Wow. I opened your arXiv article and fell in love at first skim. The Mathematical Experience is probably my favorite book. I had a hard time locating it on the bookshelf because the spine was so worn. Will return for an enjoyable read as soon as I am out from under an imminent deadline.

Brian Josephson

You asked for the relevance if Planck's constant is a property of the detecting electron. The detector creates quantization, and that does not prove quanta in light.

A bound and moving electron interacts with the ether, and the disturbance moves with speed c to our detecting electron. Only a potential force is produced and this force becomes real after some time and interacts with the ether. This means that bound electrons can emit without loosing energy.

Best regards from __________________ John-Erik Persson

Dear Brian D Josephson,

Welcome the FQXi and thank you for your essay. You (and Todd Duncan) are the first to focus on meaning. You note that some current approaches are an "extension of sign theory". I've written several essays on consciousness, but those focused on awareness and volition rather than on meaning. So thank you for upping the game! Instead of decoding the meaning of the standard model, I believe physicists should start with an awareness of the meaning of three dimensions of space and one of time, including dynamics. How, through signs, does one grasp space, time, and motion?

This will of course depend on the model of consciousness, and I believe consciousness is a field that has a 'self-awareness' property. Volition would seem to imply the ability of the field to interact with matter, and the field must also sense matter in motion. This leads to guesses about the nature and identification of the field, but let's ignore that and focus on 'meaning' of 3-D space in this model. How is 3-D space modeled with 'signs'?

In this model the field is somewhat panpsychic, but the "meaning" is found by the brain, therefore the matter in motion being sensed by the brain will consists of ions flowing in axons and vesicles flowing across synaptic gaps. Of course one can "encode" such flows as sequences of spikes, etc., but how does one encapsulate the 'meaning' of 3-D space and dynamics in such symbols? As you note, the reality is a characteristic 'doing' in an organism.

Now what separates the brain from current computers is its 3-D organization of flows and gates versus the 2-D arrangements of sequentially switched logic gates. Computers sequence logic operations very fast. Flows in the brain have an 'all-at-once' nature.

At this point let us assume that optical signals excite flows in the 3-D circuitry of the brain and that these flows bear some relation to a 3-D scene or object being viewed. In our model, the flows themselves are not 'aware', per se. It is the pervading consciousness field that senses the actual flows in the brain, the 'doing' of the organ. This awareness may be rather chaotic initially, but after certain amount of training, the mobile above our crib may be reflected in a pseudo-stable flow in and between the neurons of our brain. With billions of neurons and trillions of 3-D interconnections, we can certainly model any 3-D object if our brain interacts with the consciousness field as postulated.

Bear in mind that I'm not speaking of logic or logic networks, [which our brain can also implement.] I'm speaking of direct sensing of dynamic mass flows in the brain (assumed here a small subset of the brain, yet distributed in 3-D). The flow is maintained as long as we look at the object, but of course we can later invoke the same dynamic flows as a 'memory' or 'image' of the 3-D object. Of course the schema can be extended to multiple objects and even 'formalized' so we can do 1, 2, and 3-D problems in calculus, etc.

If one spends some time trying to see how this might work with "encoded sequences" or other essentially non-physical symbols for encoding a sphere, a cube, an F-14 Tomcat, a beautiful woman, a waterfall, one will probably come to a greater appreciation of space in terms of the 3-D consciousness field directly sensing 3-D flows in axons and across gaps that 'model' what was first learned from 'looking', and later recalled as needed.

You discuss the "growth and complexity". Assume the trillions of interconnects allow 3-D network flows of arbitrary complexity and indefinite recursion. The nature of the consciousness field is not computational, it is sensory awareness of immediate flow. Volition is too complex to explain in a comment, but we can obviously juggle ideas (as well as juggle real balls in 3-D). Obviously we have utilized the logical capabilities of switched nets to create algebra, math and physics, but the awareness of 'meaning' does not emerge from the 'logic', it emerges from the biological organism that grows a brain [in a consciousness field] connected by sensors to its environment, then directly senses 3-D through 3-D internal dynamic models or reflections of the environment.

