Sorry, the link is not working. Please go directly to my paper.

Thanks

Avtar

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

    Consciousness and Entropy

    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

        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 Bollinger,

          Thank you for reading my essay, and for your criticism. I will try to reconstruct in brief my line of reasoning, and perhaps then you could point out specific criticisms.

          1. There is a physical universe around us, and we use experimental data about it to discover laws of nature. We use our mental faculties (mind) to do so. This same mind has thoughts and feelings, and this same mind also does something as precise as mathematics.

          2. How does the mind do all this? How does it convert experimental data into laws? How do thoughts and feelings arise? How does the mind do mathematics? Is mathematics invented or discovered? If it is discovered, where was it before we discovered it? I think these are fair questions to ask, in a contest such as this one. As an answer, I do not offer a rigorous mathematical theorem or a new law or theory which you could test experimentally. Science is not yet advanced enough for that, with regard to these questions. But I would not call my answer my opinion; with the dictionary meaning of opinion being `a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.' It is not fair to say that my essay is not based on fact and knowledge! If anything, it is based only on fact and knowledge. You can call my answers my philosophical perspective perspective; I am fine with that. But to say that it is not science nor physics is also not fair, as I will try to justify below. A good part of what I say is based on my earlier peer reviewed publications, and the rest are new ideas in science and philosophy, which provide a basis for further work.

          3. We all are self-aware beings. I am proposing that self-awareness and mind are distinct and separate entities. I discussed more in support of this in my Ref. [1]. Now, how does one prove something like this? Above all, I appeal to personal direct experience, and that makes it an experiment! A large school of thought agrees with this distinction.

          4. Separating self-awareness from the mind provides a helpful framework to understand how mind converts things into laws. Self-awareness assigns a dual interpretation to an active neural pathway: it is a thing as well as a law. You could call this a hypothesis, but please do not call it an opinion! :-)

          The thing-law interpretation is assigned to thoughts, physics laws, mathematical theorems. Honestly, I find it very convincing, and it clarifies a whole lot of confusion for me.

          5. The neural pathways for thoughts are no different in structure from the neural pathways for mathematics, as far as we know, through experiments in neuroscience. Then, if thoughts reside *in* the pathways, then it seems reasonable maths also resides in the pathways.

          6. But does the mind create mathematics, the way it creates thoughts and poems? This as you know is a controversial question. I myself wrote in favour of this view, in a previous FQXi essay. But I am no longer comfortable with that view. Different human brains are so different in their connectivity, that it seems incredible that all brains create the same universal mathematics. So I am *suggesting* that brains discover mathematics. But to believe that mathematics is Platonic is what I would call an opinion. Nobody has ever seen the home of mathematics. Thus, it seems very plausible that just as neural pathways have a dual thing-law interpretation, the physical world also has a dual thing-law interpretation. Is this not more reasonable than Platonism, and more reasonable than `minds create universal mathematics'?

          7. In the world around us, why do we not `see' maths in the things? Because things live in space and time, but maths does not live in space and time.

          8. The distinction between matter and space-time is true only as an approximation, in physics. As I have rigorously argued in my Refs. [6]-[9] and [11]-[12], one cannot make such a distinction in a deeper theory which addresses the problems of quantum mechanics. This deeper theory makes experimentally falsifiable predictions which are the subject of several ongoing experiments worldwide.

          9. If matter cannot be distinguished from space-time, then we have one entity, matter-space-time, and another entity, the mathematical description of matter-space-time. If maths is Platonic, where is its home? Matter-space-time is all that we have, where to ask maths to live, unless we wish to invoke something unscientific. And how do we describe matter-space-time rigorously: not through some fundamental building blocks of matter living in space-time, but through the mathematical equations alone. In that sense I am suggesting that we should no longer make a distinction between mathematics and physical reality, once matter ceases to be distinct from space-time.

          10. I readily admit that a great deal more needs to be done before the above ideas become a scientifically accepted theory. But the ideas are rooted in science and philosophy.

          Please let me know what is it that you find objectionable in the above.

          I am grateful for your kind appreciation of my writing skills! :-)

          My best regards,

          Tejinder

          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 Stefan,

          Thanks so much for reading my essay, and thanks also for your insightful comments and the important questions that you raise.

          I would regard the mathematical world as timeless; in the sense that I have described time as a thing, and the mathematical world as a law. If we were to write down Newton's second law of motion to describe the motion of classical bodies, the law is timeless by itself: the time coordinate that appears in the acceleration is the law aspect of the thing that is time.

          Suppose next that consciousness is a law; it being the law aspect of the thing that is a living human being. Mathematics being timeless, and laws and consciousness being timeless, are consistent with each other.

          The mind, being distinct from consciousness, is the collection of all the thing-laws made from all the neural pathways in the brain. One such thing-law is time: or more explicitly, thing-time : law - time. In this sense mind knows time and its flow, because there is the law time associated with the thing time. The law time, being a law, is timeless, in the sense that the concept of time is timeless.

          I hope my answer is of some help in clarifying an important question that you raised. I will be most happy to engage in a further discussion.

          Thanks and regards,

          Tejinder

          Dear Stefan,

          I have now replied to your post above.

          Thanks,

          Tejinder

          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