Dear Anil,

Thank you for your kind comments on my essay.

I am unfortunately very far from having any convincing understanding of consciousness. The two things I am confident about: consciousness is different from the mind. I like Alex Hankey's scenario that consciousness is the base substrate [empty ground state of a kind] upon which we add mind/thought. And secondly, that consciousness will one day be understood as a property of matter. I am inclined to believe, as I said in my essay, that consciousness is the law aspect of a thing-law.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Dear Tejinder Singh,

If there was no logic and no causaltity in the things then were we lost in blind belief and mysticism. However, Cantor was not quite wrong when he declared the essence of mathematics to be its freedom.

I fundamentally disagree with your opinion that laws and things (map and territory) "become more and more like each other, until deepest down, they become one and the same".

My last boss blamed a paper of mine for being too fundamental. Why? He got aware that there is a problem that evades solution with approximation and mathematics because it depends on a strict philosophical alternative between Parmenides and Heraclitos: Is an evolving system system shift-invariant at all? Are you really the same thing at all ages?

My answer is yes in case of models but no in case of reality. To me, there is just one fix point in nature - the current border between the past and the future. Any counterargument?

Nonetheless, I admire your essay which deserves getting rated appropriately.

Kind regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Eckard,

Greetings. Good to meet you again.

> I fundamentally disagree with your opinion that laws and things (map and territory) "become more and more like each other, until deepest down, they become one and the same".

Its perfectly understandable if we disagree. For me, this realisation - that maths is in the things -

comes as a relief! I have struggled between `Maths is invented/created by the mind' and `Mind discovers maths; maths is Platonic, and lives in a world which we have not witnessed for ourselves'. The former hard to believe, given the universality of maths; and the latter hard to believe, because I find it unscientific; let us not believe in that which we have no evidence for - Platonic maths. I feel the thing-law interpretation of neural pathways lends credibility to `laws are things'. Actually, I do not see this as taking away the freedom of mathematics.

> Is an evolving system shift-invariant at all? Are you really the same thing at all ages?

>My answer is yes in case of models but no in case of reality. To me, there is just one fix point in nature - the current border between the past and the future. Any counterargument?

I make a distinction between consciousness on the one hand, and the mind/brain/body on the other.The latter is a system, and I agree it is not shift invariant. The body, the mind, the brain, all change with time, and are different things at different ages.

But I do not consider consciousness / self-awareness as a thing or a system. It is the law aspect of a thing-law, with the thing being mind/body/brain. For me, the conviction that consciousness and mind are different only came through personal experience; and in particular from reading Eckhart Tolle's writings. One CAN watch over oneself, and observe one's thoughts and observe one's mind; and in principle achieve a thoughtless state (mind = 0); in this thoughtless state, consciousness remains. This consciousness is always in the now, and is in that sense timeless. Only the mind knows the past [memory] and the future [anticipation]. Consciousness knows only the present moment.

I fully agree with you that the `current border between past and future is the only fixed point'. To me, self-awareness permanently lives at this border. That is what makes me the same I that I was when I was ten years old, even though my mind, body and brain have all changed since then. I feel that is possible only because consciousness is not a thing, but instead, a law. That is why we cannot define it or grasp it or describe it, but only feel it.

I hope we will be able to agree on this point.

Thank you again for your interest in my essay. My best regards,

Tejinder

    Dear Tejinder,

    It doesn't often happen that experts agree with me on that the current border between past and future is the only fixed point, because their view is based on Hilbert's, Einstein's, and other's block universe.

    When Einstein denied the objective differences between past, present, and future, I see him definitely at least incorrect in so far, as the present "state" is no state at all because it has in contrast to past and future no extension. Therefore "living at this border" refers to something fuzzy like "today" that may include a part of the past and a part of the future.

    If you have time enough, you might sooner or later read my 9th essay and find some hurting arguments that are too fundamental to mathematics and physics as to be easily swallowed.

    Best regards,

    Eckard

    Me to. I suggested last year that anyone adding a 1 (or even 2 or 3) score without posting and explaining why should have the 1 moved and applied to their own essay. I had no response but can see no reason why it can't be simply done. Indeed just an addition to the rules threatening that action would probably suffice.

