Essay Abstract

We propose the acceptance of Interactionist Cartesian Dualism and the reality of large, extra spatio-temporal dimensions. After presenting arguments for the plausibility of those ideas, we develop a scenario, along with the necessary mechanisms, which lead to an answer to our thematic question. In short, the answer is that aims and intentions precede mathematics which in turn precedes our Big-Bang-initiated 4D world. Aims and intentions give rise to mathematics, not the other way around. We notice that this proposal suggests new approaches to understanding Cosmogony.

Author Bio

Paul R. Martin, BS Math, South Dakota School of Mines & Technology (1962). MS Math, Syracuse U. (1968), is a 76-year-old retired IBM Systems Engineer. Since retirement he has kept busy building a log home in the mountains, taking Great Courses from The Teaching Company, and thinking, reading, and writing about philosophy, history, mathematics, and other subjects. His only publications are on his website http://paulandellen.com/, and now this essay contest website.

Download Essay PDF File

hi paul, love the fact that you begin with a formal exploration of what consciousness actually is: it says to me that you are yourself a conscientious person. living in a log cabin in the woods clearly has benefits. question for you: why would the simple act writing down mathematical laws make them "mindless"?

warmest,

l.

    Dear Mr. Martin

    You are right regarding the dimensions. You can see in my essays (2015 and 2017) that all is functioning quite well without dimensions. I think the story of the dimensions is wasting of time.

    Best regards,

    Branko Zivlak

    Dear Paul R Martin,

    Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

    I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

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

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

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

    Joe Fisher, Realist

    Nice essay Mr Martin,

    Your ideas and thinking are excellent. Your words... ' we not only need to identify some place outside the brain where the seat of consciousness resides, but we also need to solve the mind/body problem' ..............

    Just for discussion sake, I feel : Mind is software and Brain is hardware of computer. I got some additional observations...

    Your ideas are based on Bigbang cosmology. In my essay I also proposed some form of additional consciousness in the Universe, without proposing any additional dimensions, only 4 dimensions used here are XYZ and time.

    But your questions are correct; this additional memory was observed at many places in the Universe, from Micro particle level to the Universe level. I feel it is the spin of the particles at micro level. At the universe level I hope you will see my essay and proposal...

    For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

    Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

    With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

    Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

    Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

    http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

    Best wishes to your essay.

    For your blessings please................

    =snp. gupta

    Dear Paul,

    Thank you very much for such nice question. Whatever you are thinking that is NOT a problem in Dynamic Universe Model; is not a problem at all. I am reproducing your full post here with my answers embedded; I did not remove any portion of your nice thinking and questions. Very good study.

    Your words..........

    I am glad that I could be of help concerning your paper. The problem in papers like these is that when they contain an error, those who read them don't know if you just made an error or if your understanding is actually wrong, which can affect their acceptance of the concepts that you are trying to get across to the readers of your papers. I thought it was likely to be just an error. Hopefully, correcting it will give future readers a more positive reception of your concepts.

    ...............

    Reply...................

    I am very much thankful to you, I want analysis of this model.....

    Your words..........

    Rather than going back into any of the other things that I mentioned previously, I just want to cover the main thing that I wanted to bring out, which is that when the fusion of 2 hydrogen atoms into a helium atom occurs in a star, most of the mass or matter that was originally in the hydrogen atoms remains in the star in that helium atom. The helium atoms that are produced in that way can also fuse into heavier atoms and this process can continue up to iron. Iron and the atoms that are heavier than that are too close to the center most stable point in the atomic scale to be able to fuse because it would actually take the addition of more energy to cause them to fuse than would be freed in the fusion reaction. When all of the lower elements have been fused, the end result is that most of the matter that was in those lighter elements, is now stored in the new midrange atoms that have been produced. If you could somehow cause all of the matter that had been converted to energy to convert back into hydrogen matter and if that amount of hydrogen matter was equal to the amount that was originally present, then you would have all of the original hydrogen plus all of the newly produced midrange atoms that were produced by the fusion process, which would mean that there would be an increase in the total amount of matter in the universe created from nothing. ...............

    Reply...................

    Thank you very much for nice thinking and trying to analyze this model.

    As you have nicely mentioned here, matter will be formed from energy only it is not from nothing. No matter will be formed from nothing in Dynamic Universe Model; the energy will change its form from one state to another only. The fusion and fission reactions will happen according to Atomic physics. If there are some good unsolved problems we can try together. Lets discuss ...................

