The Tablet of the Metalaw by Cristinel Stoica

Janko Kokosar

Dear Cristi

There are nicely presented problems on the way to physically explain consciousness. It seems that you are not sure, what is the answer. For instance Dawkins is almost sure, what the answers are. :)

As a detail:

You wrote about down-top causation, how details of quantum physics are un-important in classical physics. But if we assume that quantum consciousness exists this is something from quantum level, what remain in classical level. There are still some physical experiments, like interference, which show quantum physics on macro level.

But in my old essay I wrote one sentence and now you and Ellis write a similar sentence:

Kokosar: Let us assume that there is a woman Desiree who is never awake and only dreams. As a consequence, her ego would be weaker. Thus, this is one hint that differentiation and integration are important only because of memorizing of qualia.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1832

Stoica: If one would dream his entire life, and the dream would be consistent, then wouldn't that person experience imaginary as real?

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Janko,

Thanks for the comments, and for the links between our essays, the differences and the parallels, in particular about the role of consciousness in quantum, and the difference between the dream state and the awake state. Good luck in the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi

Michael Popov

Dear Cristi,

There is remarkable correspondence between my " Kantian answers " essay and your neo - Kantian passages when you suggest that:

1." Only necessary existence is mathematical existence"

2." Physical Universe don't exist with necessity "

3." Merely mathematical structures exist with necessity " ( because mathematical structures are Kant's synthetic a priori judgments based on necessity - correspondingly they cannot be analytical judgments ! )

4." They are a priori truths " ( it is correct, because they are synthetic a priori judgments ).

Hence, my transcendental Kantian answer for your conjecture :

Suppose we will find the Unified theory of the fundamental physical laws. Then what? My answer - we will find neo - Kantian transcendental physics as a realization of Kant's dream of so called " Pure Metaphysics ".

Some additional definitions could be found in my Kantian answers.

Thank you.

Respectfully

Michael

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Michael,

Interesting the connections with Kant's synthetic a priori judgments based on necessity. I like in principle your answer 'Suppose we will find the Unified theory of the fundamental physical laws. Then what? My answer - we will find neo - Kantian transcendental physics as a realization of Kant's dream of so called " Pure Metaphysics ".'

Best wishes,

Cristi

Cristinel Stoica

David,

> "ToEs are just theories that try to cover a wider range of dimensional scales of the Whole Universe spectrum. But each time this spectrum is enlarged, new laws and concepts will emerge (new Landscapes)."

I agree that most likely we will never have a definite reason to believe that a theory is final, and this can be seen in my essay soon after the first page from which you quoted.

> May we believe that there will be some basic and elementary objects (and laws), since which there will be nothing smaller? Only if this were so, then we could think on getting a TOE based on these elementary and basic objects and laws."

Not necessarily. Positive integers are made of a smallest unit, yet the completeness of their theory can't be proven. Euclidean geometry doesn't have a smallest unit, but can you find in it new laws or objects?

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Conrad,

Thank you for your comments.

> Any mathematical structure, and in particular any useful equation in physics, can represent an infinite number of particular cases, only some of which are physically instantiated in any particular part of spacetime. Even if we assume the universe is infinite and contains all possible cases somewhere, a mathematical structure can be "isomorphic" to it only in a very partial and limited sense, that abstracts from every local viewpoint. [...] Yet isn't the existence of distinct instances at particular times and places a basic feature of the physical world? What do our equations refer to, if not to the dynamic relationships between these instances?

The statement "the universe is isomorphic to a mathematical structure" doesn't mean that it is to all solutions of an equation. Each initial condition gives a different solution, and maybe only one of them is a universe (ours), or maybe each of them is a different universe.

> In my current essay I've tried to show how quantum measurement can be treated as a form of natural selection ...

Maybe you will like quantum darwinism.

> My sense is that we conflate "having a particular point of view on the world" - which is something we can reasonably ascribe to atoms, or anything else that's localized in space and time - with the kind of reflective self-awareness we humans have.

Indeed, I think this conflation is common but unsupported yet.

Best regards,

Cristi

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your comments. Yes, I think the coarse grain partition looks similar to a Voronoi diagram. Indeed, the interior sets of any Voronoi tessellation define a relation of equivalence, and I think that for any relation of equivalence one can define a distance and select some representatives which make it into a Voronoi diagram. Interesting connection.

Best regards,

Cristi

Cristinel Stoica

Dear George,

Thank you very much for the comments. You said

> "you dare to put clearly formulated natural questions "What is the world made of?" for example. Meantime many high-advanced scientists just look on such questions as "immodest" and just inappropriate for "serious" scientists!"

