Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness by James Robert Arnold

Dear James,

I have read your deep analytical essay with great interest. I believe that it is possible to solve the "difficult problem of consciousness" if first to solve the super difficult problem of ontological basification of mathematics (knowledge). Modern crisis of understanding in fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology) is primarily a crisis of ontology. By the way, the idea of "spontaneity of consciousness" was developed by the mathematician, philosopher Vasily Nalimov (1910-1997) He set the task before the fundamental science: "to build a model of the self-aware Universe." Why did not he solve this problem? I think precisely because mathematics itself is going through a crisis of bases. This crisis is more than a hundred years old, but mathematicians "sweep it under the carpet". Sincerely, Vladimir

Vladimir,

Thank you for your most intriguing post. It reads much like an oracle.

I have long considered mathematics, especially ratio, as skeletal to the universe -- structural, but barren. Is that my weakness? I'm open, but dubious.

Regarding Nalimov, there is very little about him in English. His "spontaneity" may be translated badly as "probability" or "uncertainty" in the few English mentions I've been able to find.

At https://www.uia.org/archive/ency-strategies-comm-15-5 Nalimov's "probability" is said to imply that "man is never free", being dominated by ontological probability. That doesn't seem to rise to "spontaneity."

Can you elaborate here on the "crisis of bases" in mathematics, or provide a reference, preferably to something you've written (in English please -- my Russian is barren!).

Hi James

You may find this article of interest:

Boisseau, R. P., Vogel, D., & Dussutour, A. (2016) Habituation in non- neural organisms: evidence from slime moulds. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 283 (1829)

I think it is the most conclusive evidence yet of learning and decision making in unicellular organisms.

The most fundamental transitions I describe in my essay are the emergence of self-replicating systems and the emergence of human communication. I suggest that the emergence of deterministic physics from the spontaneity of the quantum realm is closely analagous -- in all three cases, a new dynamic comes into being that can keep itself going recursively, subject to natural selection. But there are many other important discontinuities -- e.g. the emergence of the eukaryotic cell, which Nick Lane thinks was a far more unlikely accident than the origin of life itself. I hope you'll take a look at my effort and let me know what you think.

I make the point that even though the determinism of classical physics is not fundamental, no higher-level structure could ever have evolved if atoms and molecules and larger physical systems did not behave in very precisely uniform and predictable ways. As to randomness, this is important at many levels -- e.g. Ellis writes about the chaotic "molecular storm" going on all the time in living cells. So I see the emergence of new kinds of spontaneity always as involving new constraints that then open up new levels of accidental possibilities.

Thanks for the chance to comment -- Conrad

Dear James Robert Arnold,

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

Dear James Arnold,

i followed a similar attempt as you in my first essay here on FQXi. Sponteanity is an interesting concept and first of all your attempt to describe emergence as convergence. If the structured aggregate of human consciousness indeed converged from its underlying sponteanity of the mircrophysical parts, then i think one has to conclude that these myriads of parts can somehow dissolve their individual perspective into a bigger perspective (human consciousness), a bigger sponteanity. Anyways, your essay was a good reading, especially how you deconstructed the expert's theories on this field. Good work, i gave you the highest score for this contribution. If you like to read what i think about the essay contest's questions, i would be happy if you would read and comment on my own essay.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Nice essay Arnold,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent like...

1. Searle and others don't disagree that consciousness is a purely physical effect. Searle even believes that "there is not and cannot be any question whether a machine can be conscious and can think, because the brain is a machine",19 but he argues that there is more to thinking than computation. His thought experiment of the Chinese Room20 has shown that computing is simply a projection of human intension without intrinsic comprehension: A person in a blind room with no knowledge of a particular language (e.g., Chinese) can take inputs of incomprehensible script through a slot, process each according to a menu of rules, and output responses that can seem intelligent, although actually meaningless to the person in the room.

2. An important recognition provided by the distinction between aggregates and individuals - already mentioned abstractly in terms of Sperry's wheel, but now framed in a metaphysic - is that causality is specifically characteristic of dynamic aggregates and conglomerates (i.e., unstructured aggregates).

.............................. At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay. Here reproduction of Galaxies and movement of masses with a purpose or goal, intentionality in the Universe also can be visualized. Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc. Name of essay is "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.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

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 James:

I enjoyed reading your essay and agree completely as it reinforces spontaneity at the quantum level with free will or consciousness rather than randomness. My paper is a mathematical and physical extension of the ideas in your paper leading to the predictions of the observed universe.

Thanks for your thoughtful and kind comments on my paper. I appreciate it very much.

