How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention? by Richard Conn Henry

Richard,

That was amazing!

I started reading and could not stop to the end. I did not think anyone could do justice to this subject not only did you answer the essay question, you illuminated the whole world of reality.

Bravo,

Don Limuti

Professor Henry,

One of the reasons I enjoyed your essay is the poignant and efficient manner with which you critiqued the problem question of the contest. I think it is noteworthy how many contestants have written of how ill-posed and assumption-ridden the question is.

I must take issue with you (and many others) however, with regard to your statement that "Relativity...is certainly true." Certainly relativity has lots of empirical evidence to back it up. But I hasten to point out that, with regard to gravity (General Relativity), the interior solution remains virtually untested. Specifically, the Schwarzschild interior solution predicts that clock rates decrease to a central minimum. Not only is this intuitively questionable (symmetry arguments arguably imply the opposite), it is quite untested.

The kinematic counterpart for this clock rate prediction is the classic harmonic oscillation prediction for a test mass dropped into a hole through the center of a spherical source mass. Proposed by Galileo in 1632, the needed apparatus may be called a Small Low-Energy Non-Collider. The difference in clock rate as between a clock on the surface and one at the center is much too small to measure for accessible masses. But the kinematic prediction is well within experimental reach (with a modified Cavendish balance in an Earth-based laboratory or in an orbiting satellite.)

To be rigorously scientific we must therefore admit that we do not yet know whether relativity will be supported by the result of this experiment. To find out, we need to actually do the experiment. The huge gap in our empirical data may be characterized as representing the most ponderous half of the gravitational Universe--a gap that is customarily filled by assumption and extrapolation. I hope you see the value in exchanging the assumption for physical fact, as urged in my essay, Rethinking the Universe.

Thank you.

Richard Benish

henry, hi,

love that you turn the question round, to " How can aims and intention give rise to mathematical laws?". i took a different approach, being aware that there *are* mathematical laws that may describe conscious mind, but also altered the question to one more suitable.

question for you: what difference would it have made to your essay if you had a clear definition of both intelligence (and mind, and therefore of consciousness) to work from?

Hello Prof. Henry

I enjoyed your cheerful, supremely confident and competent sweep through history, time and space to affirm the centrality of the human mind. Very readable indeed. My essay was submitted and hopefully will be published soon. From my deepest iintuitions and from rudimentary notions in physics that have yet to be developed ( for example that time does not exist) I have reached the opposite conclusions. The human mind has nothing to do with the Universe. What amounts to Einstein's supreme act of hubris (that he might not have seen as such) - placing an observer into every situation, even where two atoms collide- does allow us to calculate efficiently various scenarios in technology. But it has nothing to do with the essential nature of the Universe or humanity.

Another thing I might mention is how you ignored the history of algebra, astronomy and the scientific method in order to yet again retell a skewed Euro-centric view of the history of science. Mathematics had important beginnings in ancient India, algebra was born in Persia, the scientific method in Iraq and Egypt (at the hands of Ibn Al-Haytham whose work reached Europe in Latin and helped spark the new thinking of the Renaissance.) Carlo Rovelli in Nature aired similar views as yours and I responded in Nature online as I did here. Unfortunately the link does not seem to be working.

Nevertheless I enjoyed the way you told your story, aware I will never be as convincing telling my story as you did yours! Cheers.

Vladimir

With reference to my above comment, Here is the link to my response to Rovelli's dismissal of Arab astronomy

Dear Richard,

Universe is an i-Sphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as 4 dimensional dual torus inside a 3-Sphere, which consists of Riemann 2-sphere as Soul as depicted in S=BM^2 diagram in the attached doc. Soul is the simplest of the complex manifolds with in the 3-sphere, Mind and Body constitute the remaining complexity. Soul, Mind and Body are in a toroidal flux in human beings, exactly at the center of the 3-sphere one can experience the unity of the trinity and that is the now moment we experience. As there are 4 dimensions required for a 3-sphere, the regular 3 dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time, it is obvious that the 2-sphere (Riemann sphere) of consciousness with in us is with out the time dimension and hence the saying "eternal soul". Poincare` conjecture implies that consciousness is homeomorphic (same or similar) in all beings manifested in all dimensions of the universe, as i have shown that Riemann sphere can serve as the fundamental unit of consciousness in There are no goals as such its all play.

