Things, Laws, and the Human Mind by Tejinder Pal Singh

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

Professor Singh,

You are a good writer and your work is pleasant to read, but for the life of me I have no idea how it connects in any way to physics or science, or how to connect some of the leaps of connection between paragraphs. How math became reality by the end of your essay seems to have a lot more to do with your excellent (and they truly are) skills as a writer than any kind of logical argument that I was able to discern.

I should note that after witnessing a few days of the Hunger Games rules of this competition, I abandoned any interest in "winning" this absurd contest and chose to go back to my role as a an associate editor-in-chief for a technical magazine: Assessing what I actually am seeing in these essays, not trying to build alliances.

You are a really good writer, and you sound like a really nice person. However, since your essay lacks anything but your writing skills to tie the arguments together, I would discard it within five minutes for its lack of providing anything fundamental other your personal and philosophical perspective -- which is fine, but in the end it's just that: Your opinion.

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger

Dear Professor Singh,

i am not Terry Bollinger and have no intent to answer your questions in place of him.

I only want to ask you if you could clarify my questions in my comment above yours concerning your essay, since otherwise it would be hard for me to judge your essay on the basis of some unconfirmed assumptions (what should not be the sense of this contest).

Thanks in advance,

Stefan Weckbach

Dear Tejinder,

thank you also for your reply.

To make sense out of the supposed dichotomy of timeless mathematics and a world of time, one could well say that the very concept of time is timeless, in the sense that there is no static state of things. So, in this sense, there will always be some dynamics irresolvably linked with existence.

I guess when you speak of mathematics being timeless, you mean that the truths that are expressed by mathematics should be timeless, but the concrete arrangement of some mathematical relationships must not. I am not sure whether or not this is also true for you for a timeless consciousness.

But I am led to conclude that it must be in some way true, since if mathematics and the neural pathways in the brain turn out to be identical, then what we have is a dynamical conscious pattern (mind) that is only and only possible due to the fact that mathematics has a time-dependent part.

I think what you have done is to assume that a certain subset of mathematical truths are able to generate a dynamical process that is timeless exactly in the sense that it was, is and will forever take its dynamical course. A result of this dynamical course is a human self-aware mind. Although these lines of reasoning are somewhat coherent, I have a problem with them.

Since mathematics is defined as timeless truths and consciousness being possible at all within the framework of pure mathematics as also a timeless truth, nothing in the form or in the substance of a human brain or even in the whole evolution of brains seems to indicate that its mathematical grounding must result in exactly the architecture of brains as we know them.

Surely, it would be thinkable that in the infinite realms of mathematics, there exist other mathematical patterns that also have the dynamics to generate consciousness, on the basis of some other architecture of some clumb of matter than the brains as we know them. But either way, I would consider such identities of a certain clumb of matter with some mathematical pattern that is capable of self-awareness as either arbitrary or anthropic. Arbitrary for the case that one presupposes an infinite - and therefore somewhat infinitely powerful - realm of mathematics, or anthropic for the case one claims that consciousness is only and only possible within such clumbs of matter as we know them - namely human or animal brains.

In a very real and unequivocal sense, the terms 'law', 'thing', 'thing-law', 'law-time' and 'thing-time' are encodings that intertwine certain aspects and by decoding disentangle them again. In another real sense this is indeed an algorithmic process on the basis of an algorithm. Since the mind is aware of this fact, it may conclude that itself must entirely be the result of algorithms. But as I outlined in my own essay, such a conclusion does only close a circle, means it is consistent. If I look into the world, and especially into psychiatry, I see that the mind does not exclusively operate on the basis of consistency, but also can operate on the basis of inconsistent, irrational 'algorithms', even madness.

The big question is why mathematics should prefer consistency over inconsistency to facilitate minds at all and should be destined to do this in the form of brains. Making an analogy with the famous Boltzmann brain, such brains may well give one the impression of a lawless, chaotic, irrational external reality. So the big question for me is whether or not it is sufficient for a rational mind to notice that itself operates according to some stable rules to come to the conclusion that it is entirely based on algorithmic processes that are at the end pure mathematics (although in dynamical clothes). I suspect that this is only a kind of self-confirmation where a certain circle of reasoning is closed and additional reasons are excluded a posteriori.

Anyways, I highly appreachiate if you like to further engage in this discussion, since these are very important, yes, fundamental questions I think. Moreover, I would like to know how your approach differs from Max Tegmark's approach, the latter i consider as an hypothesis that intertwines many fundamental questions and therefore, albeit being highly controversial, deserves more discussion - and of course also critics.

Hope for your reply.

