Consciousness and Fundamental Truths by Laurence Hitterdale

Dear Laurence Hitterdale,

thank you for sharing your essay, I found it very interesting and I voted it high. Moreover, I found some interesting similarities with mine about absolute relativism.

You write that

> Fundamentality is relational. A fundamental truth is always fundamental relative to other truths which are less so.

And I completely agree. Then you state that

> There are the first-order statements, which are almost certainly all of them in mathematical form. Then there are meta-assertions enclosing the first- order statements. Finally, there are truths about the explanation, or lack of explanation, for the other fundamental truths.

That's an insightful vision, but I can't see how it's related to considering consciousness as fundamental, even if your pages about it are still pleasurable and interesting.

Bests,

Francesco D'Isa

Dear Laurence,

I tend to agree with the thrust of your essay. Consciousness does not likely have any causal role in the universe, and in fact I suspect it is entirely epiphenomenological. By this it is meant it is a sort of generated image, maybe a sort of bio-holography, which is generated "after the fact." There were experiments conducted by Libet and others which suggest something similar, in that neural processing for action starts before a subject is aware of the decision to act.

If there is some cosmic purpose for consciousness it might be as observers that perform some type of cosmological Wheeler delayed choice experiment to measure the earliest moments of the universe to fix the constants of nature. This would conform to Wheeler's conjecture of a self-referential universe. If there is anything else it might be that along with mathematics consiousness exists in its own sphere apart from physical reality. This of course takes us out of the realm of physics and science and into a sort of metaphysics. These are things I am noncommittal on.

If you want to read some fairly serious physics you can check out my essay. I may have overkilled on the mathematical level for this contest.

Cheers LC

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Dr Laurence Hitterdale

You have nicely debated about " The debate about the fundamentality or non-fundamentality of consciousness forms the background for this essay, although I do not take sides on the underlying issue." And concluded well saying that, "In the world as it actually is, belief in the non-fundamentality of consciousness does not fit comfortably with the subjective experience of being conscious." Very good debate, Dr Laurence Hitterdale....

By the way...."A Rope over an Abyss," is a nice essay. I highly appreciate your essay and hope you may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-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 GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Hello again Laurence

I have responded to your questions of my essay on my page.

In relation to your work, now you have read my essay, the mind body problem falls away, in that it is quite easy to recognise that, even without considering the world in terms of the Harmony Set, under the General Principle of Equivalence, it is reasonable to conjecture that the mind is an entity in its own right that exists in a space that is a transform, probably a mathematical transform,in some as yet undexplored topology, equivalent to structures of our brain.

This equivalence goes both ways, and neither is ontically prior to the other, so free will is possible, and the mind can influence the body. Something to think on. Feel free to make contact if you wish to pursue this further.

roger Penrose has this idea of a triality between physical, mathematical and conscious realities. I don't particularly believe this as such, but the idea is intriguing. We might then say that while consciousness is an epiphenomenology within a physical perspective, consciousness may nonetheless have a reality and our evolving conscious experience is some sort of path or geodesic in what might be called C-space.

As for your decent reply on my essay page: Your description of two descriptions with different degrees of freedom is right. That is in one sense how one can assign which is more fundamental. The description with the fewer is often most fundamental. What I am finding is that two descriptions of quantum gravitation may be equivalent. One description has spacetime variables, while the other has quantum mechanical observables. This is the duality between unitarity of quantum mechanics and the equivalence principle of general relativity.

The application of this is not so clear. I suspect the quantum mechanical variant that upholds unitarity is compatible with string theory. The description with the equivalence principle might be some form of loop variables with something like Penrose's R-process for collapse. I have yet to get to this phenomenological aspect of things.

Currently I am finding the RT formula has information theoretic properties analogous to chaotic and open thermodynamic (Prigogine etc) systems. That is what currently I am finding interesting.

