Dear Tejinder

Indeed we are "in agreement about your "vertcal fundamental perception, we use different words and...In causal emergence I see "steps" fromwhere new phenomena can emerge (like in the essay from Eric P. Hoel last year.

I don't get this Wilhelmus :-) What did you mean by the `time-restricted' part of consciousness, or `total consciousness'?

Sorry for the error in my expression here, with the "restricted part" I mean the consciousness as we are experiencing it in this specific emerging reality. Total Consciousness as I see it is OUTSIDE all the restrictions like time and space , outside our emerging reality. It is beyond the Planck area (however area is not a good description) that I call Total Simultaneity. "Here" all realities ra emerging like LOOPS. (see my essay). And here again we agree both it is about the "things" that go beyond our comprehension, and it is good that we both can say "I don't know"

best regards

Wilhelmus

Dear Professor Singh,

Thank you for the insightful thoughts. I just happened to reach to your conclusion " In trying to understand how the human mind

converts things into laws, we are led to conclude that the mathematical world and the physical world are one and the same", and, to my small surprise, this is pretty much what I had conveyed in my essay. Its definitely a positive sign!

Sincerely,

Siddhant Bahuguna

    Hi Tejinder,

    Your essay was entertaining. I enjoyed your rather mildly solipsistic (with respect to mathematics) take on the whole thing, since my own viewpoint also has a dose of solipsism.

    You say:

    "the mathematical world and the physical world are one and the same. The search for this union is what we would like to call fundamental. Everything springs from this union."

    Wouldn't incompleteness theorems and Gödelian results cause heavy limitations on the amount of help mathematics can give us with physical reality? What are your thoughts on this?

    Regards,

    Aditya

      Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

      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.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Dear Branko,

      Thank you for reading my essay and for telling me about conclusions of your earlier essay.

      Indeed, I agree that powers of 2, as well as numbers of the form 2^n -1, have a special role in the Collatz conjecture.

      Best regards,

      Tejinder

      • [deleted]

      Dear Siddhant,

      Thank you for your remarks, and for pointing me to your essay. I gave it a first read just now, but I need to get back to it later to understand what you are trying to convey.

      Best,

      Tejinder

      Dear FQXi,

      The onslaught of 1 rating has begun! :-) I just got a 1 and came down from 7.4 in five ratings to 6.3 in six ratings. And I figured the highest rating essay [Hossenfelder] also got a 1 rating and is down from 7.9 in ten ratings to 7.3 in eleven ratings. Other essays have been attacked too. Whoever has given these meaningless 1s should be exposed and disqualified from this contest. And seriously, these torpedo 1s should be removed from everyone's score.

      Thanks,

      Tejinder

        Would like to piggyback on this and add that my own essay's rating has also suffered heavily in this, going straight from 7.3 in 3 to 6.0 in 4.

        Dear Aditya,

        Thank you for reading my essay, and for your remarks.

        As for Godel's theorem and its implications, you of course have an important question. However, it seems to me that this question is relevant irrespective of whether mathematics is *in* the Things, or not in the Things. I cannot answer your question with authority, but I feel we should be open to the possibility that in future, both physics and mathematics, as well as our understanding of the implications of Godel's theorem, might evolve in such a way that the apparent limitations do not arise.

        An interesting read on Godel and physics is this article by Barrow: Godel and Physics

        As Barrow says,

        "We argue that there is no reason to expect Gödel incompleteness to handicap the search for a description of the laws of Nature, but we do expect it to limit what we can predict about the outcomes of those laws,..."

        Best,

        Tejinder

        Dear Prof. Singh,

        Your essay makes interesting observations about a number of different topics.

        You seem to suggest that the conscious mind is distinct from the brain. In my FQXi essay last year, "No Ghost in the Machine", I took the opposite viewpoint. I argued that consciousness reflects a specific brain structure that evolved to create a dynamic model of the environment which recognizes self, other agents, and objects.

        You also question the foundations of quantum mechanics and space-time, but you seem to accept the orthodox statement of the problem. On the contrary, my essay this year, "Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics", argues that both general relativity and QM have been largely misunderstood. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

        This picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will people start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

        Alan Kadin

          I will add my vote that FQXi disqualify the 1-bombers. jrc

          Professor Singh,

          One thought to consider about time, thought and consciousness is that while consciousness goes from one thought to the next, these thoughts coalesce and dissolve, hence consciousness goes past to future, while thought goes future to past.

          I think there is a lot about time that needs to be reconsidered. Is it really the Newtonian,narrative flow, which physics codifies as measures of duration, or it just change and our perception is flashes of sequence?