Stefan Weckbach

Respected Prof Tejinder Pal Singh sab

You have nicely integrated consciousness into Physics, your words are really great... " How does the human mind convert things in the observed universe, into laws? What role does our consciousness play in this conversion process? We propose that the dynamic pathways connecting the neurons in our brains have a dual interpretation, as a thing-law. The pathways are things, by virtue of their material nature. However, our consciousness also accords a pathway the interpretation of a law, which could be a thought, an idea, an emotion, a number, a geometrical figure, a physical law, or a mathematical theorem. The mind's conversion of things into laws is what we call the horizontal fundamental." Wonderful analysis sir ji...

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....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

Dear Tejinder Pal Singh

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

Yes I will wait for your esteemed words.....Prof Singh sab.....

=snp

Tejinder,

I agree with you, so we can skip that. Scored. Done.

So I'll address the people who do not agree with you. Terry Bollinger has an obvious bias against philosophy in science, and I understand that--I've been a technical editor, too. I've thought like that, too. We apply a strict demarcation, and the subjects shall never communicate.

You rebutted that perfectly, with point # 9. It may be philosophy that drives " ... the search for unity in hidden likenesses ..." in J. Bronowski's words, though the binary choice is incomprehensibility, a choice not available to we who undertake the search.

Jackson asked Dickau in this forum " ... isn't the real question; what is the Mandelbrot set, and matter, 'made of'?" Easy to say the Mandelbrot set is made of z --> z^2 c. Easy enough to say that matter is made of particles.

I agree with you that the last mystery, spacetime, is the beginning of a greater one. How do we comprehend? That question is not equivalent to the philosophical, "Why do we search"? My essay: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3124

Best,

Tom

Dear Professor Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

I am deeply appreciative for your detailed and thoughtful response, and I am so sorry for the long delay in my reply! I was caught up in the Malwarebytes update disaster back on Jan 27, and ended up bricking my laptop with my own attempts to fix what they had done to it. I am now back up and running.

I will right now spend some serious time reading over your well-structured response. Your response is again nicely readable... have you considered writing a book or two in fact? Looking... ah, I see you have already written one short book: "Sikhism: An Introduction", 24 pages. It is print only, so I put in an Amazon vote to get it onto Kindle.. Sikhism is a truly fascinating religion with a fascinating history, and one that I respect deeply for its emphasis on personal integrity in particular.

Thomas Howard Ray, you are quite correct that in terms of essays such as these that I very strongly prefer arguments that adhere more closely to the concept of experimental validation and falsification, under whatever label one might wish to assign to that. But on the other hand, both historically and at its roots the scientific approach is nothing more than a philosophy, and so is not that different in kind from both other philosophies and (can be honest here?) well-structured, philosophical religions, with Sikhism being I think a pretty good example of that kind of analytical thoughtfulness in religion.

This leaves me divided, because I have a sincere and deep regard both for well-thought-out philosophies and religions. My difficulty here is instead my perception that the goal of this particular essay contest -- and perhaps I was simply wrong on this -- was to explore the more scientific, experimentally strongly attached side of this question, rather than the more philosophical or religious side of it.

Thus if I had read Tejinder's essay in a different context, I would have reacted very differently to it, because I would have interpreted it under a different set of exploratory rules that would have made it more appropriate to explore issues that may never be capable of being deeply and directly tied to physical experimentation.

Enough. Professor Singh, I'll respond as soon as I can (it may be tomorrow EST) to your thoughtful long response. Hopefully I have made clear in my comments in this reply that my concern is linked deeply to my understanding of the intent of the FQXi question itself.

Cheers,

Terry

Professor Singh,

What an interesting quantum theory you have proposed your ref [6]!

As it happens, I find the idea that there is a very deep relationship between space and matter to be very plausible, though in my case I would suggest that it is a dualism that emerged at the time of the "big bang" due to the emergence of both classical time and classical information, which I would describe as two sides of the same coin. I'm not sure that this fused reality is all that distant, either, since my quick explanation of quantum physics to novices is "physics for which history has not yet been set," that is, physics for which the Feynman path integral and all of its possibilities remain open.

I note that in your approach you took what I call the Deep Leap, that is, the drop down to the Planck level of space that is shared by quantum gravity and string theory. I would respond that despite the the extreme popularity of the Deep Leap, it has this intransigent little problem of invoking absolutely astonishing energy levels that, well... maybe aren't even real? After all, observable physics doesn't seem to like actual point objects nearly as much as it does the ability to approach point objects as closely as you want... but only at a high cost in terms of energy.

Physicists began doing the Deep Leap in earnest in the 1970s due to the amazing success of the Standard Model, as a way to bring super-weak gravity into the quantum boson-mediated fold of fundamental forces.

