initially planned to' give you a 10, but since this seemed to cause others to experience a 1 from the troll, I would effectively be giving you a 5.5, so I did not grade you then. Also I wanted to digest your essay further to be sure I understood it. I have since given you a score that moved you up in the list.

          Yes we do attack the same problem. It is so vast that there is room for two approaches. We focus on Now.

          Best,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear James Arnold,

          Thanks for your comment. Thanks for your review of Chalmers, Dennett, Nagel, Penrose, Pinker, Searle, Sperry and others. I haven't looked at them for years, but agree with all your analysis. Funny how one can achieve a name in this field when it's obvious one doesn't know whereof one speaks. Anyway, your summary is valuable, particularly for those who may not know recent history. The "integrated information" and "microtubules" approaches are apparently the rage today, setting us up for new batches of spectacular papers rich in detail, empty of comprehension.

          "There is no emergent transition from a network of firing neurons to conscious experience of pleasure or pain."

          Elsewhere I quote Santayana:

          "All of our sorrow is real, but the atoms of which we are made are indifferent."

          I fully agree with you that "consciousness is not a system of extrinsic objective relationships; it is intrinsic." Then it falls upon us to identify the source or location or nature of this 'intrinsicity'.

          You say Penrose is a quantum physicist, but he's really more of a general relativist I believe. Nevertheless, as you note, by locking himself into 'microtubules', he is a reductionist. I have not yet understood what, beyond pretty and intricate pictures, people see in a specific large molecule. Yes, microtubules dynamically construct themselves and deconstruct themselves at their ends, but what element in the cell does not in one way or another do the same?

          Although it's only a change of terminology, I very much like your change of focus from 'random' and 'indeterminate' to 'spontaneity'. Despite that Searle says "quantum indeterminism is the only form of indeterminism that is indisputably established as a fact of nature", this is interpretation-dependent, leaning heavily on Copenhagen and 'collapse'. Wave functions evolve deterministically through Schrodinger, and there is conceptual conflict between the physical wave property and the 'wave probability' function that is beyond the scope of a comment to resolve.

          'Spontaneity' brings something to the local event that seems missing in 'random' and 'indeterminism'. I encourage you to develop this idea further. You have perhaps captured it when you trace it to an inner dynamic. In fact, spontaneity in consciousness carries with it a sense of "appropriateness".

          I also like your 'no-cause' analysis of indeterminacy. You ask 'what can spontaneity offer?'. I think it offers a sense of appropriateness.

          I do not identify this feature as rooted in quantum mechanics. For an indication of why, I refer you to my recent paper:

          The Nature of Quantum Gravity

          Spontaneity may be the 'least biased interpretation of quantum phenomena', but, more so, it is probably the most appropriate characterization of consciousness, and fits my field theory fairly well. Unless one is a believer in 'entanglement' [which is in almost every case 'monogamous'-linking two and only two particles], quantum events are local, even if the locale is as large as a microtubule. No one believes (I hope) that a quantum relation spans the entire brain, whereas the field that I propose does exactly this. So mind and intelligence are locally global versus locally local.

          You hint at this when you say "we need to discover a connectedness between levels of individuality in order to establish a continuity from quantum to human."

          It is not as clear to me that "this is the comprehensive continuity that the concept of spontaneity can provide..."

          For "comprehensive continuity" I believe one needs a field, operating at all scales from electron to brain. Rather than argue technical points about space "roiling with virtual particles" [leading to predictions that differ from reality by 120 orders of magnitude!] I would hope that you might keep the baby of 'spontaneity" and throw out the confused quantum basis, in favor of attempting to apply 'spontaneity to the field' that envelops all the many pieces of the puzzle.

          I would change your final statement [before the conclusion] to:

          "...brain function doesn't cause consciousness, it in-forms it."

          Thank you for a most rewarding read.

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Dr. Klingman,

          Gary Simpson suggested that I read your essay and comment on it as well as write to you concerning my own research and essay.