          We still see the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

            Dear Tejinder,

            This was a beautiful journey, starting from the apparent duality between things and laws, and arriving to their unity using arguments from physics. Also I think the notion of "law" you use unifies "meaning", "qualia", "physical law", and "mathematical truth" in a natural way. While I was reading in your essay the paragraph about stars and the motion of Mars, The Motion of Stars started to play in my music player, adding a soundtrack to your insightful thoughts, and reminding me how music is one of the purest examples of law. With this essay, I realized how much your apparently diverse interests visible in your articles and essays converge and become different paths of the same trip to the oneness (by the way, the Collatz conjecture is considered by some a mathematical illustration of oneness). Thanks again for the intellectual and spiritual breakfast at the beginning of my day!

            Best wishes,

            Cristi

              I subscribe to your request to FQXi, as it happened to me and others about the same time.

              May i interject re. consciousness. There are a variety of levels of this entitiy. It can be defined as per Dictionary meaning of this word. Human beings and our predecessors came into the scene only 15/20 thousand years back. At the te same Universe has been existing in its present form since millions of years. Intelligent life also could be existing else where than our Earth with our Sun as star. Consciousnees for individuals exists as 'awarenss ' level. It varies on a tremendous scale amongst us too. For example, i rate our ancesters back 3 to 5 thousands years back, as having far greater insight than most of us have about LIFE. There is internal as well as external life. Science governs the latter while the former is governed by Spirituality, unlike religions practiced today! As the Universe shows a logical growth from its start billions of years back, we should wonder about its Creator, if we believe that nothing has not created every thing! Thus there exists a cosmic part of consciousness which has created the Universe. We call it GOD. Today, humans have various levels of it! Starting at lowest level are the animal instincts then going up we have a normal being and then we have men of wisdom. Finally, i prefer to call them the Great Rishis that existed well over 3 to 5 thousand year back who composed the Vedas and Upanishads. For myself i can say that reading an Upanishad and comprehending it to my better limit, it took me through repeated stages of studying such ancient scripts for comprehending and understanding the same to the best of my ability!

              Dear Prof. Kadin,

              Greetings, and good to meet you here again.

              Yes, we seem to differ on the issue of consciousness vs. mind. I would like to quote my direct personal experience, namely that one can do simple meditation, to become the watcher, and watch one's thoughts and minds as if from `outside'. I have also been helped in this by the teachings of Eckhart Tolle, who presents this viewpoint in a simple language, essentially re-presenting ancient spiritual teachings for the modern man, so to say! I also find Alex Hanesky expressing such a view in his essay here. However I do agree that many people do not accept such a mind - consciousness split.

              As for what you say about quantum mechanics, it will indeed be remarkable if breakdown of entanglement in macroscopic systems is experimentally observed in the coming years.

              I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.

              My best regards,

              Tejinder

              Dear Professor Merryman,

              My greetings.

              I did not quite understand your first paragraph. In my essay I say that consciousness is timeless, it does not know time. Only the mind knows the flow of time.

              I whole-heartedly agree with you that we have a long way to go before we understand time.

              My best regards,

              Tejinder

              Dear Cristi,

              Hello again, and thanks so much for your kind comments on my essay!

              Indeed, I have been helped a lot by Eckhart Tolle's simple writings, to appreciate the difference between consciousness and mind. It seems to make `understanding of understanding' a little easier!

              And yes, as you very kindly noted, I have tried to put this to use to understand better the `unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in physics'. If mathematics is *in* the Things, this realisation comes as a relief, with one no longer having to look for what Georgina elegantly refers to above as `mathematics' natural home'.

              And trying to understand the weirdness of quantum mechanics will indeed illuminate space-time structure. And trying to understand consciousness and the mind, something we physicists have long ignored, is likely to help us with complex physical systems. You yourself have written deeply on related issues in the past, and I am looking forward to reading your new essay too.

              Kind regards,

              Tejinder

              Dear Narendra,

              Thank you for your remarks, which I appreciate, even though we differ on some of the points, especially with regard to the possible origin of consciousness and the need for a Creator. You may have seen Alex Hanesky's essay in this contest, which resonates with some of your ideas.

              Kind regards,

              Tejinder

              • [deleted]

              If the Universe has been created by an unknown, the logic of creation shows extremely high level of Intelligence/ We scientists have yet to add even an iota to this marvellous creation. We only are trying to explain a few things for which we seem to have 'discovered' some patterns tha fit the laws governing such processes. Consciousness for humans is a mere human consciousness. Note that the adjective used here is 'human'. It can't be limited to we humans. As i pointed out. Indian Wisdom as contained in our scriptures called Vedas and Upanishads. indicate a far deeper understanding and comprehension. Thus, your reference to Alex Hanesky's essay does not appear to justify the correctness of your stand. I respect your stand but sorry to find any rebuttal of the line of thinkng i have taken. Yoga and meditation techniques are found to be outstanding the world over and these are the products of the search for our Trueself done by such men of wisdom in ancient times that we can not ignore if we have succeeded in understanding the Cosmos to a poor strength of just a few percentage!