    Your words..........

    In your theory you say "This is a nonexpanding universe and matter need not be created to keep the density constant". ...............

    Reply...................

    Yes, matter need not be created. Universe converts energy into matter and matter will be converted to energy in a cycle. The Universe can be expanding or contracting depends on the overall status of the dynamical forces that are moving different bodies in different ways. Each body movement will depend on UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) acting on it at that moment at that position, which changes dynamically......................

    Your words..........

    In this nonexpanding universe the continual increase in the amount of matter that would be created in the form of these newly created midrange atoms would continually increase the matter density of the universe. It would ultimately fill up all of the empty space with this matter and the functioning of the universe would likely break down long before that point................

    Reply...................

    No no no, not that way. Overall energy will remain same.

    Your words..........

    There is only one way that you could get what you want and that would be to somehow break down all of those new midrange atoms back into hydrogen atoms, but that would be a transformation that would be contrary to entropy because they contain less energy that could be freed by the conversion process than the conversion process would consume. This would mean that extra external energy would need to be provided that was more than had been freed as energy radiation from the fusion processes that caused the generation of the midrange atoms in the first place. This is because you would have to add back all of the energy that had been freed by the fusion process in order to restore the extra energy that the hydrogen atoms require that is greater than what the midrange atoms require, which is just the amount that had been freed by the fusion process. ...............

    Reply...................

    This is what exactly happens in SUN and Stars, matter will be converted to energy

    Your words..........

    You would then still need to add an additional amount of energy that would be needed to cause the process to operate in the direction contrary to the natural entropy direction of flow of energy. The additional energy that you would need would have to come from somewhere in the universe and it would eventually be used up. The universe would still run down and cease to function. ...............

    Reply...................

    No sir, not that way, the energy balance will be maintained

    Your words..........

    What would actually happen, however, is that most of the energy that had been freed by the fusion process would be scattered throughout empty space and would not be converted back into hydrogen. ...............

    Reply...................

    I got this similar doubt initially about 25 years back when I was working out with this model. What I found in my simulations is different. Probably those sets of Simulations were not published.

    What I actually found was astounding. That electromagnetic photon was that was radiated out was pulled back into Universe. I checked the case when the radiation was radially out from the center of the Universe. Then also this radiation came back. Then I was satisfied and started telling the world about this model

    That is one of the foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model; Ours is closed universe, no engr goes out.

    Your words..........

    The matter density of the universe would then remain the same, but all of the hydrogen and the other lower elements that can fuse would eventually be converted into the midrange elements that can't fuse and the stars would all go out. There is just too much empty space for the energy photons to disperse into and too few very large masses that would generate very large and strong gravity fields to in any way convert the photons back into matter particles to allow any very large percentage of them to be converted back into matter. I know that is not what you want to hear, but I believe that if you look at energy photon dispersion in open space per unit of distance from the source, etc. and analyze the percentage of the total space in the universe that contains the strong enough gravity fields to do the conversions, you will find that I am right about it. In addition you would need to consider all of the energy photons that strike objects in the universe, such as those that interact with atoms on the earth and are either completely absorbed or experience frequency decreases as a result of giving up some energy to an electron in an atom, etc. ...............

    Reply...................

    No,no,no... Not that way... Dynamic Universe model don't say that way. I hope I cleared all your questions and doubts.....

    Your words..........

    Much of the rest of your theory is good, however, except as pointed out earlier. ...............

    Reply...................

    Thank you very much for the nice study of Dynamic Universe Model. Thank you for your time you spend on this model. THANK YOU FOR THE NICE COMPLEMENTS......

    I hope I cleared them all YOUR DOUBTS, if you have any further doubts, lets discuss ...

    Best regards

    =snp.gupta

      Dear Satyavarapu,

      Somehow you have me confused with another person. I did not respond to you, nor did I ask you a question. I think your post belongs in a different thread.

      Best regards,

      Paul

      Perhaps I misunderstood the essay goal; "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?" I thought it was the consequences of those "mindless laws" which was the issue.

      I read your essay and it struck me as making a great many presumptions,most of which essentially presumed modern theory is a valid foundation without defense.