Love,

i.Attachment #1: 8_zero__i__infinity.docx

Dear Professor Richard Conn Henry,

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 Henry,

Your ideas and thinking on history of mathematics are excellent and wonderful.

Belated 77th Happy birthday sir!

I am requesting you to have a look into my essay also

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 prof. Richard!

I have read your amazing article. Despite it is not so correct to try fully evaluating it in such quickly way, however, I will dare tell my very positive impressions on some your "unusual" (for today!) viewpoints. You say, "The realization of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom." I am fully agree with you, because I see that we have going not ahead, particularly, in nowadays physics but we definitely move into regress, on the matter how we now have used our mental capabilities, that given to us by God! So, we must critically to examine before, how rightly we have making our science now? Your work are significantly to my from this side. You are daring directly say; "The meaningless math cannot ..." (maybe for this your position is not so higher in the score list?) The matter is the realization of ignorance is not so desirable occupation for many people!

Coming to second part of your work, I can say only that is very interesting but it is a little out of my personal interest. I cannot say anything against, but only that I am inclined to put such a tasks and questions that can be realizable in the close future (maybe it because of I am long time working as an practical engineer!) I hope you can look my work and to say some remarks (in my page) that will be valuable for me as a opinion of one master experienced by life! Now I would support to you as it is possible!

Best wishes and long life to you!

Richard

Fascinating, and well under rated at 4.4. (boost coming).

You are the man I need it seems.

In my essay I've extended Pythogoeas theorem to 3D dynamics, showing that with a pinch of momentum from Maxwell a (quasi) Classical derivation of the predictions of QM is possible compliant with Bell.

Nobody seems able to show it's wrong. You may be the man! I hope.

Very best

Peter

(PS. If interested, the models precursor was last years top scored essay on reversible green & red socks. There's also a video Classic QM. )

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

Dear prof. Henry

I am glad to see you writing one more essay, as our views are quite similar; still we have a few differences in some details. I included links to your essays some time ago in my list of references on the links between quantum physics and consciousness, in a try to gather and advertise similar efforts in this direction from currently isolated individuals, unfortunately without much effect until now. A few times I also tried writing you but got no reply, I wondered why.

I agree with you that, fundamentally, there is no physical reality, as reality is mental. But I differ by the way of describing it (and I think we need such another description for the sake of conceptual clarity, to form a scientifically precise statement): that the physical is a non-fundamental reality. Precisely: the physical universe is a part of the mathematical universe that is distinguished by the circumstance of being consciously perceived. Physical reality emerges as a combination of two more fundamental realities : the mental and the mathematical. I found this description remarkably efficient to explain quantum physics : at every conscious time, the state of the physical universe is the mathematical projected image, in the Hilbert space, of the universal conscious memory of past physical perceptions. So, each observation "collapses the wave function" as it is added to this universal conscious memory from which the state of the physical universe is defined. This was one of the main points of my essay, updated here, in the last fqxi essay contest. As I essentially gave there all the main ideas I had to share in such topics already, I did not see the point to repeat participation this time.

Like you I feel the usual courses of relativity and quantum mechanics largely unsatisfactory, and consider that nature must be elegant, so that some simple and natural way is needed to properly picture it. Sorry I did not find interest in your current propositions on this issue, which did not appear clear to me. I wrote my own propositions on this in my site, as I intensely focused on this issue I since teenage, though I still did not finish cleaning up that presentation, since I then reoriented my focus to other topics. I especially focused on digging into the foundations of mathematics, which logically come first, and whose presentation I almost finalized in recent times. I see these foundations as also providing crucial materials for the goal of clarifying physics, for reasons I sketched in this general introduction to my work, section "From physics to mathematical logic".

