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

          Dear Edwin,

          I sincerely appreciate both your essay and, even more, your responses to comments on your essay (which I admit I have not completed reading).

          Being trained as a Mathematician, I see a similar situation in mathematics as your discuss in physics. In physics it might be 'math maps projected onto physical territory', in mathematics it is numerical maps projected onto mathematical territory. How we represent numbers has ingrained certain ways of thinking into mathematical concepts and theory. We feel that the decimal numeric system (with its cousins) is the 'Standard Model' for numbers, and the continuum can only consist of Real numbers - a well tred path.

          More in line with your essay, I do not understand Platonism as being about reality emerging from mathematics, as it has more to do with those shadows on the wall of the cave, where we cannot directly perceive what is real (either physical or mathematical). So it seems your Platonic Credo definition comes more from a Physics perspective than a mathematical perspective.

          A question for you: If, as you quote Rovelli: "... evidence is strong that nature is unitary and coherent." then shouldn't all levels of reality be an interconnected whole? Why do we treat levels of scale separately rather than as a whole?

          Suggestion: Our current system of numeric representations is unable to handle significantly different levels of scale, thus limiting what we can measure and connect mathematically across levels of scale and then also limits the mathematical maps we are able to make against the physical territory to one level of scale or another.

          Thank you for an interesting essay (and links to other papers).

          Don

            Hi Don,

            I will respond to your latest comment below...

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Don Palmer,

            Thanks for your comments and for your essay.

            First, let me agree that the 'version' of Platonism I refer to is primarily one that some physicists subscribe to.

            I also appreciate your point about a mathematical continuum being modeled by 'real' numbers. I'm working with a general relativist, whose model of the universe as a 'perfect fluid' is called the 'dust ball' model. My conception of the consciousness field is as a universal continuum, not a set of points.

            You begin your essay by noting the physical concepts and how they interact is at the center of the theory, not the mathematical laws.

            You also note that the mathematics of the physical theory is an attempt to model physical concepts using mathematical structure. This seems in complete agreement with my contention that mathematical structure is projected onto reality. In early days the structure was intuitive, probably because our neural nets were 'tuned' by survival to identify mass, force, momentum, speed, etc. Once Planck's constant entered, we began projecting matrix structures and other non-intuitive structures, and the 'conceptions' couldn't keep up.

            Your example of a pendulum as a specific physical model that shares 'harmonic motion' with many very different models is excellent.

            Your perspective fits well with my model. I conceive of the consciousness field as a real physical field that possesses the properties awareness plus volition. I do not try to model these mathematically. I'm not sure it makes any sense to model subjective self-awareness, which is non-linear and non-measurable. On the other hand, if the field is to interact physically with the material world, which it obviously does, then it should be capable of being modeled in that sense. So I do have equations that describe the input/output interactions; what the field physically senses and how the field can act on matter. I do not model the 'aims and intentions' mathematically.

            Thus, as you so clearly state, the field cannot be reduced to a mathematical model, yet it's physical interaction behavior is modeled mathematically. The theory is mathematically modeled in physical interaction, but only conceptually modeled in the 'mental' properties. It certainly matches your key point that the conceptual model is primary, rather than the mathematical structures.

            You note that it would be a mistake to think that the mathematical models are either the reality, or, by themselves, can define reality. This is congruent with my discussion of quantum theory, so buried under complex structures that reality vanishes at times.

            To summarize, you observe that if we only consider the mathematical structures, we will not see any 'what', 'who', or 'why' involved. These relate to conscious awareness and volition. We see 'how' the fields interact with matter, sensing or directing change.

            So thanks again, your essay has helped me elaborate on my own theory.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Christian Corda,

            Thanks very much for your gracious comments.

            When I first read your essay, I too thought that you had missed the point of the essay. But after reading your comments I now understand that you simply placed another interpretation on the question and you actually answered extremely well from that perspective. After all, the mindless math did make predictions for over a century, and gave rise to considerable aims and intentions necessary to evaluate the model.