This theory of consciousness is only hinted at in this comment, but it is not based on quantum entanglement, or other fashionable theories. The field is a classic continuum whose local strength correlates with local mass flow density.

You mention a theorist who "is trying to describe a situation that she herself cannot visualize." Having visualized this model for twelve years now, I can say it has handled hundreds of problems rather effectively.

The consciousness field is primordial, here from the beginning, in the sense of Wheeler or Bohm. Awareness does not emerge, only the complexity of awareness is accounted for by evolution. Increased meaning emerges as we learn.

I would be interested in any response you might have to this comment on meaning, and I would hope that you find time to read my current essay and remark upon that.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Then, might we take a dynamical view toward mathematics? Just as the Zen master is said to be "In the world, but not of it," can't metamath be "In the world of mathematics but not of it"?

    That suggests to me that mathematics (at the level of complex analysis) is self-organizing.

    Dear Professor Josephson,

    Tell me what you think of this statement: Our internal map is not the territory, this internal map is much richer that the territory because it has meaning.

    Your essay is like a rocket blasting off to found a new civilization.

    Do say something on my blog...It is very exhilarating to be in a contest with a Nobel Laurette! In an effort to save time there is no need to read my essay. It is exceptional, so just give it a 10 :)

    Thanks,

    Don Limuti

      That could be so. Biosemiotics has a concept 'code duality' which is roughly the idea that codes and their references generate each other. Perhaps the Platonic world is partly generated by observers doing maths!

      This reminds me of my paper with a colleague on Platonism and music, which again reminds me of cymatics, which apparently shows water responding to music with patterns, in a way that may also involve self-organisation.

      I looked at your essay, which looks very interesting but I don't unfortunately have time to study it in detail. I was involved with Pound/Rebka by the way, independently predicting the temperature dependence of the Mössbauer effect (as published in PRL). Also I think I knew J D Jackson from my time at the Univ. of Illinois. Re your 'mass flow in the brain', however, my problem is that brain ≠ mind so it would have to be at a subtle level.

      Ohm was not correct in his dispute with Seebeck when he used physics as a touch stone for physiology. On the other hand, I hope to be correct when I am claiming: Physiology in connection with common sense might be a good touchstone for putative fundaments of physics that are actually just semifoundational constructs.

      For instance: No sense can perceive future data, and there is no scientifially agreed point t=0 of reference in biology.

      Eckard Blumschein

      Brian,

      Obviously, this is a subject dear to my heart. I've imposed on your time long enough, though I hope we can have a discussion later. I wrote a conference paper 12 years ago titled "Self Organization in real and complex analysis", and I aim to have a complete description in another conference paper this year. Thanks for your references. I appreciate it.

      Dear Brian Josephson,

      Thanks for commenting. It was probably silly of me to try to paint a picture in a comment. My last essay, The Nature of Mind has more information. I do not believe mind is the brain, but mind must obviously "connect" to the brain. How?

      I hope when you have more time you will ask yourself how our intuitive understanding of 3-D space occurs. It's not mathematical.

      Thanks again,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      A quick response -- my view is that the mind is networks, agreeing to that extent with your own position. Probably these are not brain networks but rather something deeper; yet they may nevertheless be a factor setting up brain networks through the kind of coordination you describe (equivalent to Yardley's 'oppositional dynamics'). In that case there is a kind of Platonic realm. I hope to get this written up properly while comments are still open.

      Dear Professor Josephson,

      Heisenberg, in an interview by D. Peat in the 1970s, made a very polite remark regarding Bohr's principle of complementarity: "Now, Bohr had ... tried, from this dualism, to introduce the term complementarity, which was sufficiently abstract to meet the situation".

      Isn't also Peirce's theory of signs deserving of a very polite remark?

      Heinrich Luediger