Dear Giovanni

Thank you for your supportive comments. As you rightly point out, I have left the question of how something could come from nothing unanswered. Nobel prize-winning physicist Frank Wilczek has suggested that nothingness is very symmetrical, and so should be prone to symmetry breaking. I have a model in which the universe is created from nothing via symmetry breaking - you can read about it here (look under table of contents). This model results in two types of dark energy - a contracting as well as an expanding one. As regards the net expansion/contraction of the universe, a contracting type dark energy would become less important with time. I think this could be the answer to a new controversy in cosmology, which you can read about here. This is all rather speculative, however...

Best regards

Gavin

    Hi Gavin,

    (Responding here as well as my page).

    Just a quick response amidst business. I really appreciate your reading and commenting on my essay. This weekend I will download. print, and read your essay.

    One quick disagreement. I think the place to look for the "credible hypothesis" it is to look at the failure of the scientific/materialist vision. This I tried to do in my book. I think the physics-side is too ambiguous and also far from meaning.

    Thanks,

    Ted

    Dear Gavin,

    thanks for your response and your suggestions. I will visit the websites!

    Giovanni

    Dear Gavin,

    What an excellent essay! I agree with much of it. You say:

    "Within living things, there is no threshold of complexity at which consciousness can be said to begin."

    That is key! If there were, consciousness would clearly 'emerge'. Also, you note 'learning' and 'decision' are all the way down to the cell, while "within the human brain there are perhaps 100 trillion synapses."

    So one must explain how, with no threshold of complexity, consciousness is everywhere abundant on earth, each becoming conscious without crossing the threshold. And explain how one hundred trillion synapses are 'integrated', capable of pretty well understanding other similar brains, (or even cat and dog brains!). Quantum entanglement is generally 'monogamous', occurring between two particles [if it occurs at all!] Are all the quantum 'wave packets' conglomerated to produce self-awareness and feelings of happiness, sadness, pride, shame? A field solves all of these problems [and feels right too.] You ask "what endows it with properties of mind? What endows gravity with the property "Come here now!"? You say the consciousness field is ontologically separate from matter. Not so. It is a classical field, with energy, hence E=mc**2 equivalent mass or matter. I think that ideas of "determinism inherent in matter" are confused, but this is beyond the scope of a comment. A classical field is better understood ontologically than an "underlying complexity dimension".

    You discuss "value ethics". But the fact that, over millennia, across all religions, "Do unto others..." is what one would expect from a consciousness field, common to all, not from isolated, individual, 'emerged' minds trying to figure things out in a dog-eat-dog Darwinian world. In other words, a universal physical consciousness field that interacts with local biological flows [momentum density: ions in axons, vesicles across synaptic gaps] sensing and 'nudging', solves problems that are otherwise incomprehensible. The details of the physical field are scattered through the comments on my page, but for a taste of the physics involved look at The Nature of Quantum Gravity.

    The idealist view that the universe is at base-level "just information" is simply confused, while Spinoza's 'substance' (that which stands beneath, under-standing) is very compatible with a consciousness field that spans the universe, as occasionally sensed directly by vast numbers of people. The primary drawback to the field today lies in misconceptions associated with the Quantum Credo, but this too shall pass.

    Thank you for participating in this contest and good luck!

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Edwin

      Thanks for your reply, and for reading my essay. Many interesting points here! I think our two viewpoints are actually compatible in many ways. Beyond our agreement on a form of universal, primordial consciousness, your model proposes a classical mind-field while mine proposes a dimension of constructiveness. While value ethics isn't to everyone's taste, essentially what I am saying is that, were there a complexity dimension, any model of consciousness may be automatically imbued with a sense of purpose.(As I say on P9 "that is not to say that a constructive-destructive mental dimension is necessarily inexplicable in material terms")

      Good luck with your essay too!

      Gavin

      Gavin,

      Nice essay, covering may areas missed by most and with unique insights, well set out and described.

      You were straight up high in my scoring regime with your opening; "..many foundational problems would be better approached by starting at the origin of the universe and finding a process that results in our observed reality. As a part of this process, we would need to be open to questioning our assumptions.

      I'm dismayed so few seem able to genuinely do so, but then 'one man's meat.." so basing fresh views on rigorously deep and sound foundations is crucial and very difficult. I suspect that's why old doctrines cling on regardless! (along with cognitive dissonance of course).

