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.

      Hi Edwin Klingman,

      I appreciate your efforts to delve deeply into the question at hand. I have some pretty serious quibbles with your conclusions but I will put off quibbling for a bit here.

      I have an essay which takes a look at some under-appreciated behavioral phenomena, the unfolding heritability problem, and together the challenges they pose for the scientific vision that is the foundation for that same question. That material might be of interest to you.

      //fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2783

      If nothing else I hope the get more people to realize that it is not hard to fundamentally question the scientific vision of life. And with that you can push further questing in new directions.

      My quibbling peaks with the LSD discussions. Briefly, I have somewhat of a complementary perspective on that subject. I am a technically-oriented person who has also spent a lot of energy on Buddhist-related meditational efforts. Somewhat in tandem with those efforts I have encountered a number of people who have used LSD (and other psycho-dyanmic drugs). If there was a net benefit to those drug efforts it was not apparent to me.

      I hope things are going well for you.

      Ted Christopher

      Rochester, NY

        • [deleted]

        Dear Ted Christopher,,

        Thanks for reading and commenting. Your essay is full of case studies that seem to have significance for materialist-based understanding of consciousness. I too have written of those cases where large percentages of the brain are missing but consciousness is not missing. And the Caenorhabditis elegan's 302 neurons (without the consciousness field) have not answered any questions of note.

        Numbers you quote are interesting: 3 million out of 3 billion genetic variances account for about 1% of innate variation in intelligence. You say:

        "Such investigations [might] give pause to those trying to pursue more detailed understanding of consciousness based on materialist assumptions."

        A key focus of your essay is that, while the general belief is that neurons shape thinking, genetics also seems to play a large role. While I only peripherally focused on this in my essay, many of my comments above point out that biological cells are chock-full of 'moving parts' and that it is momentum density than interacts with the consciousness field in my theory. It is certainly not limited to, or even specifically related to, 'microtubules'.

        In short, if a universal consciousness field exists that interacts with momentum density, it will certainly interact with components of cells and with blood flowing in the body. It still seems likely to me that neurons are implicated in logic, but consciousness of self is a "whole body" experience, probably going to the cellular level.

        In my essay I emphasize the fact that even our theories of fundamental particles are confused and the Standard Model is known to be incomplete. Aspects of quantum mechanics, according to Feynman, Susskind, and others, are incomprehensible. So I point out that "theories" from particles-to-human beings are narratives, underlying credos. They are not 'scientific' as is usually understood by the term, and LHC-type vast brain scanners will not change this. If the "Higgs" required an LHC, human consciousness will require a galaxy-wide effort!

        Finally, I read again last week that upwards of 20% of people either have or will have mental disorders. It is obvious that many of these will not benefit from psychodynamic substances, and some may be pushed over the edge. As I clearly stated at the top of page 8, a 9 page essay on 'mindless math' is not the place to discuss social problems arising from widespread use of such. This does not, I believe, detract from my main points.

        Personally, life is good, aside from the well known fact that "growing old is not for sissies."

        Thanks again for your very interesting and well-written essay, and for your expression of concern.

        My best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear George,

        Thank you for returning to my page to confirm your interest. I appreciate that very much.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Dear Shaikh Raisuddin,

        Thanks for commenting on my essay. Yours is a very interesting essay. In it you say:

        "It is not physics that gives behavior to matter instead it is behavior of matter that gives physics. That means matter has its own mind and intelligence. Mind is that which decides a response and not that emerges from brain alone."

        It's not clear to me how you define matter, so I'm unsure exactly what you mean. Is an electron matter? Are quarks matter? Is the electromagnetic field of matter? Is the gravitomagnetic field matter? Since Einstein's paradigm-shifting equation E=mc**2, such fields have been considered material. They have mass energy, and are generally considered substantial. The field I propose is physical, therefore I consider it material.

        In short, it is not clear to me that you and I are in disagreement about consciousness and matter. I am perhaps a little more uncertain about the material status of a computer virus.

        I have not heard the saying "what is not inborn is artificial." You apply this by noting "the conventionally meant human mind is artificial."

        In short it seems to me that our essays agree more than they disagree.

        My best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        Hi Eugene,

        I remember you from one the other essay contests, but I didn't remember you being so open-minded that you would dare to talk about LSD in science paper... Bravo for the guts! Forget the fact that I used to refer to you as a "stiff":)

        You wrote:

        "Awareness of oneness-with-the-universe is real, but awareness of boundaries and distance is so necessary for survival that it dominates the normal consciousness of adults..."

