Dear Narendra,
I had already answered this; in response to your earlier post. Please see above. Thanks.
Tejinder
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!
I could not isolate your response , please respond directly and briefly as you are a busy buddy addressing me by name! Up to you to ignore if feel so!
Dear Tejinder,
In a reply I referred to your sentence "I fully agree with you that the `current border between past and future is the only fixed point'."
Perhaps this reply got lost for unknown reason although I got a confirmation. Did you read it nonetheless?
Maybe it was taboo to blame Einstein for writing "past, present, and future"?
I criticized that the present is strictly speaking not a state but just the border between the past and the future. The present is a fuzzy notion that may include parts from both. There is no extension between the past and the future.
A point is something that has no parts.
Eckard
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh Ji:
I enjoyed reading your essay and introducing the fundamental concept of thing-law. I also share common interest in your research to explain the QM measurement problem or collapse of the wave function. I have developed a relativistic model to resolve the measurement problem and explain inner workings of QM in my paper - What is "Fundamental" - Is "C" the Speed of Light?. It also resolves several paradoxes of physics theories and cosmology.
I would deeply appreciate your comments/rating on my paper and would like to keep active communications with you on your ongoing research. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.
Best Regards
Avtar Singh
Another try for corrected link to my paper - What is "Fundamental" - Is "C" the Speed of Light.
Another try - Corrected Link to my paper - What is "Fundamental" - Is "C" the Speed of Light.
Sorry, the link is not working. Please go directly to my paper.
Thanks
Avtar
Sorry, finally got the link working:
my paper - "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light".
Dear Avtar,
Thank you for your kind remarks and for reading my paper. I look forward to reading your essay.
My best regards,
Tejinder
Dear Singh Saheb,
Excellent write-up ! These words carries more weight as it comes from a Professor like you working in one of premiere Research Institute in World. It is one of the best essay submission in this context. I share the underlying thought process ingrained in your essay.
I have also expressed my views about the mysterious nature in the submission
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2998
I strongly believe that we Human are a self-hypnotized species - the existing knowledge base with us is too minuscule to appreciate the complexities of Nature. We have a long way to go.
With Best Wishes
Brajesh Mishra
Working as Director
Department of Telecommunications, GoI
Dear Brajesh,
Thank you so much for your kind remarks on my essay. I totally agree with you that we know very little; most remains to be known and discovered.
I look forward to reading your essay.
With regards,
Tejinder
Tejender, you raised a query about cosmic consciousness vis a vis human consciousness. Universe at creation had a low entropy which is constantly increasing eversince the the moment of creation. Naturally, there was a level of consciousness possessed at start but with increasing entropy, the level of consciousness will change. Universe at start had the knowledge built in that a human intelligence will evolve way way later. Then only it can appear as it happened about 15000 years back. Thus entropy implicitly contains cosmic consciousness which then distrubutes itself as life appeared in the form of plants/herbs, animals and human beings with our ancesters that evolved too!
Dear Narendra,
Hello. I do not really have anything more to say on consciousness at this juncture, other than what I said in my essay. I did come across this paper
and related papers by these authors, but I think these are at this stage ongoing studies. Also, they talk of entropy as a measure of consciousness, not entropy AS consciousness.
Regards,
Tejinder
Hi Tejinder
I like your essay, especially the conclusion since my idea confirms it. Many FQXI essays in past and present confused issues and instead of making them clearer, they made it all mysterious, mystic and what not, and forget how science does the remarkable job it has always done.
Anyway see if my essay makes any sense. Thanks
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127
Dear Adel,
Thanks so much for reading my essay and for your kind comments. I am very pleased to note from a first browse of your essay that we agree on the principal conclusion as to how the physical and mathematical worlds relate to each other. I will read your essay soon.
Best wishes,
Tejinder
Dear Prof. Singh,
thank you for sharing this interesting essay.
I would be glad if you find a moment to go through mine, as well, and to have a discussion about convergences and differences between our works.
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3017
All good wishes,
Flavio
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,
i very much enjoyed your essay. You start with the most obvious, namely consciousness, the latter being the crucial tool for at all making some statements about whether or not an external reality has some fundamental properties or not.
Albeit your attempt to find a fundamental grounding for all of reality is well layed-down and reasonably argued, please allow me to make some critical comments and to ask you some further questions.
You are led to conclude that the mathematical world and the physical world are one and the same. But according to your pleadings from neuroscience and evolutionary biology, there must be an exception from this identity. You identified this exception as consciousness. The latter must be viewed as an exception from the stated identity of mathematics with physics, since not all mathematical structures in the external world can be considered as being conscious.
It follows that for the case of aggregates of matter that are not conscious, you define mathematics as identical with physics, hence laws and things are one and the same.
For those aggregates of matter which are conscious and self-aware, you assume that things and laws have to be described in complementary terms, namely as things *and* laws - until they can be finally understood to be fundamentally identical.
Let me now suppose for the sake of my arguments that our understanding of consciousness would be such, that there is no difference between a mathematical and a physical description of it, because these both descriptions are identical.
Then, there are mathematical laws (the dynamics of the brain) which compress and encode parts of themselves, and also can decompress and decode parts of themselves. Since decoding and encoding are algorithmic tasks, you define the human mind as a dynamical algorithmic task. The latter is surely time-dependent. In contrast to that, you define consciousness (the watcher) as a timeless observer, at least until this observer dies.
In summary, the human mind as well as the accompanying consciousness are time-dependent mathematical structures. In contrast to this, the mathematical world must be timeless.
My question to you now is if you consider what you call the 'mathematical world' to be timeless or do you consider this world as evolving and transforming with time? Since you equate the world of mathematics with the world of physics, I am led to conclude that your definition of a mathematical world implies the latter to be in constant transformatory activity, embedded in a background of some time-evolution. Even if all possible mathematical relationships would reside in a timeless, infinite platonic realm, nothing in this realm indicates that those relationships have to become self-aware at some point in time.
So I conclude that self-awareness is a fundamental aspect of the world of mathematics and that this world is a world where 'things' - means 'laws' - change according to some property called time. Is this also your view that you intended to express with your essay?
Hope you can clarify these points,
best wishes
Stefan Weckbach