      I agree with most points, but as an astronomer I should say you do cite some poorly supported theory. You write; "wherever we may position ourselves - here, or a billion light years away - we would see the same pattern of expansion. It appears as if the universe began everywhere at once" where we've had recent good evidence that was a misunderstanding and flawed analysis. Indeed some excellent dynamic mapping has been done from Planck survey data (updating WMAPS) showing complex asymmetries, the so called 'axis of evil', large scale flows and a helical' background. One model fitting all that well is a version of the 'big bounce' recycling theory. I can give you links if interested.

      Have you also considered the 'Higgs process' and so called 'dark energy' in relation to 'from nothingness'? The evidence of 'continuum energy' and it's magnitude is now well accepted and discussed in many branches. I prefer the term 'condensate' as the source of the condensed matter we find from local perturbation. All that may be trivial to and not in conflict with your point but may it help make 'nothingness' usefully less esoteric?

      I also like the later sections, and identifying against common assumption that; "Evidence of learning and purposeful decision-making is seen throughout biology, all the way down to the level of single-celled organisms" which many deny, though do you feel we need to find a point where 'higher intelligence' can be defined?

      Finally I agree with the 'idealist' view you cite that "all things are in some way mind-dependent". Do you agree the suggested parallels (I use) with subjectiveness and observer dependency?

      I hope you may also study my own essay and give your honest views.

      Best of luck

      Peter

        Dear Peter

        Thank you for this review. I very much enjoyed reading your comments. I love cosmology and would be very interested any links you can recommend - you mention complex asymmetries, axis of evil, etc. Just keep in mind my maths is high school level only.

        One question about 'big bounce' theories - I thought they were outdated, as they would have to explain how the current accelerating expansion would be able to turn around into a big crunch. On the topic of cosmic endings, my thoughts were that perhaps dark energy will finish things off in a Big Rip scenario, and that this could result in a nothingness state. (So our current universe might not be the first.) Any asymmetries we see in the CMB data could be caused by asymmetries in the creation of this state, and accentuated by the dynamics of the Quark epoch (up to CMB release)

        No I don't have any thoughts about the Higgs process in relation to nothingness. I thought particle physicists were pretty confident that the complex range of particles and fields could be explained by a series of symmetry breakings from simpler and simpler states. Given that unification with the gravity force seems to be the main sticking point, I wondered whether setting aside gravity as the negative force which balances the positive energy of the particles/fields of QM might mean that, within a something from nothing model we can merely focus on unification of the non gravitational features. QM and gravity would then be unified under something from nothing as energy neutral in sum.

        Regarding dark energy, my thoughts are that if the energy budget of the universe is ~72% DE and is also energy neutral in sum (as per flatness measurements), then there might exist a spatially contracting form of dark energy also. I asked Anthony Aguirre at a recent conference whether there was any reason why there couldn't be two dark energies and he thought there was no problem with this. On this topic, you will find a couple of links in my comments to Giovanni Prisinzano (above).

        I have not heard of 'continuum energy' or how it might relate to the term 'condensate' so would be interested in any links on this.

        How to define 'higher' intelligence? Well that is very hard - even between humans we have difficulty quantifying intelligence, and once we get to comatose states and other species, where communication is difficult, it is exponentially harder.

        I'm looking forward to reading your essay and will get back to you shortly on it.

        Best regards

        Gavin

        Hi again Gavin Rowland,

        I really appreciated your essay as well as your comments. You also mentioned two books that are of interest to me - yours and also Roger Trigg's.

        You commented about the up-in-the-air state of contemporary physics. I just read the "Tangled Up in Spacetime" article in January's Scientific American. That "It from Qubit" effort is drawing a lot of attention from physicists, perhaps reflecting the current state.

        I hope things go well with your work.

        Ted Christopher

          Gavin,

          'Big Bounce' theories are very much alive and well, most a bit MORE consistent than the BB but none so far complete enough to confidently replace it. Even Penrose admits his 'Conformal cosmolgy' version has ultimate limits.

          Also don't forget that accelerating expansion is still only a HYPOTHESIS! Sure it was popular when the (unseemly!) 'race' to produce it from redshift reported in with a winner, but that was hype. There ARE OTHER ways to produce greater redshift with distance, not generally adopted yet, but veracity in science is NOT a 'vote' system! This video explains one along with it's unique related wide consistency with OTHER findings.

          Geometrical redshift from expanding helical paths. So we must always be careful not to assume any one theory as 'fact' to then preclude others.

          On the matter of 'accretion' and recycling a widely consistent active galactic nucleus (AGN) model ('supermassive black hole' in old money) is able to reproduce the unexplained CMB asymmetries found. A published joint paper of mine describes it; though again with too many changes to old doctrine to be 'adoptable' as a new paradigm quite yet! here, or

          HJ. Vol.36 No 6. 2013 pp.633-676.