        This passage in your essay reminded me of a couple times when I was lying in bed with my eyes closed after fighting with my girlfriend, feeling very alone, and it actually felt like she was physically very far away, like if I reached over I wouldn't be able to touch her. Very weird effect, that these emotions would lead to a different feeling of my physical surroundings...thoughts?

        Anyway, check out my essay... And if you like the idea of using psychedelics to explore the fundamental nature of reality, then please check out my independent film "Digital Physics" on iTunes, Amazon Prime, or Vimeo. Mainstream physicists are too worried about their reputation to acknowledge it, but I believe you are hip enough that it may appeal to you;)

        Thanks!!

        Jon

          Dear Klingman

          It was interesting to see the three Credos being brought up in such a prominent manner. I don't really know which one I subscribe to; you are right, it can be a bit like parallel universes triggered by LSD. If I really think about it, I would say that I am comfortable with Platonic and Darwinian Credos, but I am more comfortable with the Darwinian Credo since it has the added benefit of sensory inputs. Now that I look at my essay, I see that I began with Platonic Credo (first para) and ended with the Darwinian Credo (last para)! Thanks so much for triggering that introspection.

          Regards, Willy

            Dear Edwin,

            I find your essay very very interesting, and impressed with its persuasiveness. So, let me concentrate on a few of the disagreements.

            In "How do we know?" subsection, you state, "One understands the world through primary means (experience) and secondary means (abstractions). Primary experience is physical, based on awareness of sensed data; secondary sources are abstract".

            Each physical entity responds to appropriate physical contexts (forces), i.e. each physical entity has fundamental quality to sense the force fields and respond. Awareness should not be used for such a primary mechanism of sense that equates to an interaction, since the question arises, who is aware. Sensing in this sense is an interaction that necessarily modifies the interacting entities, then who should be referred to have the awareness at the most fundamental level of interaction. Yet, in agreement with the quoted statement, I refer to my work that deals exactly with the following subjects.

            Let me create a picture. 1) Information has its own reality in terms of its association with the states of matter; said differently, all state descriptions of physical entities necessarily correlates with certain information. 2) Information processing takes places with each interaction, and interactions can be organized to give rise to representations of higher level abstractions. Abstraction of even self may arise, and its relation with the elements of the context in which it is embedded. Moreover, given the method of abstraction, semantics of even high level abstract notions (emotions) of 'needs' can be hard coded. It seems to indicate that while information is fundamental but the goals and purposes may evolve. 3) In addition, the method also constitutes the universal language of expression entirely suitable for natural processes to build descriptions (models) of universal phenomena via self organization. The method of natural processing is directly mappable onto neural processing in the network. This method of information processing does not equate with any of the artificially designed mathematical methods, and it also does not require any a priori consciousness field.

            Any one who claims to have developed and established so many notions of importance to the essay, must be wrong, why bother to even examine. Compare this with -- "To claim this is based on misinterpreted mental-projections-on-reality is to attack the neural net's worth, its career, even its self-identity as one-neural-net-that-understands-quantum-mechanics." And with, "Survival-wise, it's too expensive to question every new data point when one already 'knows' the 'truth'."

            All attacks on my idea are most welcome, but with reasons please.

            Rajiv

              Hi Edwin:

              I enjoyed reading your paper and an eloquent description of the quantum model of mind, reality, and consciousness. It relates closely to my contest paper - paper - FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE elaborated below. I completely agree with your statement - "The background or universal state of mind is constant and ever -present. Since it represents no 'surprise' it thus disappears from awareness until physical changes in the brain cause it to temporarily be observed."

              FQXi is a unique forum to address key open issues related to science that impact humanity and life. The mainstream science has treated the universe, laws, and fundamental particles as inanimate entities devoid of life, consciousness, or free will. As a result, the mainstream theories of science are also devoid of consciousness or free will. While science, especially quantum mechanics, recognizes the spontaneous free-willed (without any cause) birth and decay of particles out of the Zero-point vacuum as a fundamental physical phenomenon, it refutes existence of free will via consciously labeling it as "Randomness" in nature. This vicious circle has failed science in two ways - first is its erroneous prediction of a purposeless universe and life in it making the science itself purposeless and meaningless from a deeper human perspective. Secondly, ignorance of consciousness or free will which is a fundamental dimension of the universe along with mass/energy/space/time leaves scientific theories incomplete leading to their current paradoxes and internal inconsistencies.

              Just like a dead mother cannot nurture and give birth to a living baby, a dead universe governed by inanimate laws cannot support any living systems within it. Universal consciousness is fundamental to the emergence and sustenance of any living system - quantum or biological. The mathematical laws must be living to give rise to living aims and intentions. If the fundamentality of the consciousness of the universe and laws is not understood, a scientific theory would be like a castle built on sand.

