Professor Klingman, I have thought still about this consciousness.

In fact , Nobody can really prove the origin philosophical, mathematical or physical of this consciousness. Nobody can affirm his general philosophy in fact , we have the same problem about the origin of our universe and about the foundamental objects at this planck scale. Why we exist, why we are, why this life exists and this evolution, why we are conscious and have a free will, why this matter and energy transformations? we don t know, we can just extrapolate with intuitions in accepting our limitations. It is not prohibited to Think fortunally and we discuss simply in accepting these limitations like humble thinkers,we can never affirm assumptions, we must prove but we cannot prove this consciousness and its origin. It is the same about God or about a mathematical accident from an energy to explain this physicality.

Spinoza , Descartes, Kant , Godel, Cantor, Einstein , Borh, or others d say the same , we must accept these limitations in knowledges simply and try to complete this universal puzzle with determinism , we search answers...

    I have writen this also on the blog of FQXi about this consciousness , I spoke about your ideas also.

    This Hard problem of consciousness is indeed important and complex. Like told me Edwin Eugene Klingman, it is great that now we can discuss about these things , because in the past it was more difficult. The ideas of The professor Klingman are interesting about a kind of field of consciousness at this quantum scale, correlated with probably geonetrodynamics and points or strings and geonetrical algebras where the main essence is these fields. It is correlated with this infinite energy that we cannot define and this Gr and photons like main primordial essence, so it exists a thing that we cannot define oscillating these photons with strings,at this planck scale. And so the branes, strings in 1D and this Cosmic field create the geonetries, topologies, matters, fields and properties. I respect these ideas and if we have a kind of infinite eternal consciousness, so we can consider these fields of consciousness and rank them.

    In my theory of spherisation, this optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere and these quantum 3D coded spheres and the cosmological spheres, I see differently, I consider that we have mainly particles coded and so the philosophical general origing is not from these fields. I consider that this infinite eternal consciousness, and infinite energy is not an infinite heat but an infinite consciousness and this thing that we cannot define is beyond this physicality and it needs to transform and code the energy to create these particles coded. That is why the universal transformator in my model is the central cosmological sphere, it is there that this thing codes and transforms this energy in particles. I consider 3 main series of coded 3d spheres sent from this central cosmol sphere, one for the space and two fuels, the photons and cold dark matter. And when they merge they create the topologies, geometries, matters, fields. We need a balance between cold and heat, negentropy entropy, matter anti matter,electromagnetism gravitation...If these finite series primoridal have the same number than our cosmological finite series of spheres, so the complexity and combinations are infinite when they merge. It become relevant to consider all the parameters of this merging. The consciousness so become relevant, because all comes from this infinite eternal consciousness but it is transformed and coded, so all can be conscious at its levels and the evolution is essential because this consciousness evolves inside the physicality due to biology evolving. In the past I thought that only the biological Brains can be conscious but now I tell me that all is conscious at its level simply because the main energy beyong this universe is a pure infinite consciousness for me. The evolution is essential I repeat to better understand this consciousness, it is fascinating I must say.

    All this becomes very philosophical and nobody can affirm the real secret of our universe and its origin, why we are, why we evolve, how we are created. I can understand that this sciences Community is divided and that all we are free to interpret like we want this physicality. A part consider that we come form an energy and a mathematical accident if I can say, others consider strings oscillating transforming this energy in a physicality, others Think like me in a kind of infinite eternal consciousness coding and transforming the energy in matters to create these topologies, geometries, matters, fields and properties. But nobody can prove their philosophies, it is beyond our understanding but when you study the generality of sciences, a kind of limited truth appears, we have something coding like a chief orchestra creating something. Einstein said that God does not play at Dices and he thought about a kind of God of Spinoza, in respecting the pure determinism of this physicality, this beleif has nothing to do of course with the religions. What I find important also is that all the best past thinkers considered this parameter, they were numerous , like if an evidence appears in studying the generality of sciences , like an evidence that something transforms this energy that we cannot define, here is the list and nobody can tell that they were stupid, they were the best, all they considered a kind of God with determinism, Einstein, Planck, Newton, Heisenberg, Tesla,Maxwell,Galilei,Godel,Cantor,Lorentz, Feynman, Fermi,Euler, Lie,Schrodinger and so more, why they considered this ? it is important to analyse this, they had probably understood a philosophical evidence, the others against can tell all what they want, it is like that, they thought about this and they were the best I repeat, maybe even it is essential to better understand the energy matters transformations. This consciousness so become a relevant parameter to analyse deeper, it seems that we come from an infinite eternal energy of consciousness, why this thing creates this universe, why we are conscious and in evolution, it is the real question in fact, what we create in fact ? we are Tools maybe of optimisation simply with this consciousness evolving and the Environments in complexification. In all case, all this is fascinating I must say, this optimisation evolution seems an important piece of this universal puzzle.

    Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

    Rating essays has always been difficult for me. If an essay keeps true to the theme of the contest is one factor, but sometimes reading other essays gives me a new view on what the theme means. Could one disagree with the Physics of an essay, yet still see the value of the work? There is an ongoing point battle and I as well as others have been "point bombed" with 1s. I never give out ones, but I do give tens after the long process of determining what a ten looks like is complete.

    An ideal review should not be about points or Einstein (sorry Albert), but the work as a whole. Perhaps not ideal my review is as follows.

    This essay takes the reader gently by the hand on a journey of ideas and presents how these ideas relate to the overall theme of the contest. The essay held my interest, but did not sell me on its viewpoint.

    Sincerely,

    Jeff Schmitz

      Dear Jeffrey,

      Thanks for your feedback. I believe that my point about ontology being beyond the issues that fqxi prescribed makes it on topic. In principle, my energy-time theory can distinguish between space time symmetry of special relativity, but the political fact is that there is no interest in doing experiments to test special relativity. Lacking determinative proof, I believe that one must choose an ontology to interpret a theory. It's my opinion that relativity is applied to whatever ontology is convenient, and I don't believe that's legitimate. SRT excludes acceleration and rotation, but is commonly extended into these domains for Hafele-Keating and Michelson-Gale experiments, which I believe is not kosher.

      Obviously one cannot do any definitive analysis of SRT in nine pages, but, after reading a number of essays I decided to rewrite my last three pages to make a somewhat different point. While it's an important point, it does probably weaken the essay.

      I actually read your essay several times but could not decide what to say to you, so I said nothing. In your essay your asked:

      "Would we want a robot to solve Physics?"

      My dissertation asked "How would a robot physicist function?" assuming the ability to make measurements correlated with the robot's actions on its environment. The key factor is the use of pattern-recognition algorithms to partition the data into categories that represent 'properties' of the system, which establishes an epistemology, but not an ontology.

      In short, I did not assume consciousness, but simply designed a machine to sort data obtained from the real world by interacting with the real world, in an attempt to show why the 'unreasonable effectiveness of math to science' applies.

      Thanks again for your honest feedback. These contests truly are valuable.

      Best wishes,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Dear Steve,

      I completely agree with almost all of your points. Thank you for writing them. I certainly agree that no one can prove these issues of consciousness. It is more a question of what explanation makes the most sense and is compatible with the largest domain of which we are aware. For me, including all of my conscious experience over many years, a consciousness field was the only thing that made sense. Never did it make any sense that dumb material objects could arrange themselves (or be arranged) in such a manner that they would suddenly 'become aware'.

      The question then became how the field would interact physically with the material world. Applying Occam's razor, things went in a direction that continually rewarded me with positive insights and never ran into paradoxes that would discourage continuing the approach.

      Along the way I decided that much of today's problems in physics derive from physicists projecting math structures onto physical reality, useful in specific domains (like qubits) and then believing that these structures had universal application. Once people write enough papers based on such a new structure, it becomes part of the catechism.

      Anyway, I'm glad that you find the concept useful. Since Feynman said that "more things can be known than can be proven", I am likely to spend my remaining years trying harder to know what I'm talking about than to prove what I'm talking about.

