Essay Abstract

The nature of consciousness, a conscious observer, occurrence in the brain, and place in the universe are unknowns. Penrose & Hameroff suggest a connection between brain biomolecular processes and the dynamic, fine-scale structure of the universe and Copenhagen viewpoint puts consciousness outside science, into pseudoscience. Models of 'reality' and 'illusion'. The up and downside world - It before bit or bit before it? I will compare the both views, either observer, even if a device, and its consciousness collapse the wave, or the wave is collapsed by dynamicity in the uncertainty itself, gives consciousness in the measurement made of living organisms. Also the condensed matter and quantum dot view on the same. This will be a journey in non-conservative thinking.

Author Bio

Ulla Mattfolk, MSc, Turku Akademy, Finland. Biologist, main interests in Chinese medicine, selfregeneration, reflexology, electromedicine and quantum biology. Studied physics on my own and in discussions with Matti Pitkänen mainly, Jerry Decker etc. so I am an amateur. The emphasis is laid on the biology, which is a real physical system. Pitkänens work suits biology very well,and it is interpreted in comparision with other physicists theories. This interpretation fits the selfregenerative capacity and the body-mind function very well. This can give way to a new understanding of living matter and its physical charachters.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Ulla,

Good to meet you here on FQXi.

I attentively read your well grounded essay.

Consciousness is the most important issue to realise reality, what is information without users ?

In my essay "The Purpose of Life" I think you will find also new perceptions of how we can interprete reality.

So I hope that you will find time to read/comment and surely rate it (just click the link above and use the ode FQXi sent you).

I will give you a rating later on, I don't want to be the first.(If you get a high rating in the beginning like I did, there are trols that come up without any comment to give one's ! After a 9 and a 6 I got three one's !!! so the struggle upwards began)

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

    I did a try to link physics to biology, by comparing some measurement methods. I realized the wet, warm, womb of Life was actually precisely required for Life to function as it does. We have understood it all wrongly.

    The purpose, intention is also something very tightly linked to biology, as your title also tell us. There are so many good essays here...

    I also want to say Thank you to George Ellis for inspiration. He is a member in my quantum biology FB Group, a very silent member :) I also see other people I know here. I will be busy Reading and voting for some time.

    Best. Ulla.

    Dear Ulla,

    Warm Wet Womb: Wonderful!

    "We must 'jump' to a higher sphere of hierarchy, unite with Mother Earth,." indeed.

    Unfortunately, many of the prevailing methods and world views of modern physics stand as obstacles, I think, to such warm and fuzzy aspirations. I am reminded of a 1957 remark by Oppenheimer:

    "The whole of physics for the last 30 years has been directed towards questions more or less exclusively evoked by doing abnormal things with matter rather than by simply observing its normal behavior."

    Since then, the "abnormal things" have come to include all manner of multiversal, holographic, amplituhedronal, Planck Scale stringbranes. To a disconcerting degree, much of physics has come to bear more of a resemblance to an entertainment industry than a scientific endeavor.

    Meanwhile, matter's "normal behavior" as it would be revealed by an experiment proposed by Galileo in 1632, has yet to be observed. Arguably the simplest (and gentlest) conceivable gravity experiment would be to observe a small body that is allowed to fall into a hole through the center of a larger body. Physicists pretend to already know what happens (simple harmonic motion) and their curiosities seem to have become too dull to have an interest in getting the empirical evidence to back up their prediction.

    The simple lack of evidence, I think, should suffice as motivation to do the experiment. But other reasons include the viability of a hypothesis according to which the test object does not even pass the center.

    If the latter outcome turns out to be the case, there would be cosmological consequences. Most significantly, gravity would be demonstrated as a potent indicator of the always increasing arrow of time; and the Universe would be arguably eternal. In a somewhat "poetic" sense, perhaps, the temperature of the Cosmic Background Radiation would then be seen as a kind of "body temperature," and the "purpose" of the Universe would be to become aware of itself. Humans have great potential as agents of this process of cosmic self-discovery.

    Perhaps you will find such ideas, as presented in my essay, Rethinking the Universe, to provide a little more coherence to those that you've touched upon.

    Richard Benish

      As the requirements for this Contest was also some poetry this was it, as well as the heading, in my mind, is a good one, also expressing clearly where my attempt differ from the common agreement.

      Thanks.

      Richard, it is quite odd, that in theory the gravity at center of Earth would be the same as in outer space, gravitation near zero. We know so very Little :)

      This essay raises interesting points. I wrote an essay a few years back here, where I actually did argue that decoherence plays a role in cosnciouness see here, the core of the argument is that you can interpret an entangled state as an algorithm. A two qubit state of the form:

      [math][math]\left|0,1\right>[/math][/math]

      can be interpreted as the algorithm that assigns to one bit the NOT value of the other bit in at least this basis. While this is not unambiguous because of the choice of the basis, the fact that an algorithm can be identified at some moment in time is a feature that doesn't exist in classical mechanics and that been the result of many philosophical arguments. The main problem is then that you need to run an algorithm for some time to be able to see what algorithm is running because at some moment in time, the snapshot view doesn't contain the information about a range of inputs versus outputs.

      Now, I did not argue in favor of typical quantum phenomena to explain consciousness, my argument was to note that classical mechanics arises from quantum mechanics due to decoherence, but decoherence is just entanglement with the environmental degrees of freedom. The equations we use in classical mechanics are just approximations that become valid when due to entanglement with a very large number of degrees of freedom, effects such as interference become invisible. So, the objections against a classical computer being conscious can be answered by considering how that classical behavior arises in the first place.