          Recent science across many fields and a number of essays here discuss 'continuum energy' or the dozen other names and wide evidence we have for this 'sub matter' state. Sure it may still take 20 years to become 'standard science' as did everything!

          I've tended to read around 20 of the latest papers a week, and find I need to do at least that to keep up and get a coherent picture. Most supercede the old stuff most still rely on! It's a shame apparently even many professors may only read 2 a month! I hope that may widen your horizons a bit and not confuse too much! Do ask questions on the attached as well as my essay.

          Best wishes

          Peter

          Hi Ted

          Just read the article you mentioned. I wonder whether some of the booming interest in this idea (which doesn't sound especially new) might be because the theoretical physicists involved are running out of ideas themselves.

          Thanks for your comments.

          Gavin

          Gavin,

          I can agree with your abstract statement: "I propose that many foundational problems would be better approached by starting at the origin of the universe and finding a process that results in our observed reality. As a part of this process, we would need to be open to questioning our assumptions. In this essay I explain how existence, in terms of something from nothing, may be the consequence of a dimension of constructiveness."

          By the tone and details of your essay, you seem able to free yourself from accepted ideas and supplement them with others like "our universal laws and our heartfelt intentions can be unified as expressions both of something from nothing," the subjective time and space existing independently in the mental realm." Your essay seems to be an open exploration which invites the same openness with the reader.

          In the same spirit essay speculates about discovering dark matter in a dynamic galactic network of complex actions and interactions of normal matter with the various forces -- gravitational, EM, weak and strong interacting with orbits around SMBH. I propose that researchers wiggle free of labs and lab assumptions and static models

          I hope you can get a chance to read and comment on mine.

          Regards,

          Jim Hoover

            • [deleted]

            • Post #32

            Dear Gavin;

            I have read your essay with great interest and pleasure.

            the fommowing remarks that are no critics:

            Your "Nothingness" can in some way be compared to my "Total Simultaneity" that has no time and or space. It doesn't "exist" in our emerging reality.

            Time and space are in my perception "restrictions" of our reality, they are needed for consciousness to become "aware" of the FLOW of time and space. However I think that time and space are not created BY our emerging universe but by "nothingness" or Total Simultaneity. This is the emerging of what you are calling "whatness".

            I think that any "complexity" that should start for new again is not "destroyed" but stays available as probability (eternally) in what you call "nothingness".

            I like very much your approach of consciousness on page 5.

            You say "Our conscious experience is also characterised by a spatial continuum" I would like to say : "Our by time and space restrcted emergent consciousness" is part of Total Consciousness" in Total Simultaneity (nothingness ?)

            "Emergence often yield novel and inexpected consequences" I fully agree with that , could have written it myself.

            I was very pleased with your approach and gave it a high valid so I hope that the above remarks will lead you to read, leave your comment and also a rating to my essay : "THe Purpose of Life"

            best regards and good luck

            Wilhelmus de Wilde

              Thanks for your feedback Jim. Glad you enjoyed it.

              Your essay sounds interesting. i will read it now and get back to you on your thread.

              Regards

              Gavin

              Hi Wilhelmus

              Many have proposed that consciousness and/or a platonic realm of all possibilities exist outside of conventional time and space. This is actually my opinion too, although i don't get there in this essay.

              Thanks for your comments. i will read your essay shortly and get back to you on your thread.

              Regards

              Gavin

              Gavin,

              "Regarding dark matter, my favourite theory is primordial black holes. Perhaps they would suck up a lot of plasma energy in a hot dense universe, if there were enough of them. You can read more about this here."

              Got your second hyperlink. I have seen most dark matter theories but had not seen this before: An intriguing alternative view is that dark matter is made of black holes formed during the first second of our universe's existence, known as primordial black holes. I thought you were referring to dense gas directly forming into black holes rather than from massive stars. How does this relate to or explain the inflation theory during the first second after the big bang? Or does it?

              Thanks for the link and thanks for your kind words.

              Jim

              Jim

              You are right, there could be a connection between inflation and primordial black holes(PBH's).

              The MACHO surveys in the early 1990's looked for massive objects (planets, black holes)that might explain the missing matter. They didn't find nearly enough, but the dark matter could still be loads of mini black holes somewhere between lunar mass and asteroid mass.

              The negative results of underground direct detection attempts and supercolliders suggest that WIMPs are also unlikely.

