Hi Luke

Good effort which also gives me the opportunity to play the devil's advocate for a while. I will try avoiding all such emphatic terms like "interesting" or worse, "fascinating" that have recently being called to attention as being entirely devoid of meaning (S. L Garfinkel, "whatever you do, dont call this an interesting idea", aeon e-magazine) It is yet intriguing that starting from questions pertaining to this old philosophical problem of mind vs matter, which in modern parlance became mind out of the 'mindless', being that a 'law' or otherwise, ends up with a call to 'self-censorship'.

This is the only thing I found a bit troubling as it is in the contradictions and the mystery that the spirit finds reason to sprout, at least according to Hegel. And why, this Maharishi inspired harmonious holistic understanding still leaves unanswered a very well known from antiquity old problem, the (in)famous "problem of evil". There is perhaps an intimate relationship with the doubt finally relieved near the end of the last section. I don't think we are indeed in a position to understand consciousness as yet, but this of course does not exclude the possibility of certain almost-perfect imitations and that I can find perfectly possible as I have myself put some effort into the same

direction some time ago. But now I am facing an ethical conundrum for how would I censor my self at the time that I may just start learning something really interesting and/or meaningful/profound?

Then again, it might be that the original question that led us here was ill posed. It was never about 'mind' out of 'mindless'. Maybe it was just bad reductionism or an inability to grasp life as the powerset of all eventualities. This all reminds me of another excerpt from Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals", thε famous 'Bird of Prey', considered by

some tο be deep for showing us the perils coming out of grammatical mistakes. As they say, "...what is the lightning if not the flash?"

So yes, yours was an excellent, provoking exercise in deepening our doubts, disputes and sharpening our blades against such challenges which I can find pleasant for my taste.

Your ol' 'Piratenwissenschaftler' friend - with an appropriate tribute (you tube: two hornpipes).

Keep the good work

    I am interested to see the similarities between Luke's train of thought and reading that I have been doing recently concerning the nature of the Christian concept of the Trinity, particularly focussing on the work of Fr. Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest at the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque. He and his colleagues promulgate the idea that Trinity is as much part of creation's 'sacred dance' as are electrons or universes. I quote here from his recent writing:

    Inner and Outer Worlds Converge

    Everything came forth from the divine dance that is the Trinity. Our new appreciation of Trinity is giving us a new grounding for interfaith understanding. It's giving us a marvelous new basis for appreciating how this mystery is embedded as the code, not just in our religious constructs, but also in everything that exists. Creation bears a "family resemblance" to the Creator.

    If there is only one creator God, and if there is one core pattern to this God, then we can expect to find that pattern everywhere else too. One reason so many theologians are interested in Trinity right now is that the scientific understanding of everything from atoms to galaxies to organisms is affirming our Trinitarian intuitions. We can now use the old Trinitarian language with a whole new level of appreciation.

    The deepest intuition of our poets, mystics, and Holy Writ are aligning with findings on the leading edges of science and empirical discovery. When inner and outer worlds converge like this, something beautiful is afoot--the reversal of a centuries-long lovers' quarrel between science and spirituality, mind and heart.

    Atomic scientists looking through microscopes and astrophysicists looking through telescopes are seeing a similarity of pattern: everything is in relationship with everything else. Scientists and contemplatives alike are confirming that the foundational nature of reality is relational, and everything is indeed a holon, a part that replicates and mimics the whole.

    References:

    Adapted from Richard Rohr with Mike Morrell, The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your Transformation (Whitaker House: 2016), 69; and

    The Divine Dance: Exploring the Mystery of Trinity, disc 1 (CAC: 2004), CD, MP3 download.

      Dear Luke,

      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.

      Love,

      i.Attachment #1: 3_zero__i__infinity.docx

        Luke, thank you for your reply. Re. the acorn I was thinking about the acorn/tree DNA of the individual but you are right that there is a lot of variation among the population of individuals.

        I see clearly now the the difference between 'intelligence' as used in general parlance; to describe an entity that has characteristics such as reasoning, comprehension, ability to learn and more, compared to your use of the word as a synonym for 'self organisation' applicable to processes and inanimate matter. Clearly they are very different meanings of the word intelligent. I agree that the higher mental function intelligence requires the organisation of matter that can be reduced to individual particles. I think it is misleading to put the word intelligent on the organizing which happens via mindless physics and chemistry. Self organisation is not a standard definition of 'intelligent'. No problem with 'creative self organisation' as a description though.