      For the present contest, I was working on an improvement of this argument, but two days before the submission date I changed my mind because in my mind what I had was not good enough. I decided to write an essay on a different subject and was able to submit that one just in time, it has yet to appear here. It's unfortunately full of typos, though.

        Dear Ulla

        I couldn't quite follow your reasoning in places but enjoyed reading your essay for the general direction you were heading. Your FB group sounds interesting can i join? i am very interested in quantum biology as i think the mind must interact with the brain through quantum physics.

        My essay "From nothingness to value ethics" is not much about quantum biology, but I think you would find it interesting as it involves other ideas that may make this quantum approach workable. By the way we don't necessarily have to work with the standard 'disorder' approach to entropy. There is an alternative (and I think more correct) approach - you can read more about it at entropy site.oxy.edu

        Regards

        Gavin

          Decoherence of a state to form a new coherence is a fascinating topic I want to explore more. If you follow my used model here the decoherence is not total, maybe in Death alone, and we keep the old state to create a new one, partly, as the decoherence center is in sectors or CDs, quantum dots. Decoherence happen in one or some sectors only. This is the wonderful fact with it :)

          What exactly is created? A measurement of the Environment. Formation of new knowledge. It does not say much about exactly what consciousness is, only that it is linked to actions.

          If I interpret your eq. right I see an inverse wave, but it oscillate between real and inverse or imaginary state, this is why decoherence is not total :) The 1 and 0 are never quite reached. It is expressed as ratios in living matter, and that is a quantum charachter too :)

          Thanks for a nice comment. Ulla.

          Thanks.

          Can you explicitly Point out where you could not follow? I must admit it was a difficult task to only be able to use 25000 charachters, I had to delete and delete.... also stuff that was good. Kill the darling, ye.

          Also Prigogine had to go, even if what he found is very basic. The new view on decoherence was what I wanted to promote, and I am happy to have four different aspects compared here. Penrose and TGD has met much critic. The condensed matter view is maybe more accepted.

          This view maybe not directly say the Copenhagen model is excluded, the measurement can be both ways, and should be both ways, maybe. But the idea there should be something 'not real' must be seen as wrong.

          Thanks, I can add your name, but first we must become friends :)

          Ulla.

          Dear Ulla

          Well, for me there were quite a few points. You use a lot of terminology, and the writing doesn't flow - it is like you are trying to get all your bits of knowledge down on the page at the expense of leading your reader through the argument. This would be okay if the reader was well acquainted with this material, but trying to make sense of it as presented was difficult for me.

          I plan to examine some of your references for further enlightenment.

          Regards

          Gavin

          I try to use so Little terminology as possible. This is why my reference list is quite long too, so you can go there and read more.

          To be able to comment on it you could tell me more exactly what caused problems.

          As author of Mind Beyond Matter, which especially concentrates on what is sometimes termed "the cosmology of consciousness" and explores what the author regards as the differences between brain and mind, matter and energy, this should not cause problems, I Think. In a way my essay is also about 'the cosmology of consciousness'.

          Thanks.

          Dear Ulla Marianne Mattfolk,

          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

          Yes, Einstein was a 'realist' too.

          We have made the decoherence a stumbling stone to biology, but here I show on a way out of that dilemma, and actually decoherence versus coherence are required for the 'informational hunt' of living organisms, even an amoeba. This follows exactly the phrase made of Einstein.

          Thanks, Joe Fisher, I look later. It seems to be many 'trolls' here now. It is regrettable they have an opportunity to spoil a good Contest.

          Ulla.

          Nice essay Dr Mattfolk,

          Your ideas and thinking are excellent like,

          1. One reason is the natural selection of evolution, another intentions, goals, purposes of living organisms = consciousness.

          2. Life has an aim to adapt to a changing environment using creativity. Lifetime is created and maximized. Living things adapt, survive and reproduce in the environment. Consciousness as evolutionary adaptation? Is Earth, Universe conscious?

          I am not a biologist but, at this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. 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.....

          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

            there are neither states nor observables , as any position of a particle/photon/wave , could be distributed anywhere in the real domain between 0 and 1, where we choose where to cut time, dt, of imaginary space, called quantum space in order to fit observable paradigms! any 1^(-10000), or 0.0001, or whatever value towards an artificial constant as such as Plank scale we intend on comprehending serves towards data processing. Reality , both horizontal and vertical as well as invisible to coordinate of a chosen space-time exploration, cannot be specified due the fundamental paradox between 2D matter time and 2D space energy relative absoluteness of rooting down origins of life. Thus we approximate truth by taking chances of following rule based quantum open systems!

            Hi Rado,

            Draw the 0 and 1 on the Bloch sphere too. Quantum states are inside it as mixed states. Time evolution is seen as a rotation. and also maybe a spin flip is possible.

            Virtual states are infinitely many, as an cloud around. But when you perturb the sphere you see they are a mirror of ordinary matter.

            When you go from 2D to 3D you get problems :)

            I don't get this: the fundamental paradox between 2D matter time and 2D space energy relative absoluteness of rooting ...

            Open quantum systems contains interactions with Environment, and this is essential for what I advocate here. But the thermodynamics is a bit bothersome due to uncertain time evolution, because initial state is difficult to identify, and environmental interactions are complex. The information-theoretic process might give some clues.