From mindless mathematics to thinking meat? by Matt Visser

Your paper has an interesting take on the relationship between event horizons and apparent horizons. Of course we know that event horizons are congruencies of null geodesics while apparent horizons are observer or frame dependent. An event horizon can only be detected, or inferred from the detection of things around it, for a completely stationary situation. The trapping surface is local to a coordinate frame and may be inferred completely. What about the transition between the two?

If you fall towards a black hole the black surface you witness splaying out below you is the event horizon. This is until you cross r = 2GM/rc^2. Then suddenly the event horizon becomes an apparent horizon. The question is how would you know the exact time you cross the event horizon? The infalling observer would need to know within a Planck time unit when they cross the horizon. The energy of the black hole E = Mc^2 which has black hole temperature T = ﾄｧg/2ﾏ\ck. This acceleration on the clock of mass m is then F = ma and the energy E = 1/2NkT gives E = GMm/r^2*L_p. Putting this together the estimated mass of the clock necessary to measure this fine scale would be m ~ GM^2¥sqrt{c^3/Gﾄｧ}. This is a colossal figure. So how does one know for certain whether a horizon is absolute or a relative trapping surface?

This does prevent an observer from cloning states. It prevents Bob from performing a swap out of a quantum states, which can teleport a state to Alice in the black hole, but where Bob can precisely time his entry into the black hole to find Alice before she is shredded by the singularity and produce cloned quantum states.

Cheers LC

Dear Matt Visser,

The brain is, due its dense connections, a strongly coupled euclidean 3 dimensional system, with low entropy. Computers, are, ideally, weakly 2 dimensional surface with high entropy. A brain is operates in low frequency, a computer, in high frequency. So, what could help in simulating the brain is taking advantage of some sort of holographic relation. Figuring out the operators in this case is perhaps the key.

Off topic: Verlinde updated its theory https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 . Some discussion followed it, it seems in better shape now: https://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?gws_rd=cr&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=13085847397060900930

Hi Matt, the message coming through load and clear is that you didn't like the essay question. Nevertheless you put together an interesting read. I wouldn't have thought about black holes and teleology but you did.

Re. thinking meat; You do not consider the complexity of organisation, which includes branching fractal like growth of nerve fibers, vast numbers of connections, and structural organisation of functions of different regions; Allowing emergent characteristics. The brain certainly isn't just more meat. I like that you do acknowledge that there is a material component though.

I've recently watched two interesting lectures by Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky that you might find interesting too Chaos and reductionism and Emergence and complexity that contain some ideas relevant to what you have written, I think. kind regards Georgina

matt, hi,

okay. deep breath. i'm glad to see that you have taken the question raised by this essay seriously, and endeavour to question its validity - or at least, conclude that, with no definition of consciousness mind existing, it is impossible to really answer the question. i note, sadly, that i have not yet found another essay other than my own which *actually* answers the question.

with some trepidation i would like to refer you to dr alex hankey's work on the foundations of consciousness. dr alex hankey has indeed provided a formal mathematical framework in which consciousness may be explored objectively. the foundation is in an entirely new form of self-referral quantum mechanics ("QM with a twist") which he utilises to describe "Critical Instability Points" within biological and other systems.

i say trepidation because it is most unfortunate in that simply mentioning the existence of his work - and that of others who also explore this topic - it undermines the premise of your essay. i can only deeply apologise for that, and would be interested to hear your thoughts given that it *is* in fact possible to formally and mathematically describe consciousness.

Matt, when you write "the mathematics and physics communities... do not (yet) have any suitable and appropriate well-agreed-upon mathematical/physical framework to address" the issues questioned in the essay contest, you are quite right. Thought and feeling are not reducible to physics, and not attributable to mathematics. Some physicists deal with this barrier to their expertise by denying that thought and feeling even exist. But of course it takes feeling to want to concoct such a belief and thought to give it formulation.

indeed - reducto ad absurdum, logically it is clearly not the case that thoughts and feelings cannot exist, thus we may infer that any physicist which attempts to deny that fact is... well... put simply and plainly: in a pathological psychological state. there's really not much point in beating about the bush and trying to say otherwise.

james i am most reluctant to say it but i do have to protest your assertion that thought and feeling may not be described formally in mathematical notation, or that they may not be "reduced" to physics. clearly we live in a physical world therefore there *has* to be some basis and link to cognition. otherwise, why do these people keep meeting every year to discuss that and other related subjects? http://www.foundationsofmind.org/

the 2017jan27 conference in san fransisco had 17 confirmed speakers. one of the papers presented summarises the results of meetings of over *forty* physicists and biologists who discuss the application of quantum mechanics to consciousness...

why, then - or how - is it possible to conclude that the question raised by this essay is not valid or legitimate, and on what basis can the peer-reviewed work of so many notable scientists be denied? sorry to have to be the one to ask these questions.