But to me the most amazing and perplexing Deep Leap, one far more faith-like rather than scientific, was the one that Joel Scherk and John Schwarz took in 1974 to create string theory. They grabbed the experimentally very real hadron and meson level Regge trajectory work, with its at least vaguely graviton-like proton-sized string-like vibration implications, and decided somehow that these hypothetical but experimentally plausible proton-sized spin-2 vibrations were ... actually gravitons? ... projections of gravitons? ... instances of something graviton-like? ... I never quite could understand the link, seriously. To me it just looks like they took a simple numeric coincidence and used it redirect 40 years of funding away from experimentally verifiable physics and into a domain whose energy levels are so high that they not only are inaccessible experimentally, but literally may not exist anywhere in the universe.

But the point there is just that not everyone in the world agrees that the Deep Leap was such a great idea.

Regarding your mention of mesoscopic quantum systems... well, you are of course at this very moment relying on an absolutely lovely example of a macroscopic room-temperature, extraordinarily robust quantum system to read this text.

That would be your eye corneas and lens, which require every individual photon to use their their history integrals to "view" the entire large shapes of your lenses to figure out where to land on your retina. The only reason we don't think of light as macroscopic examples of very robust quantum wave functions is that we have so many nice "classical" approximations that provide a lovely illusion that photons are little billiard balls shooting through space. If that was really true, we'd all be blind, since no such point particle could ever make it through the tangle of atoms and molecules that form our lenses.

Back to your response: I kind of lost the thread of your argument at point 4, which I gather with your deep background in this area must feel very clear to you, but was a bit of head-scratcher for me? The problem is I think was with the phrase "self-awareness", which is an amazing topic (my day job included working with cognitive scientists) that to me invokes the highest level of brain function. The very fact that I see it as high-level makes your assertion that it is a dual-purpose, more neural-level entity very difficult for my poor mind to interpret meaningfully. So, my apologies, and I'll try again, but I honestly do not think that the clarity you see on this point is as readily available to all readers as you might think.

Regarding maths, here's a different thought for you: Might maths simply be the most refined forms of physics, the rules that emerge from the underlying simplicity of the universe? Things such as translation and rotation are, after all, deeply reflective of how our most fundamental rules of physics operate, so wouldn't the constructs the we as biological being use to live in that world also be deeply reflective of that physics? A rock in the world rotates, and if we can model that rotation in our neural systems, wouldn't that give us a huge advantage for finding something useful or valuable under a rock?

So I tend towards a more mundane view of maths: Just as language is a latticework that enables humans to explore and organize simpler perceptions and and ideas in far more detail, maths use that same symbol system to organize and expand on our innate ability to model existing physics to our advantage.

By that view, some maths, such as those of translation and rotation, are more fundamental than others, just as some sentences (e.g. those that describe real situations) are more "attached" to reality than other (e.g. novels).

And my point overall? Well, just that there are many other interpretations of much of what you are looking at... and I think that that reason some care is needed in levels of confidence.

As for your argumentation, which is the issue for the essay, I like the more specific hypotheses of your reference materials, and find them a lot more understandable. And again, I particularly like the idea that there is a very deep connection between space and matter, even if I lean towards more of a dualism interpretation of that issue.

But the kernel of your essay argument still seems to be this idea that there is a self-awareness component to biology at a very low level, and for the life of me I can't figure out how to make that leap along with you. I am sorry that I don't "get it", but also I suspect others may have trouble following that part also.

Cheers,

Terry

Dear Thomas,

Thanks so much. I will definitely read your essay before ratings close.

Terry has replied below - maybe the three of us can discuss together.

Best,

Tejinder

Prof Singh -

Having read your essay snd some of the comments, I find the very premise of a Thing - Law structure to be inherently limiting. Another duality in a long line of dualities. I would characterize this as a foundational axiom - a tenet of faith - yet not something that can be proven - and not something that I would define as "fundamental".

There is a very strange mystery inherent in self-awareness that you fail to address. It does not explain - rather it confounds. As I point out in my essay"Faith is Fundemantal", self-awareness (consciusounes) invites Godellian incompleteness - and all truth is necessarily incomplete and inaccessible.

Sincere regards - George Gantz

Dear Tejinder Singh,

I really like your essay. It is very clearly written. Thank you.

I have two small points.

Firstly I do not see the connection between self-awareness and coming up with laws. You state that self-awareness is necessary to come up with laws. But you do not say why. One can imagine an AI computer programed to come up with laws but not having self-awareness. Also, certain animals come up with some pretty sophisticated models in their head about the universe around them. While I agree with you that they cannot put them in symbols, they can communicate them. (I am thinking of bees and ants). I do not think that these animals have self-awareness. (I agree with you that some neurological sophistication might be necessary for both self-awareness and the ability to make laws, but that does not mean that one is necessary for the other.

I like your presentation of the Collatz conjecture. To me it shows that there is a certain chaos in mathematics. The fact that 27 is so different than 26 and 28 means that the chaos is really there and it is hard to get a handle on this problem. Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was never a proof of the Collatz conjecture. It is simply just true.

Again, thank you for your wonderful essay. Please take a look at mine.

All the best,

Noson Yanofsky