      Warmest regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Thanks Professor Klingman,

      I agree also with your Words, all seems a question of deterministic convergences between maths, physics and philosophy after all it seems to me humbley. The universe and its generality shows us maybe Concrete roads. A thing important for me is this evolution, and I have remarked that these fields like main origin and these oscillations, frequences, resonances, correlated with the strings have a philosophical problem considering this evolution. Why we evolve , and this consciousness also like the complexification of biological Creations ? the real question is there, why this universe has created an evolutive line time ? it seems important to analyse deeper this evolution because why this thing , this kind of infinite energy Before this physicality has created this evolutive physicality ? why this thing has not created directly in the instant with a specific oscillation a perfect harmonised universe with its consciousness, we see quickly that the fields like main origin has a problem foundamental , because the evolution is not taken into account, if we evolve there are reasons and it was maybe the only one solution for this infinity to create a physicality in improvement with its fractalisations of energy and the codes of evolution. The evolution seems to be forgotten by the sciences Community in maths and physics. It seems an essential, why we have stable systems like the atoms and moleculs and why this evolution for others systems like the biology, the consciousness, this and that? Where is this evolution so encoded in our quantum series and its mechanics ? it seems important to understand this. My theory of spherisation, it is this in fact, the evolution optimisation of the universal sphere or future sphere with these quantum coded 3D spheres and cosmological sphere, we are inside a physicality in improvement and optimisation, why I don t know, we can extrapolate many philosophical intuitive ideas , maybe this thing was alone, I don t know, maybe we create it this paradise , I don t know really, I just discuss without affirminmg, but a sure thing relevant is this infinite eternal potential beyond this physicality and if this thing is an infinite eternal consciousness, that becomes very fascinating and the Word is weak. We are like Tools of optimisation due to this consciousness evolving and these complex Environments, maybe this consciousness is the most important thing after all like a pure tool of evolution and optimisation, it can even accelerate the universal process. On Earth also this consciousness is essential and can permit to optimise our evironments and its interactions, but unfortunally we lack of a global unified universal altruistic consciousness on this planet sphere Earth. Maybe the keys of governances must be given in the hands of pure universal altruists conscious of truths, but not easy due to our past and bad habits, we have created an odd global system Dividing instead to unite . But the hope exists.

      Regards

      Edwin Eugene Klingman,

      Ontology could be the theme by omission. Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability are about what cannot be known and your essay is about limits of the knowable, two sides of the same coin. You convinced me that your essay is of the theme of the contest. As a reader, how your essay fits into the overall theme is not important. My essay is more about the why and your essay is about the how. A robot could be a tool in finding objective data about the nature of the Universe. A robot would be useless in answering why you want objective data in the first place. In short, your essay is on a journey, while my essay is still looking at the map to figure out where to go. My essay is in a completely different tone and direction, so I can see why it is not everyone's cup of tea. Thank you for reading my essay and I understand why you did not comment.

      As for an absolute time frame, Galilean relativity is the basis of momentum, symmetry and conservation laws. Einstein relativity expanded on the existing framework of Galilean relativity for a simpler general solution to problems others worked on in bits and pieces. We could we solve problems currently solved with Einstein's relativity using an absolute time frame, but it would be far more complex and would not yield new insight.

      Sincerely,

      Jeff Schmitz

      P. S. I see that they are blocking robots from giving comments. Robot opinion would be important in this topic.

      Dear Edwin,

      You mentioned "inertial mass m = γ m0" and, given the relatively recent controversy over relativistic mass, I wonder what your view on that is.

      Best wishes,

      Vesselin

        Dear Vesselin,

        I am not sure what the 'recent' controversy is, but there have been objections by some to the idea of relativistic mass for a while now.

        My view is that inertial mass m = gamma m0 is the most accurate relation in relativity. It is a kinetic energy aspect of mass that has real consequences, whereas the mixing of time and space by gamma is unphysical.

        I've read your essay several times. It seems to put great weight on Minkowski's 1908 interpretation of the MM experiments. My own interpretation, like that of Hertz, upon whose theory Einstein based his 1905 paper, is that light propagates in local gravity, which has effectively zero 'ether velocity' in the MM lab. Nor do I believe length contraction of space occurs. Time dilation can readily be explained in (3+1)D ontology, based on relativistic mass. The only length contraction that appears in measurements is the Doppler-based 'apparent length contraction', and possibly some material-based contraction under acceleration.