I agree with your remarks on how unintelligent is the human specie. You know what ? I already pointed that out in other words during the last fqxi essay contest, and how those terrible flaws of people's minds happened to lead bad essays to win such contests against good ones. As expectable, for telling this I was hated in this very space.

I also see interest in your question "How can aims and intention give rise to mathematical laws ?", though as a mathematical Platonist I consider that mathematical laws usually preexist any mindful aims and intentions, thus are essentially independent of such. However I see a number of links between mindful intentions, mathematical laws, and adventures of wandering towards goals, as follows.

The aim of the job of computer programming, that is among the most well-paid jobs on the market, is to formalize mathematical laws governing how computers should work to best fit some given human goals. Still I see programmers wandering quite long without much success towards the goal of planning a really optimal and successful online social network (I worked to define such a plan, which takes quite a deal of mathematical skills to make it right).

The laws of quantum mechanics can be explained as a remarkable choice of mathematical laws that fit the double goal of creating mathematically well-defined laws of a universe combining some mentally wonderful mathematical elegance, with the opportunity for consciousness to actually live and continue shaping the content of that universe by expressing its free will. But I have no idea how long it took for the universal consciousness to wander towards that goal before discovering and picking up that mathematical structure. I also see a strong philosophical link between this and the job of computer programming, as I pointed out in the last page of my essay.

Despite generations of focused intention, many philosophers are still wandering in vain with lots of bad ideas in metaphysics, by lack of solid background in mathematical logic and in the mathematical laws of physics. Similarly by lack of mathematical skills, utopists wandered in vain with bad ideas of what an ideal society should look like and how it can be implemented.

The life of mathematicians is full of adventures of wandering towards goals of finding rigorously formalized proofs of some initially vague intuitions of beautiful mathematical truths, a work which takes quite a deal of focused intention to achieve.

From the initially vague intuition of mathematical Platonism to an actually precise formulation and justification of what this intrinsic, independent reality of mathematics consists in and how it is structured, mathematicians have wandered quite a long time. Still nowadays some scientists such as Carlo Rovelli, express strong skepticism to the existence of such a mathematical reality, which they cannot figure out, having not seen a clear exposition of it.

Near the completion of that goal, mathematicians stumbled on the surprising discovery of the famous Incompleteness theorem, which revealed the possible existence of mathematical truths understandable by minds but not verifiable by machines, thus a possibly demonstrable fundamental difference between the activities of minds and machines even in matters of ability to understand the mind-independent mathematical reality itself.

The intuitive possibility to finally form one of the best and clearest arguments justifying the claim of a fundamental difference between minds and machines, on the basis of this theorem, has motivated Lucas and Penrose to write lenghily on the topic. However they only happened to wander in vain towards that goal, and utterly failed at it, according to the consensus of experts in mathematical logic (a skill they visibly did not properly master). More carefully examining the foundations of mathematics, led me to propose a quite different version of such an argument, hopefully much more solid.

Similarly, the discovery of the mathematical law of quantum mechanics immediately inspired many people a strong intuitive feeling that reality is mental rather than material ; however, that impression still did not suffice to form a rigorous and scientifically defensible justification of that conclusion. Wigner, motivated for a long time by this intution of the fundamental role of consciousness in physics, still failed to formalize a proper understanding and justification of it, thus letting many skeptics unconvinced, himself included: he abandoned that view at the end of his life, while lots of physicists would keep wandering in vain towards their own goal of trying to fit that theory with their materialistic views.

I also undertook myself to fill that gap, developing a precise formulation of the articulation between metaphysics and quantum physics, with precise arguments against naturalistic interpretations of quantum physics. Still, regardless the quality of arguments one may give, the flaws of both human nature and our still primitive information network, may let so many people keep wandering in vain with bad ideas and wrong research directions, uninformed for a long time about any good arguments that individuals away from the main spotlight may already have discovered.