    Tejinder,

    Thanks for your very original and interesting thoughts and ideas. It may have been better in last years contest but was valid none the less. I do also appreciate your excellent clear writing style standing out from others far harder to read.

    I'd like to discuss views on areas ours have in common, the electron, EPR & QM. I have to disagree with an electron BEING it's algorithmic description even if non-commutative, but don't think you were serious. ...Were you?

    To explain my view clearly it's best to read my, possibly shocking, essay, deriving a wholly classical set of QM predictions including (EPR) local reality from x,y,z axis electron momenta taken from simple spinning spheres (as momentum exchange on absorption & requantization). including a simple experimental proof. I hope those with adequate knowledge can find flaws, but so far none (mostly stony silence from shock!)

    Please also read Declan Trails short essay giving the matching code and cos2 graph plot with CHSH>2 violation with no detection loophole.(steering inequality >1). I hope you feel that may answer the questions and concerns you posed. Or let me know where you think there remain doubts.

    You last line question might then be a resounding NO! But let me know if you reach the same conclusion - if not too shocked!

    Many thanks, for your essay and anticipated responses.

    Very best

    Peter

      I have composed and published some writings of mine on topics like. viz. Science Interface with Spirituality, Inconstancy of the Physical Constants, Cosmology and Particle Physics, a relative study.... I find a study of thoughts interesting. It does not have a continuous train, there are short and longer gaps.It is during such gaps that our mind comes into full play and it is able to interact with cosmos in a better way. Here i give a personal quote from Einstein, which was published in a book by Professor D.S. Kothari. Einstein has said that what are called my top discoveries have not come out of my intellectual thoughts. These have come from some empty moments in the thought processes and thus these came from external sources to my usual thinking. That is i have not thought about these!

        I give a liitle more of the Eictein quote. In fact, ladies at Princeton were keen to meet the genuis Einstein. Einstein knew what they were going to seek the background behind discoveries associated with him. Only he knew the truth. He had problems in his mind and his own thoughts/ thinking processes were busy deciphering them. He was not thinking about photoelectric effect or relativity as such. It is then that happened which have already been expressed above, as he directed his house maid not to permit entry to these ladies, as he had nothing to clear their curiousity!

        Dear Tejinder,

        I enjoyed reading your essay; it was well written and interesting. I was concerned when you start to address the subject of consciousness. I really like your search for consistency between things and laws.

        Kind regards, Christophe

          Christophe and Tejinder, please excuse my interjection here. I find that ' Consciousness ' is being brought in to our discussions on a scientific topic on ABSOLUTENESS! The reason is 'what is behind our thoughts/ thinking processes. It is considered a domain of psychologists/ neurologists, oculogists who are all linked with the field of medicine. They are basics with biology and many of them are not upto the mark or even 'afraid ' of the rigours of physical sciences/ Maths, etc.Thus there is problem with understanding and apprehension of grasping the subject matter fully. On the other hand, we mostly understand that awareness is tied to consciousness. That is considered linked to our body. But we forget the universalness of Consciousness. It exists without matter, mass, space and time too! To me it is present even before our Universe was born or for that matter any of the other verses we talk about in cosmology.Kindly do go through my brief essay on 2/3 pages, where i indicate my views without providing any references. But my background is extensive in this area. To just quote my personal experiences. In India when we retire, we are are considered out of active professional life. This frustrated me in 1993 and there after as i was confined to home and close friends. I happen to seek my friends from industry as i was an experimental scientist to the core if i may say so! We did lot of development work before we used the equipment set up for researchstudies. At that time we felt satisfied with our publications! But when i toured the industrial establishments i made my friend sit in Managerial office. I then toured and talked about each part of final product from the basic material stage. It may surprise many of you hare that it was the way i got ideas for filing my half a dozen patents as these were mere corrolaries to the development studies i got involved during the active research period! But development work remained hidden from public and even my colleague friends outside our group!

          Dear Peter,

          Greetings! It is good to meet you again. Thanks so much for your kind remarks and for reading my essay.

          > I'd like to discuss views on areas ours have in common, the electron, EPR & QM. I have to disagree with an electron BEING it's algorithmic description even if non-commutative, but don't think you were serious. ...Were you?