Cheers LC

Respected Dr Laurence Hitterdale,

Thank you for your esteemed nice words and blessings on Dynamic Universe Model,

I am also hoping for someone will help me for testing this model's new prediction. I am an individual and independent researcher from a lower middle class family. I cant do all these testing myself. I hope you will help me to find a means for testing this proposition..I hope and pray God for the best...

You wrote a very nice essay, I am giving my maximum appreciation (10) for your essay now best wishes for your essay....

Thank you once again for pleasant words again.....

Best regards

=snp

Dear Laurence Hitterdale

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

"Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin". It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

In our essay here we have touched on the concept of Consciousness. We take that cinsciosness ned not be restricted to human experiences. Natyre too experiences what we humans ad other kiving structures do to it. It shows its reactions by way of storms, tonedos, earthquakes and what not. Technology appeared to have affected the Nature in some adverse ways and we see humanity suffer from the consequences. Thus, consciousness can be considered a trait of nature too. It thus becomes inanimate too! In fact by a hunch i may say that consciousness is pre-existent to matter and the ceration of the Universe as logic of creation shows remarkable intelligence and if i may so, wisdom of superhuman quality. What you feel aout such stipulations? May i request you to try going through our essay and question us critically!

Laurence,

Thanks for your kind comments. Seems to be sparse reviewing and rating in this essay contest so far. I am revisiting those I have reviewed and see if I have scored them before the deadline approaches. I find that I have not scored yours and will remedy that today.

Jim HOover

Without con.sciousness we can not become conscious about anything. Thus, it is an entity that pre-exists in nature and pre-exists creation of the universe. It has created our material universe being itself not material. Nothing created everything and it is a fact of existence! Science is a mere discipline of Philosophy as man came on the scene with his thinking and thoughts. Similarly, the Creator though invisible, has created the universe with super-human logic that compelled man to think of God!

When i went through the essay and the comments made there-on, i could note how we the people play with words that too we generated and gave their meanings. Thus, we generated our own playground and rules of the play and then we start judging the result of the game we are playing. It is a kind of a run-about, we built at cross roads in order to avoid collisions! Now we generate overpass and under-pass and may be we will build airways and make our machines fly in the atmosphere. Are we heading the technology through our fanciful mind. Will mind control our actions, leaving the life force, viz. our soul no role to discriminate. There comes the consciousness of the cosmos Nature that! has built our habitation!Philosophy provides us free thinking but it so free that we start playing with Nature the way we fancy. Let us build disciplined laws through disciplined minds of ours. We need to enrich humanoty and temper out technology accordingly. Otherwise the 'Monstor' we created will ensure our disappearnce from the gloe we call Earth!

Laurence,

One logical attribute of fundamental is that it is not fully definable within the confines of its emergent properties. Which would seem to be one of the problems of understanding consciousness.

The logical fallacy of monotheism is that a spiritual absolute would be an ideal of knowledge and judgement from which we fell, yet the fact is that it would be the opposite: The essence of sentience from which we rise. More the new born babe, than the wise old man. Though religion is more about social order, than spiritual insight, so it is better to frame it around wisdom, than raw awareness.

If I may, I would describe reality as a dichotomy of energy and form. Energy manifests form, as form defines energy. Proof of this as useful description is that after a few billion years of evolution, we developed a central nervous system to process form, aka information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process the energy to manifest that form.

Now we associate consciousness with the central nervous system and that processing of information, yet consider what that entails: There is significant energy flowing around us and carrying what amounts to enormous amounts of information, from which we extract momentary flashes of cognition, in order not to be overwhelmed and have a cognitive whiteout.

So what framing devices does this process assume? Sort of like a geocentric cosmology assumes our point of view as the center of reality, when it is only our center of reality. We still see the sun as rising in the east and setting in the west.

When we reconstruct reality from those flashes of perception, we naturally tend to think of this sequence of events as fundamental, much as a geocentric cosmology seemed fundamental, but consider whether time is really the point of the present, "flowing" past to future, or is it change turning future to past? As in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.

