On the Fundamentality of Meaning by Brian D. Josephson

" New Cartesian Physics, which I discovered, claims that the cause of quantum phenomena in the existence of the pressure of the universe, which overcomes the space, to begin oscillations. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, serves as the foundation for the birth of life."

I have no need of that hypothesis. ;-)

"All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light."

I have no need of that hypothesis. ;-)

"I'm afraid I don't find the paper that you link to to be a very coherent explanation for your claim that: Alternative post-Bohmian mathematical formulation of the essential features of Josephson's program i.e. signals in the sense of transmitting useful messages between node of the complex entanglement networks and the self-organizing regulation of the organism from the wave action particle reaction Frohlich coherence pumping. Maybe it could benefit from redrafting. "

The wave action particle reaction makes the time evolution of the waves non-unitary and nonlinear. Entanglement messaging between the nodes of an entangled tensor network then happens. It is the linearity and unitarity assumptions that forbid entanglement messaging. In Antony Valentini's terms, the Born rule is violated. God no longer plays dice with the universe in living matter to paraphrase Einstein.

1) Sutherland shows in the case of particle quantum mechanics of point classical particles (COM of extended particles) that the wave action-particle reaction Lagrangian contains the factor

(particle 4-velocity - weak value of wave 4-current density/invariant weak wave density).

This factor vanishes in the quantum limit of the more general theory just like GR limits to SR when the curvature tensor vanishes. Vanishing action reaction corresponds to de Broglie's guidance equation in which the particle worldliness are same as the weak wave streamlines as in Aephraim Steinberg's beautiful experiments.

2) 1/T' = 1/T - (resonant cross-section)external pump power

in relevant units for discrete quibit spin energy levels, otherwise sign on RHS for continuous energy levels in the point particle case.

T' = effective local temperature of the non-equilibrium pumped system,

T = thermal equilibrium temperature

Therefore, it's obvious how Frohlich coherence occurs at a critical power threshold in all cases.

This is a generalized BEC effect.

3) Sutherland's action reaction Lagrangian ~ (resonant cross-section)(external pump power - critical pump)

So, in your opinion these comments

"All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light."

" New Cartesian Physics, which I discovered, claims that the cause of quantum phenomena in the existence of the pressure of the universe, which overcomes the space, to begin oscillations. The physical space, which according to Descartes is matter, serves as the foundation for the birth of life."

Are relevant to your paper, but my comments are not? Brian, your emotions here are clouding your judgment.

"I'm getting a sense that people are having a hard time figuring out 'what's the great idea?',"

Jack: Exactly

" which since probably very few of you have ever heard of semiotics, let alone semiotics, may not be surprising. I'll start with the assumption that most people's background is in physics, so you will be familiar with quantum mechanics and the question of 'what does it all mean?', with problematic issues such as the fact that we seem to be able to talk only in terms of averages rather in terms of individual events, what is really happening when an observation is made, and the paradox of Schrödinger's cat, and all that. You will also know that 'hidden variable' theories exist that claim to resolve such issues but are really rather a fudge. It would be nice if we had something better, more intuitive."

Jack: Bohm's picture is not a fudge. Indeed, that's what Michael Towler's Cambridge Lectures are all about. So what you have just claimed is very misleading far from the truth. Also you seem to not understand Yakir Aharonov's weak measurements and how they relate to the Von Neumann strong measurements. In fact, we now see individual events in a new kind of statistical sense very different from the old eigenvalue idea you are citing above.

"In this connection, what has happened to me is that in recent years I have been exposed a number of ideas that look like something better, the interesting thing being that they seem to be able to fit together nicely: it is a bit like the old tale where people see different parts of an elephant and think they are seeing completely different things but they all fit with the idea that they are seeing different parts of a single thing, the elephant.