              There is another line of evidence to watch for the PBH argument. The growth of supermassive black holes in the early universe seems to exceed all models that involve standard gas cloud collapse to supernova to black hole to supermassive black hole. The options would therefore seem to be supermassive stars that collapse to form supermassive black holes, or mergers of smaller PBHs. Although no supermassive stars have been seen in the early universe, we do not have strong enough telescopes to rule them out. If they are there they should be detectable within the next 12 months. If not seen, PBHs are the prime candidate.

              There is no known mechanism by which PBHs would form, so we may need new physics. Inflation is also not understood, suggesting new physics. Some kind of inflation that expands some chunks of space but not others may result in PBH's

              If you scroll up to my comments to Giovanni Prisinzano there are a couple of links. One is to a paper containing my theory on this problem wherein the universe begins with two different types of dark energy that separate from each other. Because like types of dark energy units don't separate, there is potential for the nuclei of PBH's to form during inflation.

              Given all this, it will be interesting to see if there is any evidence of supermassive stars in the next 12 months, and also the data coming out in relation to the expansion history of the universe (see the other link I gave Giovanni to the New York Times article).

              Cheers

              Gavin

                Hi Gavin,

                Thanks for your attention.

                The MWI (again an acronym) is different from my proposition. MWI is splitting up at each choice (in two realities) like mine but my proposition is not splitting up in two coexisting realities, it is splitting up in one ongoing life-line and one that is "becoming" an eternal availability (probability). I will make an illustration for my next article.

                The many Minds that you indicate are the many available minds outside your own. YOU are experiencing one of them, the others (an infinity of them) are available as probabilities in Total Consciousness that is essentially the total YOU.

                I am now thinking about the so called "availability" of all other "YOU's" in Total Consciousness. These availabilities are experienced as flows of reality by other YOU's. This could be because each Eternal Now Moment is the "cause" of the memory of a specific YOU. As an Eternal Now Moment is a pointlike entity in Total Consciousness and Total Simultaneity (both Time and Spaceless) this could mean that every YOU is experiencing its own reality (a FLOW because it is outside TC and TS) eternally. What we are experiencing as the FLOW of our reality in Time and Space is just an excitation. I would like to compare this thought with the hologrphic principle, a n dimensional entity can be the cause of an n+1 dimensional emergence. In this case an n+2 dimensional emergence.

                It is a very difficult question you are asking me there about the unity of TS and TC. Total Consciousness is like a field in Total Simultaneity. The Total Consciousness I introduce is the totality of ALL forms of Consciousness. If we have Total Simultaneity without Consciousness it is just a complete set of information (data) without any goal a chaos of data. It is only there. The to be or not to be has only a reason with consciousness.

                When we accept Consciousness as afield it could be the counterforce of entropy.

                Actually I was reading last night the Large Hadron Collider may have turned up evidence of axions

                Dear Gavin,

                Thank you very much for reading my essay and your comment. I have read with interest your deep analytical essay, executed in the Cartesian spirit of doubt. It is this spirit of radical doubt that gives impetus to the search for a way out of the crisis of understanding in fundamental science. Fundamental science, including cosmology, needs today a wide competition of ideas, concepts, theories .

                These thoughts and conclusions are very important for overcoming the modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science and global society:

                «Plato regarded his "form of the Good" as synonymous to truth, order and virtue. Plato's Good is an organising principle of the highest order, since it is "what gives existence to things."»

                «...idealists believe that the ultimate measure of ideas is value, and thus decision-making should be motivated by the rightness or wrongness of a decision. idealists believe that the ultimate measure of ideas is value, and thus decision-making should be motivated by the rightness or wrongness of a decision. For idealists, writes W.J .Mander, "Values are certainly as real as other objects and events, arguably more real than them and possibly all that is genuinely real." And "From Plato onward, idealists have traditionally defended the place of value right in the heart of reality."»

                «"Good, the final end of the world, has being, only while it constantly produces itself."(Hermann Lotze)»

                «I have argued that the universe could not have made a reality such as ours without a fundamental principal of constructiveness, and that this principle is best understood as a fundamental dimension comparable to space and time.»

                The modern crisis of understanding in the foundations of knowledge is a deep metaphysical crisis - a comprehensive crisis of ontology, gnosecology, axiology, dialectics. The world picture of physicists, mathematicians, poets and musicians should be united and filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

                Therefore, in order to overcome the crisis of understanding, it is very important to purposefully support various gnoseological paradigms and to introduce the Ontological standard of substantiation of fundamental theories

                Best regards,

                Vladimir