FQXi is a unique forum to address key open issues related to science that impact humanity and life. The mainstream science has treated the universe, laws, and fundamental particles as inanimate entities devoid of life, consciousness, or free will. As a result, the mainstream theories of science are also devoid of consciousness or free will. While science, especially quantum mechanics, recognizes the spontaneous free-willed (without any cause) birth and decay of particles out of the Zero-point vacuum as a fundamental physical phenomenon, it refutes existence of free will via consciously labeling it as "Randomness" in nature. This vicious circle has failed science in two ways - first is its erroneous prediction of a purposeless universe and life in it making the science itself purposeless and meaningless from a deeper human perspective. Secondly, ignorance of consciousness or free will which is a fundamental dimension of the universe along with mass/energy/space/time leaves scientific theories incomplete leading to their current paradoxes and internal inconsistencies.

Just like a dead mother cannot nurture and give birth to a living baby, a dead universe governed by inanimate laws cannot support any living systems within it. Universal consciousness is fundamental to the emergence and sustenance of any living system - quantum or biological. The mathematical laws must be living to give rise to living aims and intentions. If the fundamentality of the consciousness of the universe and laws is not understood, a scientific theory would be like a castle built on sand.

FQXi forum is participated by brilliant and accomplished scientists representing in-depth knowledge and expertise in diverse fields. I would propose that the forum scientists take on a challenge to enhance and uplift science from its current status quo as an incomplete science of the inanimate (dead) matter to the wholesome science of the living and conscious universe. This would complete science and make it purposeful and meaningful adding to its current successes as a tool for enhancing material life alone. Science deserves its long-awaited recognition to address not only matter but mind as well and not only material but spiritual life as well. Considering the current political and economic threats to the basic survival of science and religious extremism/terrorism threatening the fundamental freedom (free will) of humanity, the role of a wholesome and genuine science has become even more vital to humanity.

I have forwarded a humble and example proposal detailing how a consciousness-integrated scientific model of the universe entailing matter-mind could be developed that resolves current paradoxes of science, predicts the observed universe, and offers a testable theory via future empirical observations. This proposal and theory are documented in my contest paper - FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE .

I would greatly appreciate any feedback as well as constructive criticism of the proposed approach to advance physics and cosmology.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Dear Arnold,

With pleasure I must confess that human mind is so creative and so ingenious to construct such fine arguments to get around even complex issues. A possibility gets created for a new direction. Even though I made a good effort, yet it is always possible that I may have missed certain points.

Indeterminacy is not the lack of knowledge or measurement: If we trace back the universe with entirely causal determinism, we would never be able to arrive at the origin, since a deterministic universe cannot come into existence from null reality. Since that would contradict the very determinism itself. And it is not a chicken and egg problem. On the contrary, if we presume that the universe is eternal then again we run into a problem, all existential processes must have been completed in the past of the eternity unless the universal phenomena was purely cyclic. Limited indeterminism allows both possibilities, a beginning or eternity. Yes, indeed the indeterminism must be limited, otherwise, there would be no constancy in any function, no pattern, no laws, no prediction.

"None such [undetermined quanta to determined macro] interpretations of the quantum level can be reconciled with the macro." This seems to be entirely agreeable. But I see it as -- macroscopic universe also must be indeterminate, within limits.

There are certain descriptions or function (in or beyond the universe) that are non-falsifiable. For example, mathematical theorems, and causality. Causality must hold, even if limited, otherwise the universe would become implausible. That is, if there is a definitive function (spontaneity) that gives rise to causality in a deterministic sense, then that function itself must be bounded by causality and determinacy. It is just transferring the function of causality to a different level, it does not get rid of causality at the most fundamental level. What I am suggesting is that in place of pushing the causality to a different level, it may be suggested to work with limited determinism. If the description of all fundamental entities had an analog detail which could not be described with finite number of parameters, yet its permitted transitions are only in quanta with only finite possible states, then it has unlimited resource to generate indeterminism, yet bounded by the limited possible quantum outcomes in any interactions. Given so many mathematical functions that may accept parameters of infinite range, yet producing finite discrete results, such an assumption might not appear as arbitrary.

"At the least, there is no obvious necessity that consciousness should be considered determined ...". Yes, in fact a relation between tangible material world and the intangible "conscious world", is not 'obvious' in the present, but a natural mechanism does exist, which seems to have eluded the consideration of the scientific community in relative plain sight.

I suppose, the most central argument is -- "... seeking to account for our sense of being causal agents, if only as the causally determined agents of randomly determined interpretations of causally determined events." While the statement is very nicely made to enmesh the agency and the deed, but the question remains -- how does the perception of "being causal agent" arise? The statement seems to strike in our minds as the definition of the 'sense of causal agency', but then it depends on our analytic mind to understand it as such. As I notice further on, this argument did not manage to avoid a metaphysical explanation to bring in willfulness; I am not saying metaphysical argument cannot be correct.

Your essay certainly offers a radically new perspective.

Rajiv