      Hello Dick,

      I'm sure there is a lot of misunderstanding, or at least different interpretations, of the question of this contest. First of all, what "mindless mathematical laws" are we talking about? Are we assuming that there is such a set of laws which actually gave rise to our universe? And if so, are the currently accepted laws of physics part or all of those? And then, are we asking whether aims and intentions are consequences of those laws? (That seems to be how you interpret it.) Or are we assuming that the laws do indeed give rise to aims and intentions and we are asking how that happened? (I.e. what "breathes fire into the laws". That's the way I interpreted it.)

      As for my essay, I did make a lot of presumptions. My seeming acceptance of modern theory is not foundational to my argument at all. Instead I choose not to challenge modern theory because it does not impact my argument which I claim goes on at a much higher level (in higher dimensions and outside the physical world). The physical world is simply one part of the greater reality and the Big Bang theory of its inception is as inconsequential to my presentation as if I had accepted some religion's creation theory.

      But, of course, I think modern theory is on the right track for two reasons: First it explains a lot, and second because I consider you to have solved Hilbert's Sixth Problem, and since you demonstrate that Schrödinger's, Maxwell's, and Einstein's equations are all simply consequences of consistent mathematics it gives me confidence that modern theory is right.

      Best regards,

      Paul

      6 days later

      Hi Paul

      I like your essay for the reason that it goes after the hard problem of consciousness, and that you recognise that alternative approaches are worth pursuing. Certainly the behaviour we see at the quantum level leaves things open for some kind of "res cogitans" interacting with the brain in a bidirectional flow of information. I have done something similar to yours in an exploration of the possible role of dark energy in consciousness. The reference is on the final page of my essay "From nothingness to value ethics", in an open access journal.

      Best regards

      Gavin

        Hi Gavin,

        Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. I hope you will read it again after you read my comments on your excellent essay, which I just posted.

        Sincerely,

        Paul Martin

        Hi Luke,

        Sorry for the late response. As you might have guessed, I have been in the mountains working on my log cabin.

        Thank you for reading my essay and for your kind words. To answer your question, I think you would agree that mathematical expressions that exist in textbooks are mindless, wouldn't you? While the expressions are in the mind of the author, we would have to say they are as mindful as they ever get, and once they are written, there exists (for a while anyway) at least two different forms of the expressions: 1) the mindful one in the mind of the author (or maybe also in the minds of readers later on) and 2) the mindless one which is simply patterns of ink on book pages.

        The act of writing converts mindful expressions to mindless ones. The act of reading does the reverse.

        I'm not sure I understood your question correctly, but I hope that answers it.

        Sincerely,

        Paul Martin

        Hi again Paul

        I replied in my essay section to your comments. Our main point of difference (although there are many) is regarding the nature and substance of any extra dimensions.

        I think you would find WJMander's book Idealist Ethics a good read. Here's a few others i enjoyed

        Pylkkanen - Mind matter and the implicate Order

        Maudlin - Quantum Nonlocality and relativity

        Baggott - Farewell to Reality and Smolin's The trouble with Physics

        Passmore's The Perfectibility of Man and Coward's The perfectibility of human nature in eastern and western thought

        4 days later

        Paul,

        Thanks for an interesting read. The analogy of the Martian Rover was entertaining and fit well with the discussion of the Homunculus and recursion.

        If you have not done so already, I recommend that you read Dr. Klingman's essay. He proposes a consciousness field that fits with your hypothesis very well.

        Your observation regarding curved space-time needs some clarification. A curved line requires a 2-D plane. A curved plane requires a 3-D space. A curved 3-D space needs a 4-D space. So, the question then is whether or not this 4-D space is the last space. Is space curved in space-time, or is space-time curved in a 5-D space.

        You might find my essay interesting. The title is "Five Part Harmony". I believe that space-time is curved in a 5-D space. And that gives plenty of room for consciousness to reside.

        Best Regards and Good Luck,

        Gary Simpson

        16 days later

        Hello Paul,

        What I get from your essay is that consciousness is an evolving structure. And that aims and intentions give rise to mathematics, not the other way around.

        Cats on laps should not be underestimated. I could not agree more.

        Thanks for your essay.

        Don Limuti

          Hello Don,

          You read my essay correctly. Thank you for reading it.

          And we agree about the importance of cats. As it happens, I have one on my lap again as I write this response.

          Paul

          Dear Sirs!

          Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

          New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

          New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

          Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

          Sincerely,

          Dizhechko Boris

          Write a Reply...