            I think it's also relevant to focus as you do on development of the 'mindless math', with logical mistakes made along the way and consequent changes in predictions and interpretations.

            So congratulations on finding a unique but relevant perspective when handling it well!

            My best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin,

            Thank you for reading my essay and your congruent thoughts regarding it.

            Having read yours, I think we have a good bit in common - as you note your 'math maps projected onto physical territory' is the same as mine (using different words).

            A number of physicists have commented on the need for new mathematics in order to progress physics. I will suggest that the direction of these new mathematical tools is the need to 'upgrade' our 500 year old system of numeric representation (decimals and positional numeric cousins) in a way that expands numeric representation to complex numbers. There is a price for this change, which involves some re-routing of current paths - however the gains are many entirely new paths.

            If we could put a numeric value to sqrt(-1) (or 'i'), then the 2-part character of complex values (x iy, which is not a complex number, but the representation of a complex number) simplifies to a single value. We would not need to 'throw out' the 'imaginary' part in order to produce 'real' observable results (what does this part represent is where some new paths emerge). This could radically change how and even what we can calculate.

            Note that Donald Knuth already did this more than 50 years ago, so this is not a fantasy.

            Some ideas that could assist physics and mathematics expansion...

            Don

            Dear Don,

            I agree that we have a good bit in common in the way that we view mathematical structure as being projected onto physical reality, and then claiming space in the physicist's head. Although Tegmark thinks any interpretation is 'baggage', it is only the 'faulty' interpretations that I view as baggage.

            You are correct that a number of physicists have commented on the need for new mathematics in order to progress physics. I am one of them. However 'new' is in the eyes of the observer. Circa 1964 David Hestenes developed Geometric Algebra, with which you may or may not be familiar. In either 3+1 or 4D he formulates 'Space-time Algebra', which fits special relativity like a glove. The exciting part of it is that every entity in the algebra has both a geometric definition and an algebraic definition, as do all products of terms. I believe this is unique, and amazingly well adapted to physics. One of the terms, the pseudoscalar, has value equal to the square root of -1. In this instance it serves algebraically as the complex i, but a much better way to look at it is as the Hodge duality operator.

            If you're already familiar with this, and it's not what you're looking for, oh well. If you're not familiar with it, anything written by Hestenes is excellent, or Doran, Lasenby, and Gull, or Alan MacDonald. You might want to start with Hestenes 'Oersted Medal Lecture'. Googling "Hestenes geometric algebra" should take you to his home page at Arizona State University. I suggest starting with the Oersted Medal Lecture. I also highly recommend 'Geometric Algebra for Physicists" by Doran and Lasenby, although there are tons of pdfs online for free. I think Alan MacDonald's books are written more for a mathematician.

            If nothing else you'll gain an appreciation of just how hard it is to get new math off the ground. I love the system, and everyone I know who has bothered to learn it feels the same. But it's taken over 50 years! And the tremendous power does not come easy; there's a learning curve.

            Anyway this may or may not help you along the way. It's helped me.

            Best regards,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Dear Edwing Eugene Klingman

            I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

            How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

            1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

            2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

            3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

            4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

            5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

            6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

            7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

            8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

            9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

            11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

            12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

            I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

            Héctor

            Dear Evgeny,

            I have already read some of your papers. Basically, I agree with you in most cases. Of course, there is an aspect where it is possible to discuss, but not now of course. As for your essay, I already wrote to you that it is really worthy of prize and I see now that I was not mistaken in my assessment (see my previous post). Thus, I can now specifically confirm my high opinion on your essay!

            I wish you further success

              Edwin Eugene Klingman,

              Your essay pesupposes mental concepts alien to matter.

              If anything is not in matter, can it come in man?

              If matter has no mind, then can it emerge in man?

              Consciousness is property of matter.