Going back to energy and form, as energy is dynamic, it is constantly changing form, such that the energy goes from prior to succeeding form, as these forms coalesce and dissolve. Thus energy and form go opposite directions of time. Energy past to future, form future to past.

Consider how this permeates our reality, such as between processes and entities. Think of a factory, where the product goes start to finish, while the production line points the other direction, consuming material and expelling product.

Life is similar. The individual goes from birth to death, being in the future to being in the past. While the species goes the other direction, onto new generations, shedding old, past to future.

Then consider as well the relationship between consciousness and thoughts, these perceptions we extract from the dynamic of reality. As consciousness goes from one thought too the next, past to future, thoughts go future to past.

As such, consciousness is like an energy and the process of thinking is its particular manifestation, particularly for those organisms which specialize in processing information, rather than more physical endeavors.

The current scientific assumption seems to be that it is the processing of information which effects consciousness, as with artificial intelligence, yet it would seem consciousness is the medium, rather than the message.

More the light shining through the frames, than the images on them.

Dear Laurence

Your statement - ".....belief in the non-fundamentality of consciousness does not fit comfortably with the subjective experience of being conscious." is vindicated by my paper - "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

I am also attaching another paper - "A Universal Model Integrating Matter, Mind, & Consciousness Resolves the Hard Problem & Cosmic Conundrum." that vindicates your approach to consciousness. I would appreciate any feedback on this paper if possible at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best Regards

Avtar SinghAttachment #1: Manus_Sc_of_Consciousness_SD_2017_A_Universal_Model.pdf

Laurence, may i request you to atleast respond to the many comments made on your essay here, not a word from you here though you did comment on our essay with compliments for us!Your personality appears to be unique and winning one for i can see quite a bit common among us being about the same age group, i am just past 85! After 90 i may really become senile and useless for the society at large!

Dear Laurence

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please?

A couple of days in and semblance of my essay taking form, however the house bound inactivity was wearing me. I had just the remedy, so took off for a solo sail across the bay. In the lea of cove, I had underestimated the open water wind strengths. My sail area overpowered. Ordinarily I would have reduced sail, but this day I felt differently. My contemplations were on the forces of nature, and I was ventured seaward increasingly amongst them. As the wind and the waves rose, my boat came under strain, but I was exhilarated. All the while I considered, how might I communicate the role of natural forces in understanding of the world around us. For they are surely it's central theme.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. for if they didn't then nebula gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is an attempt at something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up an energy potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists, and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond forming activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemical process arose.

By identifying process whereby atomic forces draw a potential from space, we have identified means for their perpetual action, and their ability to deliver perpetual work. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might apply for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Dear Laurence,

I really appreciated your entry in this year's contest. You chose to explore an unusual and very original angle: what if consciousness is an ordinary, merely weakly emergent epiphenomenon, without any claim to fundamentality, hence, without "honor" (or "metaphysical clout") -- it then makes the burden of consciousness even more annoying, because not only must we experience the aches and pains of conscious life, but the whole damn thing is a pointless side-effect of mindless physics (and/or mathematics)!

Reading you essay made me recall one of my favorite scenes in the British TV series Doctor Who: in the episode "Forest of the Dead", the Doctor's companion Donna has been experiencing a relatively ordinary life for the past few years (subjective time), without knowing that she was living in a virtual body, within a virtual environment in a vastly speeded up virtual world. Finding herself back in her real body after exiting the simulation, and learning the truth, she erupts: "But I've been dieting!"

It is surprising that very few essays in this year's contest have dealt with the issue of the fundamentality of consciousness. Your essay certainly acknowledged the significance of the question, no matter what the truth of the matter turns out to be.

For my part, I think that consciousness is an unavoidable (hence fundamental?) aspect of any world, because it is only by virtue of containing conscious observers that any universe can be said to be physically real (as opposed to a mere mathematical structure within the ensemble of all abstractions). For better or for worse, there is no escaping consciousness --- within the infinite branching multi-level paths of the Maxiverse, even death is a temporary solution to a permanent problem. ;)

All the best,

Marc