The commonality is basically the idea that this obscure region that, according to orthodoxy, we really can't do anything about is one characterised by a kind of life, and by complexity, and it is the complexity that makes 'business as usual' impossible in dealing with it. But if this is the case, then instead of just giving up we should do the best that we can. One approach is that of 'complexity biology', basically that of treating biology from the perspective of complex systems. This is the approach of my colleague Alex Hankey, who has entered an essay into this competition, but his 2015 paper goes into much more detail and I hope he will upload it to an archive, as I have suggested, so everyone can read it without having to pay the journal to do so (as is allowed under certain circumstances).

Alex and I have compared notes on this, but I have developed more a different side, based on so-called biosemiotics. I came by this through being invited to talk at a conference on semiotics, and more recently I became aware of its application to biology, biosemiotics. This is the study of the role that meaning plays in biology, and it has some very neat ideas. As an introduction to this, you might want to look at the slides for a lecture I gave at a recent conference on Fundamental Physics, starting perhaps at slide 6, and then Hoffmeyer's paper on semiotic scaffolding. These ideas address subtleties in regard to what makes life possible.

Question: why should these esoteric ideas matter as far as physics goes? The answer I think is this: let's suppose that people are right to say that this mystery realm is essentially biological. In that case we need to use biological tools to make sense of what is happening there, and not just blindly hope that the methods currently in use in fundamental physics will in the end do the job. I have addressed the question of how this new direction can proceed theoretically above so will not repeat them, just look at my response to Andrew Beckwith for details. This approach, combined with that addressed in Hankey's essay, may not in the end lead anywhere, but I believe it will, and it is certainly well worth seeing where it can lead.

So to summarise: biology involves a different kind of ordering to regular physical systems -- just consider how different what happens in biological systems is from the case of physical systems. We can use tools developed in that context to probe deeper into nature, if it is the case that mysterious nature departs from the pictures presumed in physics and instead adopts this alternative kind of order at this hypothesised deeper level."

Good luck with that, but I have not been able to understand Hankey and I doubt any other theoretical physicists will even take the time to look at it.

"Question: why should these esoteric ideas matter as far as physics goes? The answer I think is this: let's suppose that people are right to say that this mystery realm is essentially biological. In that case we need to use biological tools to make sense of what is happening there, and not just blindly hope that the methods currently in use in fundamental physics will in the end do the job."

The essential physical difference between living matter and dead matter is simple. You have made it more complex than it really is.

Dead matter obeys orthodox quantum theory with zero action-reaction in the sense of Sutherland.

Living matter obeys post-quantum theory with non-zero action-reaction etc.

"So to summarise: biology involves a different kind of ordering to regular physical systems -- just consider how different what happens in biological systems is from the case of physical systems. We can use tools developed in that context to probe deeper into nature, if it is the case that mysterious nature departs from the pictures presumed in physics and instead adopts this alternative kind of order at this hypothesised deeper level." What scientific or intellectual background is needed to pursue this? Would one need to be familiar with the ideas in the following?

Biosemiotics (journal), en.wikipedia

Professor Josephson,

You present two essential and complementary, but oppositional concepts, with meaning and circularity, given that meaning is goal oriented and thus linear.

Linearity is temporal and circularity is thermodynamic.

I think our big problem with understanding time is that since thought functions as flashes of perception, we experience time as the present "flowing" from past to future. Which physics codifies as measures of duration between such events. Yet the underlaying reality is that it is change turning future to past. As in tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth turns.

This makes time an effect of action, just like temperature. We could use ideal gas laws to correlate measures of temperature and volume, like C is used to correlate distance and duration.

Our linear, rational, left hemisphere of the brain is temporal, while our right, emotional hemisphere is thermodynamic. It is not so much our goals that motivate us, as that we are goal driven.

The block time, eternalist view has trouble explaining why time is asymmetric and defers to entropy, but as a measure of action, time is asymmetric because action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not both.

Different clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. A faster clock will use energy quicker, like an animal with high metabolism will age faster than one with a slower rate. Yet remain in the same present.

One might view reality as a dichotomy of energy and form. As energy is "conserved" and dynamic, it is always and only present, but constantly changing form. Thus creating the effect of time.