          I did read your essay a couple of times as well as some of your other writings on Spin. It would be interesting and fun to ask you more questions to help me understand more clearly your analyses and arguments. Maybe in the future. But right now I want to briefly discuss with you the most surprising thing that struck me as a new revelation or idea that I had not fully appreciated before. It was your discussion of "Credos," particularly the "Quantum Credo." I'm an engineering mechanicist and I realize that I probably believe in my own Credo; call it the "Mechanicist Credo" or the "Engineer's Credo."

          If you read my essay, you'll see that I started out with picturing our universe as a "stochastic process design" based on my engineering work with such processes. About twenty years ago I became interested in Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Theory and how these fit into the possibility of universal design. I read as many textbooks and papers as I could and started conducting my own research into quantum mechanics. Of course, I approached this believing in my own Credo. I wrote and submitted four letters and papers to the APS, made a presentation at the 2014 Physics Conference in Denver, and wrote a booklet arguing against quantum entanglement (sent copies to 33 physicists for review.) All of my writings were summarily rejected or ignored. After reading your essay, I'm wondering if it was because I was trying to argue against the existing "Quantum Credo." Also, I think that I regrettably presented myself perhaps as a "know-it-all."

          I still cannot understand or accept some aspects of the QM "Quantum Credo":

          ... That physical properties of real objects, including quantum particles, can exist in probabilistic states. This belief leads to what seems to be "magical" quantum phenomena such as "quantum entanglement" and the "EPR paradox." Quantum entanglement requires that the true (real time) position of a quantum particle can exist in a probabilistic state and not necessarily be fixed in real time.

          ... That "spin" can exist as the sum of two or more probability vectors. This leads to the belief in the existence of the "qubit," another seemingly magical phenomenon.

          ... That the path actually taken by a quantum particle includes simultaneous motion along many different independent paths. This is based on probability arguments and not on any cause-effect model.

          "Mechanicist Credo":

          ... The theory of probability deals with averages of mass phenomena (Papoulis) and cannot represent a single event or represent a single particle.

          ... Every real object including the quantum particle has real "physical properties" of position, linear momentum and spin (which I equate with angular momentum.)

          ... A particle follows a single path in going from one point in space to another.

          My understanding: Among other things, every quantum particle that has spin is in a "pure spin" state, having a single spin about a fixed axis of rotation in space. There may be particle to particle random variation of the fixed spin axis itself. All laboratory apparatus that measures spin can only determine a "component" of the original "pure spin." To me, this includes Stern-Gerlach for electrons and measurements of photon spin along different "component axes."

          The most significant prediction made by the "pure spin" model is when it is applied to the experimental correlation studies of twin photon particle spin components involving Bell's inequality and performed initially by Aspect, Freedman, Clauser and many others. Spin measurements are separately made about different component axes on twin particles and the results compared with each other. Without going into details, the percent of matches actually measured for a particular experimental setup was 50%. The predicted percent of matches based on assuming the pure spin model is exactly 50%, a perfect prediction. Assuming the QM model, however, a greater than 66.66% matches is predicted. The discrepancy with test data for the QM model can be explained only if one can assume the existence of the phenomenon called "quantum entanglement." Also Bell's inequality doesn't apply in these experiments since Bell assumes that "component" spins are independent. In the pure spin model, they aren't.

          I hope that I'm not confusing the issues of interest here. I would really appreciate your take on physical stochastic models versus the QM model.

          Thank you very much for your time,

          Sincerely yours,

          Ronald Racicot

            Dear Ronald Racicot,

            I enjoyed your essay, and applaud your support of common sense. As you note, arguing against the Quantum Credo bears some resemblance to banging one's head against the wall. The belief is that the classical world arises (somehow) from the quantum world, so if you have a classical model it's a hard sell. Nevertheless you reject the mystique and magic built-in to the quantum interpretation, particularly the Copenhagen interpretation.