Dear Matt,

> "I will argue, simply because we do not yet have any really good mathematical or physical theory of consciousness, that the theme of this essay contest is premature, and unlikely to lead to any resolution that would be widely accepted in the mathematics or physics communities"

That's right, at this stage we can only speculate. This is useful too: although not Popperian science, but a part that leads to hypotheses. Most of them untestable at this moment, and those that can be tested don't clarify a bit what is consciousness.

> "event horizons fail Popper falsifiability, while apparent/trapping horizons are perfectly acceptable science in Popper's sense"

You are right about event and apparent horizons, and I admire Hawking for being willing to give up ideas he previously endorsed with enthusiasm. I guess that many physicists who were bothered with the apparent information loss in black holes considered the horizon as local, apparent, and gave little weight to the teleological definition, although this one is the right one. Or perhaps they didn't ignore it, but the timelessness of the block world view made the involved teleology appear OK.

Regarding the wavefunction collapse, I agree again with the insufficiency of decoherence and various interpretations of QM is well supported. But I think teleology is not present only in Wigner-like interpretations. I think any attempt to a realistic interpretation, if it has to account for nonlocality and especially contextuality, has to be teleological. Elements of reality, whatever they are, have to be nonlocal both in space and time. Of course, I wouldn't speculate that this sort of teleology explains the tiniest bit of consciousness. I just think it is unavoidable, unless we give up reality, and replace with something like qubism (although I think this still only hides it by refusing to discuss about the physical processes between measurements). But I think that relativity comes to rescue, since the block world view makes this teleology or apparent retrocausality more digestible. Only if we want the world to start with any possible initial configuration and evolve in time in such a way that we don't see Schrodinger cats and the measurements have definite outcomes, we have to include the collapse or reject reality.

Your essay is enjoyable to read and contains good arguments, which converge well to the conclusion.

Best regards,

Cristi Stoica

The Tablet of the Metalaw

Dear Matt,

"... simply because we do not yet have any really good mathematical or physical theory of consciousness, that the theme of this essay contest is premature, and unlikely to lead to any resolution that would be widely accepted in the mathematics or physics communities."

Challenge accepted ! But are you one of the rare ones who not only throw this challenge but also support the development of such a description in physics? After all, consciousness has emerged in physical systems, therefore, there must be a description of the physical world that allows it. In my encounters, I find a large section of physicists, who nip the arguments / development in the bud. Even in my inability to state it any differently from most of us who exaggerate our own claims -- I must invite you to comment on my essay, even though Brendan-San ensured that a fuller description could not appear among these essays. Of course, in this essay, I could not take the issue all the way up to actual emergence of Consciousness, but I hope, you will observe a definitive path.

Rajiv K Singh

Oh! I did not realize that you had raised the point already only a few minutes ago. I stated the same, but there may be certain unexplored paths in physics which attempts to show how information is naturally associated with states of matter, implying that information has a reality of its own.

Rajiv

Hi GW,

Yes, I do agree with your spirit of observation that complexity could allow emergence of certain characteristics, but the mechanism and phenomenon of emergence must have a description and existence of its own. I mean, it must be seen even at the elemental level, it may not require vast numbers of agents, connections, or structural detail to exhibit the phenomenon. Furthermore, brain cells are attributed with the evidence of representing simple or complex information. Again, information must have a reality of its own even at the most fundamental level. I hope, I have enticed you to critique mine.

Rajiv

Luke, no problem. We can disagree, right?

I have no problem with appreciating that consciousness is descended from "the physical." I'd actually say it is most expressive of something latent in "the physical."

I didn't say your paper was "invalid" or "illegitimate." I just disagree. Maybe I shouldn't be commenting until someone (you) have the opportunity to counter-critique. It feels like I'm sniping.

In any case, I suggest it's not a good idea to rest one's beliefs on counting the heads that agree.

Dear Matt Visser,

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 Prof Visser,

Your analysis of the theme of the contest is nice... for example in the conclusion you said about your essay.... 'The theme of the essay contest implicitly appeals to consciousness (be it human or otherwise) to even define aims" or intentions", and the fact that we simply do not have a coherent physical understanding of the ontology of consciousness....'

As you have already mentioned about the event horizons of Blackholes, I hope you may have look at my essay where there are no Blackholes, no singularities, no Bigbang, yet drives the Galaxies towards some goals!

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 Matt,

Very well said, I completely agree with you (although in my essay for this contest I allowed myself more freedom than I would normally do :) because I think it is a good opportunity to exchange ideas).

Best wishes,

Cristi

Dear Mat Visser

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