          I am dead serious about this, Peter :-) One way I can try to motivate this, at least for myself, is the inescapable need for a complex function to describe a `real' particle such as the electron. Whatever description / formulation of quantum theory we might want to use, it seems impossible to escape complex numbers. When mathematics creeps in so critically in a physical description, I feel more comfortable in identifying the two, rather than persisting with the thing versus law dichotomy. Then there is the apparent delocalization in physical space, and finally the likely disappearance of classical space concept in quantum gravity.

          I will surely read your essay, and Trail's. I might not have any comments; kindly don't infer no comments as not read :-)

          My best regards,

          Tejinder

          Dear Christophe,

          Thank you for reading my essay, and for your very kind comments.

          With regards,

          Tejinder

          Dear Narendra,

          Is the universe as a whole Conscious; is there something such as cosmic consciousness? I honestly do not know the answer. For human beings at least we can say that we experience self-awareness. As for the universe, we only know it through observations and experiments, and through the physical laws we discover about the universe. How are we to conclude from these that the universe is self-aware in the same way that human beings are? Maybe future developments in science will prove you right. At present, I do not know! :-)

          I fully agree with you that great ideas are often born in the `no-thought' state. I hesitate to conclude from here that human consciousness is hence interacting with a `cosmic consciousness', leading to the discovery of this new idea. Simpler for me is that human consciousness is at work, and according the law aspect to the neural pathway. This need not require us to actively engage in thinking.

          Tejinder

          Tejinda,

          That's a brave move! But don't you feel it's a bit desperate? I hope you're half that brave & comment on the classical ontology. i.e. identify the slightest flaw you may perceive. You'll see why I suggest a better option on studying it.

          Yes. Electrons needed complex functions. I show the REAL motions, experimentally at larger scale with photo's and a short video showing the twin paired & inverse momenta (also showing 'non-integer' spins). Yes, 'complex numbers' can be used but best to consider all 3 degrees of freedom one at a time, in Cartesian 'planes' to build a physical picture.

          Producing apparent 'nonlocality' is central to the model. It only takes (anti)parallel polar axes to adequately 'entangle' each pair, then study real exchange of momentum on absorption/requantized emission ('measurement') by polariser & photomultiplier field electrons.

          Consider; Bob reversing electron polar angle reverses HIS finding, so we get pairs; S,S not S,N, or p,p. not p,q. but in the 'complex' (just multiple) planes. It's only rocket science! Bill McHarris explains how statistics then used the wrong assumptions.

          I (we) even point to where QG can then emerge, but only as an aside. It still needs the right person to follow that up. (Tell me if you fancy it).

          Very best,

          Peter

          I wait for Tejinder's response to my latest comment above. You agree that the gap between thoughts play some role. I mentioned what Einstein own experiences as published in a book by Dr. D.S. Kothari, express. When the mind is having to deal with such gaps in thinking process, what remains open to mind is the interaction with cosmos around us.That is where i feel we come across the cosmic consciousness. It is all prevading and timeless entity. I even feel that our entire Universe, as also other verses exist, as originated by cosmic consciousness. The latter is popularly associated with the concept of God as Creator in common understanding.Thus, to me consciousness preceeds Big Bang or creation zero time. That is it has always existed irrespective of the Universe. It is the original remarkable intelligence and logic that existed and contributed to the generation of the Universe we perceive since we came on the scene billion years later on the scene!

          Dear Narendra,

          I had already answered this; in response to your earlier post. Please see above. Thanks.

          Tejinder

          We may differ. I like to rate philosophy as the mother of sciences. Science developed a methodology when it started operating seperately from original mother philosophy. Our current methodogy norms may well restrict its growth. I tend to associate freedom of a disciplined mind to go beyond our scientific methodology. The latter should be an ever expanding paradigm, that goes with expanding scietific knowledge.

          I failed to see the same. sorry. I wasted your precious time and go through your rsponses again, age factor! Yes, one thing i wish to touch. To me Maths is a mere tool to isolate precisely the salient points/ things and isolate the laws that may lie buried in the text. It shoud not play any other dominating role in Physics. In the essay contest, i find the majority is from the theory side and only a springling of experimentalist , lab. scientists like me. Have sympathy for us as we have to arrange experimental set ups and get less time to think freely, as instruments require maintenance and checks for their operational aspect in the desired manner too!