            This began with qubits and other mathematical structures projected onto physical reality, a reality that was already confused by the idea that things don't exist in reality until you measure them. [How does one go about proving that?] Anyway, since spin is measured with magnetic fields and photon absorption it is not surprising that most measurements find the particle spin aligned or not aligned with the local field. So 'qubit' statistics 'work', despite the artificial nature of the scheme. It is when physicists believe that reality is structured in this way that problems occur. As you correctly point out, the Schrödinger wave equation itself contains no information related to spin until Pauli inserts his 2x2 matrix into the Hamiltonian.

            In 1964 Feynman, enamored of the 2-slit optical experiment proposed [as the basis of a major text on QM!] a gedanken-experiment using a 'modified' Stern-Gerlach device. His two-slit spin analog applies 'wave function' concepts to a particle property that has no "wave properties". But this is what the majority of physicists today believe, despite that the relevant experiment has never been performed. At the same time, Bell forced the qubit model onto measurements that did not support it and proceeded to 'prove' a result that does not relate to reality. Note that all of his tests use photons, not particles. If one uses a classical model and measures the deflection of the particle in the Stern-Gerlach inhomogeneous field, then the Bell theorem is falsified, but those who make their living in this field insist that the spectrum of actual deflections be idealized as +1 or -1 and use this to prove Bell's theorem.

            Others refer to Dirac's theory of spin, where Dirac applied a 'doubled' Pauli matrix construct to his equation based on this structure. But the popular conception is wrong. Dirac's theory does not yield spin; it yields helicity. As I've noted, the piling of projection on top of projection has left physicists completely confused about reality. A stochastic model based on what you call 'pure' spin yields the correlation that Bell claims is impossible for classical particles. However if one follows Bell and forces all deflections to be +1 or -1, then one can no longer obtain the correlation. It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

            In short, trust your intuition, but realize that you're swimming upstream against the Quantum Credo. My belief is that a "better" theory based on classical physics cannot succeed until the original errors that have been propagated through quantum mechanics for almost a century have been clarified. There are several Stern-Gerlach type experiments that can address this issue, and several physicists are working with me to implement one of these experiments. But physicists have a way of ignoring anomalies and things that don't fit preconceptions. So I encourage you to keep questioning and teach your grandchildren to question, but don't look for any changes anytime soon.

            I thank you for the Shankar quote. I have the text, but had not seen that quote. [And the Gell-Mann 'flap-doodle' remark.]

            I sprinkled several links to a recent paper, the Nature of Quantum Gravity, that briefly describes my model of a deBroglie-Bohm type electron. Also I have several papers on viXra that treat spin and Bell. You might get something out of these.

            Thanks for your comment and keep up the good fight.

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman

            I have responded to the above where you posted it on my essay page. Thanks again.

            I read your gravity linearization paper and issue a sigh of relief. General Relativity with all its pomp and circumstance can be reduced to a simple concept involving density and velocity. Bravo. The technical details are beyond me, but I have argued that local density, a potential of space at the smallest scale, is what is responsible for gravity. There is another essential element, spin orientation of each ether node, but that that is too complicated to describe here - it is in my Beautiful Universe Theory especially Fig. 18. Question - why is velocity involved? Whose? It might be enough to have density, akin to an electrostatic field.

            Your fqxi essay is again a bit too technical for me to understand all the doubtless insightful and original ideas therein but of course got its drift. Just this: Intelligent beings necessarily evolved late in the history of the Universe - why is an observer at all part of the same? The Universe managed all by itself without human intervention and did very nicely. We are probably one with the Universe, and it is a great deal for us, but the Universe is hardly aware or in need of of us?!

            I have been studying my own perceptions, however, and discovered for myself something about the way we 'see' and experience dreams. in this report about post anesthesia hallucinations it is a bit unpleasant to read, but I got the impression that these hallucinations and dreams are the same thing, just the one is visible while wide awake!

            Well past all that now, thank God. Wishing you all the best

            Vladimir

            Dear Stefan Weckbach,

            Thanks for your comment. I'm pleased you found many things to agree with, such as the possible 0/1 boundary. I agree that feedback loops and iterative processes, while essential to logical thinking, are insufficient to cause consciousness to arise from dead matter.