              FQXi forum is participated by brilliant and accomplished scientists representing in-depth knowledge and expertise in diverse fields. I would propose that the forum scientists take on a challenge to enhance and uplift science from its current status quo as an incomplete science of the inanimate (dead) matter to the wholesome science of the living and conscious universe. This would complete science and make it purposeful and meaningful adding to its current successes as a tool for enhancing material life alone. Science deserves its long-awaited recognition to address not only matter but mind as well and not only material but spiritual life as well. Considering the current political and economic threats to the basic survival of science and religious extremism/terrorism threatening the fundamental freedom (free will) of humanity, the role of a wholesome and genuine science has become even more vital to humanity.

              I have forwarded a humble and example proposal detailing how a consciousness-integrated scientific model of the universe entailing matter-mind could be developed that resolves current paradoxes of science, predicts the observed universe, and offers a testable theory via future empirical observations. This proposal and theory are documented in my contest.

              I would greatly appreciate any feedback as well as constructive criticism of the proposed approach to advance physics and cosmology.

              Best Regards

              Avtar Singh

                Hi Jon,

                Glad you enjoyed my essay. I found several interesting things in your short essay. I particularly liked:

                "If you're able to see the forest for the trees, or if you have access to the high-level programming language, you can interpret the system from the [top-down] view."

                And,

                "I think humans are more like information systems than physical systems. After all our cells turn over so we aren't made of the same stuff we were just a short time ago."

                That interests me from two perspectives. First, the consciousness field is compatible with cellular turnover. Second, I don't believe information exists other than as a change in physical structure, and your statement seems completely compatible with my view of information.

                And I think your focus on 'gliders' in 'The Game of Life' is an excellent toy model to debate the meaning of 'emergence'.

                As for the change of consciousness you spoke of, emotional changes, hormonal changes, even starvation, can change the brain chemistry enough to experience the world differently. Why not?

                Today's been a very very busy day, and the list of essays seems to never quit growing. I did watch the trailer and will watch later!

                Best regards,

                Edwin Eugene Klingman

                Dear Mr. Klingman,

                value of your essay for me first of all that it induces a subject of your research to serious work. Thanks you for interesting work which should be comprehended once again.

                Best regards and good luck in the contest!

                Vladimir A. Rodin

                  Dear Willie K,

                  Thanks for reading my essay and telling me how it triggered introspection on your own.

                  Your essay, as you note, did begin with the Platonic credo:

                  "...when these physical entities are studied down to their most fundamental constituents, all that's left will be mathematics..."

                  You then propose that the total biomass on earth is a measure of "successful deployment of 'aims and intentions' by some living systems." I think that's an excellent perspective. It immediately places the problem into a statistical realm and removes it from individual idiosyncrasies. Your comparison of human biomass footprint over social insects is also insightful, and your suggestion that recent equality of intrinsic human biomass to extrinsic social insect biomass may be indicative of a new form of extrinsic intelligence, that of human society.

                  You clarify your focus: "use mathematical laws to describe the human social system." As you have focused on biomass as a surrogate for statistics, and considered negative and positive liberty (freedom) as the criterion of interest, I would like to suggest an earlier FQXi that focuses on the same aspects of society:

                  The Thermodynamics of Freedom

                  I did not understand much of your discussion on page 3 at first reading. I do not believe that it strengthens what has started out as a very strong essay. You might consider deleting this and moving directly into the page four discussion where you begin filling in the blanks. (Or maybe I should go back and read page 3 few more times)

                  Your discussion of the various rights is superb, and I see very little (if any) need to justify these using page 3 arguments.

                  You, however, appear to make more use of your page 3 model on page 5 with the 'regulation' right. Since you've included your email address, I may send you information that you might find of interest.

                  I'll say this. You deal with the big picture. Galaxies are interesting, but in cosmology they are aspects of the 'dustball' model. The truly larger universe of interest is between your ears.

                  Your figure 5 on the inherent balance of rights of the people and feedback for the people is masterful. I assume this is your own creation, and I congratulate you.

                  In the end, you briefly discuss AIs. Having some expertise in these areas I do not see the singularity as a likely event, but I think AI might reasonably fit into your extrinsic intelligence model.

                  In summary, I believe yours is one of the most important essays in the contest. We should all thank Templeton for founding this organization, and those people who have run it so well for almost a decade.

                  Thanks for entering your essay. I encourage you to continue developing your theme.

                  My very best regards,

                  Edwin Eugene Klingman