As organisms, we evolved a central nervous system to process form/information and the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems to process energy. Hence our tendency to try distilling energy down to its most minute amounts, but in doing so, find other parameters become blurry. Even a moving car doesn't have an exact location.

As to the existence of consciousness, the logical fallacy of our current spiritual theory, monotheism, is that a spiritual absolute would necessarily be the essence of sentence, from which biology rises, not an ideal form from which it fell. Religion though, is more about social order, than spiritual insight, so it is better built around wisdom, than raw consciousness. The wise old man, rather then the new born babe. Consciousness then acts like an energy, always and only present, as the forms it manifests come and go.

Regards,

John Merryman

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

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.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Prof. Josephson,

What is fundamental is what the universe is and does before we look or even think about it.

The universe existence and happening follows the rule of non-contradiction, basic logic! So, the universe works by the same basic principle that we use for thinking. The same principle we use in all our truth making activities, physics, maths etc. The only access to this level is a bottom-up creation according to the rule of non-contradiction. The idea is to leave the realm of our "need to know" and consider what the universe needs to exist and happen.

.... The scaffolding approach may offer generality, but it departs from simplicity.

Best of luck,

Marcel,

Professor Josephson,

Thank you for your consideration. I've come at these issues from a more social and political direction. In trying to figure out why the world is such a mess and unpacking problems, keep find further layers of assumptions, on which they are built.

In the East, the past is considered to be in front of the observer and the future behind, because the past and what is in front are known, while the future and what is behind are unknown.

In the West, we tend to think of ourselves as entities moving through our world, so see the future as in front and the past behind. Which goes to relating time to space.

Eastern philosophy sees the individual as an expression of context, so events are seen after they occur and the energy flows by, in that larger dynamic.

This linearity versus circularity dichotomy goes to the basic economic issue bedeviling the world today. That we are goal oriented, while nature is more about relational feedback.

In small societies, economics is reciprocal, but as they grow, accounting is necessary. Money and finance are a circulation mechanism, but since we view them as a commodity to be collected, we try storing these notes, rather then allowing them to circulate and so more has to be introduced, until the entire economy is in thrall to this tool of exchange.

Consider that in the body, blood is the medium and fat is the store, or with cars, roads are the medium and parking lots are the store. It just doesn't work to try storing the medium, when it needs careful regulation.

The entire world economy is now built around manufacturing these units of exchange, to the point of destroying enormous amounts of actual wealth.

Yet in trying to understand and explain the intellectual processes at work only irritates the members of the various sectors of the intellectual establishment, such as pointing out to physicists that time is more like temperature, then space.

It makes an interesting conundrum.

Regards,

John

Greetings Professor Josephson,

I enjoyed your essay, in its final form, as I did the draft I had the privilege to see before you posted this. You do address the question of what is fundamental in Physics, and you do it in a most unique and novel way. I'm glad I was introduced to your recent work via the talk you gave at the Elche campus of UMH (Universidad Miguel Hernandez) for FFP15 - because this gave me a lot more time to consider your novel ideas, and to let the ramifications sink in.

I will admit also here that my initial reaction was a naive impulse similar to Jack's, that I was put off by your terminology, but that I could convey some aspects of your message to Physics folks better - by casting it in the language of quantum mechanics. I inform the readers here that in my e-mail to you, Brian, I referenced the paper "There are no Quantum Jumps, nor are there Particles!" by H.D. Zeh where quantum information in the wavefunction is more fundamental than material reality.

But you were kind to point out the differences in the pictures suggested by decoherence theory and biosemiotics, and how that relates to your central thesis that meaning is fundamental. What you are talking about is a shift of emphasis beyond the framework Jack Sarfatti uses to explain how consciousness arises. After reading the paper with Shimansky he posted above; I see that he has shown there is something worthwhile to investigate, but is making excessive claims as to its validity or universality - given the level of evidence or proof offered.

I like what you have done here Brian, and I don't think you are making any excessive statements that would prompt me to exclude your ideas from careful consideration.

All the Best, JJDAttachment #1: 1_no-quantum-jumps.pdf