The www of Life - the wet warm womb. by Ulla Marianne Mattfolk

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

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.

Correction, the state is:

[math]\left\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\left|0,1\right\rangle\left|1,0\right\rangle\right][/math]

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

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

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

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!

Ulla,

A fascinating and intuitive essay fresh and real in it's freedom from conservative blinkers, allowing both deeper and broader thinking and rationalisation. I fundamentally agree almost all your analysis, including that we can't solve the problem "..by differential equations for the evolutional systems and their integration."

I also found; "Decoherence of a state to form a new coherence is a fascinating topic" long ago and tackled it. Indeed I think we may only differ in that I go further into the reality of 'state collapse' mechanisms to prove your views correct; classical nature not psuedoscience. I think your comment sums up the problem, for 100 years, very well: "something 'not real' must be seen as wrong."

Your reference too Bloch spheres and that "Open quantum systems contains interactions with Environment" convince me you may understand and appreciate my own essay, which I think and hope may clarify some questions and offer some coherent answers, including a fully classical analogue of QM. (there's also a video if you have time, Classic QM as 3D dynamic evolutions can't be drawn well on paper!)

Well done for yours. I must say I found it something of an inspiration and affirmation that not all are sold on the illogicalities and pseudoscience arising from incorrect initial assumptions, so are able to take a sensible overview. Unfortunately we are few and my work is eshewed, but what more can we do?

Thank you. A good score coming!

Best wishes

Peter

Hello Ulla,

Thank you for your lovely note on my page, which I'll answer in a bit. I read your essay and I enjoyed your insights. It was refreshing to see a multiply-sourced argument that quantum mechanics creates possibilities for consciousness that otherwise would not exist. I too feel this is a possibility we must examine. It can be problematic for Physics folks to show strong advocacy for quantum mechanisms of consciousness, however. I myself am a Renaissance man or Polymath, but the world seems eager to take all such people to task.

Even Penrose got a lot of flak for trying to use Physics principles to explain effects in Biology. You have to understand, though; most biologists are so steeped in the reductionist paradigm and the idea that everything can be reduced to Chemistry, that there is no room for them to admit a possible quantum mechanical element of choice involved. I like Penrose and Orch-OR, and I find the micro-tubules and tubulin connection plausible, but find it unfortunate they are judged together. Both ideas are worthy of investigation independent of the other.

It is interesting though, that it connects back to quantum gravity theory, or that as you point out; quantum consciousness is favored in a scenario where gravity is fundamentally quantum mechanical. That is a unique insight, among all of the essays in this contest! But I think it was Physics career-suicide for Paola Zizzi when she wrote about how this could pertain through Cosmology to a connection with Universal Consciousness - the Big Wow Theory. She has made a comeback lately and I hope she is doing OK.

More later,

Jonathan