        I like that you have thought about the question and how it can or can't be answered, and how it might be usefully modified.

        Kind regards Georgina

        Dear Geraldine Ewan,

        what you wrote about Trinity is very interesting to me. I do not know to work you cited, but will take a closer look - if available in germany. If you are interested in some thoughts on trinities in the physical world, please see my comment to Steve Dufourny at my essay page (Feb. 16, 2017 @ 17:09 GMT).

        Thanks for your comment and the citation! And if you want to read something about the problem of evil, please read my comment to Theophanes Eleftheriou Raptis, right above of your comment here.

        Dear Theophanes Eleftheriou Raptis,

        i think you are right here. If one believes in a personal God and not just in a first source, this problem - the problem of evil - has to be answered.

        Fist possibility: Its all a game, a kind of tour of souls away from their creator - to experience how it feels to be separated from God. Then we did choose all the evil by ourselves. Being separated from the realm of God does mean to be separated from his/her values and properties. This would explain the lack of such properties in our world.

        Second possibility: Souls have been entrapped to be separated from God (in christian theology this was due to Lucifer who entrapped a huge part of souls in the heavens). Since every soul is made like the father (in some aspects), it is eternal and has free will (can choose).

        In both cases the evil is not due to God, but due to the decisions of the souls. Personally i believe in Jesus Christ, i do not go to Church, i do not read the bible, but believe that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected from the dead. I am finished with all the esoteric nonsense i read and heard over the years. This stuff does not safe a single soul, neither here on earth from its problems, nor in the world after. It is just a kind of seducement, mixed with some real metaphysical experiences, a mix of lies with some truth to think one is just like God.

        thanks theo :) yeah the unabridged version makes it clearer why i have a problem with the idea of scientists being able to understand consciousness sufficiently as to be able to implement it to bring about machine-conscious beings (... and then torture them). the lack of understanding *is* precisely why humanity would consider it perfectly ok to do that.

        if we were not at a critical juncture where the power and money of one person could have such a dramatic impact on our ecosystem, in effect become a surgeon operating *on themselves* with neither knowledge or anaesthetic, risking killing us all in the process, i would not have written the conclusion that i had, because there would be no need.

        much as i would *like* to get involved in the development of machine consciousness.

        interestingly, that same high-level powerful group that has got together to collaborate to create Arrogantly-Artificial-Intelligence has *just* funded a think-tank on how humanity should cope if all goes to hell in a handbasket.

        utterly cool, sridattadev, and beautiful to know that you are gaining such insights. perhaps an additional insight for you:

        if we may define a soul as being simply a MASSIVELY high order solution (and i really do mean exceptionally high) of Laplace's Y(theta, phi) spherical functions, our soul *may* develop without a body, but, like the surgeon that may need to operate on itself, it is necessary to maintain self-coherence - a coherent E.M. field - *at the same time*. this of necessity limits both the rate (and type) of self-development that may occur.

        a body therefore provides an anchor for the E.M.-field-that-is-the-soul whilst allowing and supporting *cognitive dissonance* and subsequent fragmentation of the laplace solutions. in other words, the soul's attachment to the body *may* allow it to support states that would otherwise causes its complete collapse and fragmentation if it was not so attached. thus, birth (and life) provides the (risky!) opportunity for fast-track development.

        cool, huh? :)

        "Scientists and contemplatives alike are confirming that the foundational nature of reality is relational, and everything is indeed a holon, a part that replicates and mimics the whole."

        ... after all, that would be the simplest, most efficient and most elegant way for things to end up - or more to the point "emerge". thank you.

        Dear Luke,

        You are absolutely right and we concur fully, Soul can exist independently on it's own. Consciousness or Soul is fundamental and can further manifest Mind and Body if it chooses to. In a simple geometric evolution, a 2-Sphere (Soul) comes first and then evolves to a 3-sphere (Soul, Mind and Body). Also please see There are no goals as such it's all play.

        Love,

        i.