            You ask how the consciousness field does interact with particles in the brain. I postulate that it is with particles in motion, essentially momentum density. I do so because, after considering all known field interactions, this seemed to offer the most feasible mechanism which agreed with everything I know about biological cells, neurons, and the brain. It is ions flowing in axons and vesicles flowing across synapses that I believe are sensed by the field. Note also that the field would sense all neuronal activity at once, whereas individual neural actions, logical or otherwise, are probably highly localized. So our sense of 'self' is pervasive, rather than being identified with some local circuit that happens to be operating.

            You ask about deterministic physics. I tend to think yes, although interactions between local induced fields are not calculable, as the fields are nonlinear and interact with themselves (essentially 'self-aware' fields to some degree). James Arnold's essay prefers 'spontaneity' to 'randomness'. You might look at my comment on his page. I believe that consciousness must include awareness and will, or volition, so I grant the field some degree of 'spontaneity', otherwise the action of the field on the brain would be deterministic. We may not have the concepts to define such deviation from determinism. Whether or not something like Planck's constant comes into play is only a guess. I don't think much of a 'push' is necessary in a brain with multiplier mechanisms 'built-in'.

            You ask what would the field be aware of in empty space. Without physical logic circuits it wouldn't think 'logically'. Since the field interacts with itself, it is 'self-aware' but I assume it is a vague, tenuous awareness. At the birth of the universe, when all material fields were much denser, then possibly turbulent flows of the field itself could engender logic. As you noted from my essay, all of our theories of the early universe have been handcrafted to fit the data. Such early consciousness would diminish as the field expanded and 'cooled' and would thereafter be more localized where momentum flows were most dense, eventually peaking in biological cells and finally neural networks, but probably having a gay old time in all biological cells [who knows, flowers may be 'smiling' as they track the sun across the sky, and slime molds are pretty impressive creatures]. The presence of awareness during Darwinian evolution would go a long way toward relieving what appear to me to be insurmountable problems of combinatorial probability.

            You ask about quantum mechanics and how I interpret it. I have several links scattered about in comments to my recent paper on The Nature of Quantum Gravity. I believe a field circulation is induced by the momentum density (per the Maxwell-Einstein equations) such that there are always wave properties associated with very dense particles (electrons, quarks) yielding a deBroglie-Bohm-like particle-plus-wave instead of the Copenhagen particle-or-wave. The fact that this correlates with Born probability is due to the Partition function that (by the grace of God) seems to describe all thermodynamic energy distributions. That's about all that fits into a comment, but I hope you find an opportunity to look at the paper sometime.

            I continue to find your comments on other essays a very rewarding experience. You are a deep thinker.

            My very best wishes,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Edwin

            Your essay is a surprise to me - a nice one - because you dare to say many things that can be "dangerous" within the scientific environment; furthermore, you say it in a way that deserves my admiration - and I am more prone to be critical then eulogistic.

            I started studying the mind half a century ago; never experienced the LSD but you are quite right when you refer the importance of loosing mental connections to be able to have good ideas. I use other techniques to obtain such a result.

            Your essay is focused on consciousness; mine, on the contrary, intends to explain the evolution from first particles to the human society, exclusively from matter properties. But, while including human intelligence in the process, I exclude consciousness from it - I state that it does not arise from properties of matter. As you will suspect if you read my essay, I do not state this lightly.

            Above all, my feeling is that our essays complement each other - as far as two 9 pages essays can cover such a magnum quest. Together, they provide a rather complete answer to this contest. I would very much like to know whether you feel the same (my essay "Decoding the "Intelligence" of the Universe - http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2865 ).

            Thank you for your essay and congratulations for it!

            All the best

            Alfredo Oliveira

              Dear Dr. Klingman,

              Thank you very much for your helpful and encouraging comments. Your knowledge and experience is appreciated and in the future I hope to read and study more of your research efforts and results. I look forward to possible corroboration on mutually interesting problems.

              Thanks again,

              Ronald Racicot

              Hi Edwin,

              Yes physics is changing....pity the peer reviewer who knows not what to do.

              Your conclusion: Math maps projected on the physical territory form the substance of physics. Is the answer to the question FQXi intended.