You are right. In fact, I also try to avoid such questions in physics papers. But I like the FQXi platform because encourages such questions, and this is the right place for me to discuss them. If I would be able to suggest a clearly scientific answer to such questions, no doubt I would discuss them in scientific papers too. Thank you for pointing me to your essay, and I wish you success!

Best regards,

Cristi

Cristinel Stoica

Hi Gavin,

Not yet, but thanks for pointing your essay to me.

Best regards,

Cristi

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Graham,

Thank you for your comments, pointing out the key points of interest to you, and a philosophical structure you propose which you think may help tying them together.

Best regards,

Cristi

Jeffrey Schmitz

Dear Cristi,

The structure of this essay is wonderful with brackets from quantum mechanics used for section numbers. The essay is clearly written with a sense of style. You artfully fold in the major bullet points of the contest and end with musings about the nature and existence of the universe.

I have seen a few of these essays with the idea of a multi-level system with one level being the microstates needed for the next level up. The largest jump in levels is between the quantum level and the thermodynamic level. If we think of entropy being the "arrow in time" than we need to be in the thermodynamic realm to experience the evolution of time (with time being undefined at the quantum level). We cannot see entropy in the ground state of a single atom. Bacteria exist near the border of the thermodynamic realm and more importantly they exist because they are near that border.

Intelligence is a simple, common, but important process that is misunderstood. Intelligence is not a better or more rapid calculation, but a different type of process with advantages and disadvantages.

Sincerely,

Jeff

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Jeff,

Thank you for the very interesting comments. Indeed, I agree with "The largest jump in levels is between the quantum level and the thermodynamic level. If we think of entropy being the "arrow in time" than we need to be in the thermodynamic realm to experience the evolution of time (with time being undefined at the quantum level). We cannot see entropy in the ground state of a single atom. Bacteria exist near the border of the thermodynamic realm and more importantly they exist because they are near that border.". Also, I agree with you about intelligence as not being "a better or more rapid calculation, but a different type of process with advantages and disadvantages."

Best regards,

Cristi

Jeffrey Schmitz

Cristi,

I would like you to read my essay and give an honest review. My essay is a quick read, but it is doing poorly in the ranking and it would be helpful for me to understand why.

Thank you,

Jeff

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Dizhechko Boris,

> "If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts"

I don't think space(-time) and matter are independent, actually I think they are faces of the same thing. My guess is that a geometric structure, and geometry seems so far to be the best description of relativity and particles.

Best regards,

Cristi

Cristinel Stoica

Jim,

Thank you for your comments, I will not comment them, except to say that they are brilliant. You said "I was glad that I could find at least a few points to disagree with which prompted this response.", but I don't disagree with most of your comments, perhaps maybe that my definition of sentient is different from the one you used, hence the conclusions.

Best regards,

Cristi

Gary Simpson

Cristinel,

At the risk of mixing icons, I have an image of you walking up to the top of the pyramid, being struck by lightning, and then walking down the pyramid looking like Moses with a beard and carrying a tablet:-)

BTW, the use of bra-ket notation for subheading markers was a nice touch.

In |7> you mention placing constraints upon the system. This is a theme that appears in several of the essays with the same basic

I also see quite a bit of thematic similarity with your previous essay.

All in all, a very good effort.

Best regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

Cristinel Stoica

Gary,

Thank you for the kind comments. I shaved recently, I hope someday to visit the pyramids, and I will not carry coins to avoid lightning :) And I sometimes carry with me a tablet on which I have papers to read about the law and the metalaw, but nothing complete yet :) Thanks again, and good luck with your essay!

Cristi

George Kirakosyan

Dear Cristi (on your post in my page)

Many thanks for your attention and kindly words.

You are right - I have some alternative approach and own explanations to many of basic problems hoping somebody can show interest to this.

Many thanks again and good wishes to you!

Dizhechko Semyonovich

Dear Cristinel Stoica,

My rating dropped. If you did not take part in it, you can raise the prestige of the New Cartesian Physic and continue our communication.

In philosophy I was looking for an answer to the question: "What is the matter?" The answer I not found. Instead, there was the assertion that matter exists in time and space that exist separately from it. This statement I criticized. Matter does not exist, and creates time and space. Identity of space and matter lay in the basis of the New Cartesian Physic, which explained the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of which force on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck''s constant to the speed of light.

This and other achievements make me turn to you to help me to develop it further

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

Cristinel Stoica

Dear Dizhechko Boris,

I have a list of essays which I read, and yours I didn't read yet, hence didn't rate it yet. When and if I will do it, it will be according to my own evaluation, and not in order to raise or lower your ratings. About your statement you criticized, I don't think I said this about physics. It may be true about some theories, which are only approximations. Trust me, I know what I think and what I don't think about physics :) Good luck!

Best regards,

Cristi

« Previous Page Next Page »