        This is a very pleasant essay to read. I resonate with the idea that consciousness is defined as a "Critical Instability Point." This matches with my conclusion that the laws of physics are a collective behavior at a critical point of universality. Consciousness only exists when connected with this through senses. That's my view. It's good to see that people are keeping the TM movement going.

          thanks philip. so... extending what you say, logically (regarding consciousness): to *deny* the evidence of one's senses - or mind - would be the beginning of pathological states. we cannot *possibly* say that we are moving towards a goal, with aims or intent, if we seek at the same time to *deliberately* refuse to acknowledge certain input or conclusions. how could we? under such circumstance the adjustments needed to create the required corrective feedback cannot possibly be successful.

          regarding TM: i feel that it's... kinda... well, it was one of the pioneers of what's now become much more prevalent, so now kinda "blends into in the background noise". but, more than that: you never *needed* to "support" the TM "movement", you just needed to do it :)

          Dear Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton,

          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

          hi joe,

          yes i've used "it really should be simpler than this" many many times. also however in the field of software engineering i have learned that sometimes it really does have to be complex in order to cover "all the options" shall we say. but even there, there is no need - no call - for wasting time "over-engineering". in complex systems this is especially true, where it is hard enough to understand what's going on *without* having "over-engineering" in the mix as well :)

          l.

          Wonderful essay Leighton,

          Your ideas and thinking are excellent. It is first time I met a reverse engineer and I am lucky to see his skills are used in neuron sciences and our brains. Best wishes.

          Some of your words...

          Those Reverse-Engineers that I have encountered in the Software Libre field have a rough time: their expertise allows them to foresee outcomes and make near-prescient predictions with startling accuracy that then, like the Prophets and Oracles from past millenia, has them hated, feared, ignored, despised and in some cases has large Corporations going after them - illegally or unethically or both - with absolutely everything they've got, including outright fabrication, blackmail of their sponsors as a way to stop their funding, and slander

          ......................... Very sad state of affairs for such excellent skills.

          I felt very happy that you are using Indian philosophy and logic like "Advaita Vedanta" and "Transidental Meditation of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the leader of the TM Movement,". They are very good things.

          Your application examples like 'human DNA,' 'Quantum Mechanics with a "twist": self-referral QM', "Maharishi's perspective that the Unifying Field is "Creative Intelligence"

          .................. Here I am proposing some form of detectable intelligence in the Universe which exhibits goals and reproduction in universe. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at my essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

          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

            hi Satyavarapu thank you for the comments and the introduction to your work. it occurs to me to mention that a friend of mine made me aware of his work as well (into 4-momentum: a perspective where you consider everything in terms of TIME x y and z), and he said to me that part of the base laws is that 4-MOMENTUM is conserved.

            now, we're taught that *energy* is conserved but i was struck dumb for several minutes as to the possible implications of 4-momentum being conserved. not only can you derive the law of conservation of energy from that but also it implies that the RATE OF CHANGE of 4-momentum is ALSO CONSERVED.

            if i understand your paper correctly, this could be, fundamentally, why you were able to derive the double blue/red-shift results that you did, because you would get a "push-back" from one galaxy onto the other.

            i would be interested to hear your thoughts about the implications of conservation of 4-momentum.

            9 days later

            Luke,

            Boy am I impressed! From your essay I copyed "100% certainty is a pathological state of mind" And when I pasted it into this post I got "Ô£ÂÔ£ÁÔ£ÁÔ£¬ ÔØØÔØírtÔØøÔ£ÉÔÖÑtÔ'í Ô£És ÔØø ÔÖúÔØøtÔØñÔÖªÔغÔÖªÔØúÔ£ÉÔØØÔØøÔغ stÔØøtÔØí ÔÖªÔØó ÔÖáÔ£ÉÔÖÑÔØ×Ô£│"

            I am still laughing ......I will read the rest of your essay. I know it will enlighten me. But I do not need to read further to give this essay a 10.

            Feel free to read my essay. It is not nearly as good as yours!

            Don Limuti

              Luke,

              Just finished your paper and agree completely with:

              Preserve existence and become part of something larger.

              тЬзPrтЭбsтЭбтЬИтЭб тЭКт'атЬРstтЭбтЩетЭЭтЭб тЭЫтЩетЭЮ тЭЗтЭб PтЭЫrt тЭ-тЭв тЭЩтЩжтЩатЭбtтЭдтЬРтЩетЭгт-▓тЭЫrтЭгтЭбrтЬзтЬ│

              FYI: Your essay has some similarity with William's essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2844

              Namaste,

              Don Limuti