              For the answer to: "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to choice" ....see the definitive answer in my essay :)

              Great to be in a contest with you again. And your essay and explanations are clear and insightful. I rate this the highest.

              Don Limuti

                Dear Alfredo Oliveira,

                Thank you for your gracious remarks. Your first paragraph is exquisitely worded.

                The danger you note is of course due to the fact that physicists work awfully hard to acquire their skills and social positions and funding. For the most part, physics works, and it works well enough in various fields to solve problems, publish, and perform experiments, in spite of the interpretational errors and general confusion about the "nature of reality". So in general only older individuals can afford the rejection that comes from rocking the boat that is being enjoyed in full by the first-class passengers.

                You note that our essays complement each other, and I agree that each overlaps in ways that expand the topic. You discern 'intelligence' in the universe, and begin by clarifying the concept of intelligence. Whereas I define intelligence as consciousness plus logic, you exclude consciousness and define intelligence as "the ability to solve a new problem".

                First you do assume 'mind' and note that the easiest way to find a solution is 'table lookup': you already possess the answer - find it. The problem arises when no previous solution exists; the problem is new. You then formalize 'wandering to a goal' in terms of 'generating hypotheses' and 'selection processes'. The intelligence involved in solving new problems then consists of generating hypotheses (potential solutions) and applying a selection process (does it solve the problem?) Generators of hypotheses can be random or algorithmic. "Physical" intelligence favors random variation or mutation, while "physical" selection is Darwinian survival. Thus at the basic level of matter you defined "intelligence" and demonstrate its presence. Interestingly you do not claim that this leads to consciousness, merely that it exhibits intelligence as an inherent aspect of the universe.

                Of course a very large part of your solution is keyed to the fact that as the systems of particles grow larger and acquire more degrees of freedom, they expand the repertoire of potential 'hypotheses', while at the same time acquiring a greater susceptibility to temperature. You weave these threads together exceedingly well.

                My definition of intelligence related more to mental aspects as indicated by the definition: consciousness plus logic. The consciousness represents awareness of the problem. The logic enables algorithmic constructions, counting, and comparison. The consciousness must be aware of the 'match' of solution to problem. And the awareness of 'match' of solution to problem in mental space is analogous to 'survival' as solution to the problem in physical space.

                So I agree with you that our essays complement each other in a significant way. I enjoyed the many details in your essay, linked to the concept of expanding space [I didn't realize the moon had been shown to have an expanding orbit. I guess those laser reflectors we left there have paid off.] In other words I enjoyed your entire essay, but I most enjoyed your working definition of intelligence without invoking consciousness.

                My very best regards,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Dear Don Limuti,

                It's always a pleasure to read your entries. And, in the Karl Popper sense, no one can prove you wrong! You combine subtlety and humor in a way few can match. I'll bet you're a lot of fun to be with. But, having read your essay three times, I'm more impressed each time and most impressed that you do it all in a page and a half.

                It's definitely good to see you back!

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Dear Edwin,

                It is nice re-meeting you here the FQXi Essay Contest.

                I have just read your beautiful Essay. I see that you have currently the highest community rating. This is well deserved, because, despite I find this Essay a bit speculative, it is also intriguing. Thus, I will give you the highest score. Good luck in the Contest!

                Here is our Essay.

                Cheers, Ch.

                  • [deleted]

                  • Post #83

                  As I read your essay, one of my questions came up with your statement:

                  "So physical mechanisms exhibit a purpose, i.e., continued existence, which, in case the physical mechan- ism does continue to exist, simply defines a sufficiently efficient survival mechanism."

                  My thought was that 'purpose' appears to start with the quality of life, rather than with self-conscious beings. This goes to Erik's point in this thread (hence why I am responding to this thread).

                  I like your response, as there is definitely 'something' that is different between living organisms and 'dead' matter. Calling it a consciousness field at least starts the ball rolling from a physics standpoint. To Erik's statement about 'bringing a nuke to a gun fight' - I think you answered your question by noting we may "need to radically reconsider what is or isn't conscious".

                  Don