        Considering your employment, which I assume is based on full agreement with Minkowski, I decided there was little to be gained by arguing any of these points. Over the last two years I have found out in no uncertain terms that believers in special relativity can apply it to any problem, although I believe that they mix ontology when the apply it in acceleration and rotation situations. Thus I did not rate your essay, as that seemed inappropriate.

        What is your belief about relativistic mass? I looked again and did not find it in your essay.

        My best wishes,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        The message did not reach, I am sending again.

        Dear Edwin,

        Glad to read your work again.

        I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

        While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

        I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

        Warm Regards, `

        Vladimir

          Dear Edwin,

          I think relativistic mass is an experimental fact - see:

          1. (PDF file): On Relativistic Mass - Appendix by the Editor to A. Einstein, Relativity[/I] (Minkowski Institute Press, Montreal 2018) - a volume with five works by Einstein (http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/mip/books/einstein.html)

          2. Mass does increase with velocity (http://www.minkowskiinstitute.org/relmass.html)

          Above I wrote "I think"; you also write "my view is". If interested in what should be done when there are so many people with so many different views of the same world, you could have a look at my latest reply on my essay's page.

          Best wishes,

          Vesselin

          Edwin:

          A new era dawns.聽 Old questions become quaint and historical.聽 Is the whole community ready?聽 Or is physical reality too dangerous for our collective understanding at this time?

          Dear Vesselin,

          On your page the suggested reply states: "one of the elements of the research strategy of the Minkowski Institute (Montreal) is to provide justification for excluding research directions. I am well-aware that some people will be outraged by such undemocratic intervention."

          There is already "exclusion of research directions"; such is inherent in entrenched establishments. The members of such establishments are human, hence essentially tribal, and "our tribe is always right."

          I quote McEachern in my essay:

          "...Planck observed a century ago, the problem is, theoretical physicists are not part-icularly adept at identifying that some things even are assumptions; with the result that 'self-evidently true' facts lead to long periods of stagnation, until these "facts" are eventually shown to be just idealistic false assumptions."

          Einstein built his false assumptions into his definition of 'inertial reference frame' and then based every relativity problem in terms of multiple inertial frames, automatically guaranteeing that multiple time frames are (falsely) assumed. Minkowski built his false assumptions into his 4D ontology.

          Special relativity is not the only area of physics that has false assumptions in its fundamentals, but all such areas have books, papers, lectures, professorships, and other investments that oppose any serious focus on such fundamental false assumptions. 'Political correctness' has nothing to do with it. It's the nature of the hierarchical establishment, period.

          The lack of real progress in 40 years is near proof of this state of physics, and many in these contests believe the dam may be starting to break, but that's probably optimistic.

          Best wishes,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Vladimir,

          I reread your essay and once again agree that

          "It is assumed in the work that the device of the Universe is based on a single essence - a toroidal gravitational pilot wave. De Broglie pilot waves are vortices of deterministic turbulence in the material, dynamic and fractal medium of a physical vacuum."

          In single "free particle" instances, the particle is deterministic, while multiple such particles interacting non-linearly are effectively non-deterministic, and subject to quantum statistics.

          I encourage you to continue working based on your above assumptions.

          My best regards

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Edwin, I generally agree that mathematics shouldn't be subordinated to physics.

          But regarding your take on Relativity:

          Observer A is moving 10 seconds (sec) in time and is considered to be at rest. Observer B is moving uniformly at .9c relative to A, and so moves 9 light-seconds (ls) in that time. According to Relativity, and the Lorentz transformation, they will each observe the other's clock to have only ticked 4.36 sec (t' = t(sqrt(1-.9^2)) = 10*sqrt(.19) = 4.36.

          Now we need to consider the motion of a third body C relative to each. C is moving in the same direction as B. A and B will each agree that C passes a signpost at a definite point in space, but they will disagree on both how far away it is and at what time C reaches it.

          The clock on C will be, like the signpost, objects agreed upon by A and B, and C's clock can be given by B as

          t' = 4.36*sqrt(1-.9^2) = 1.9 sec.

          So returning to A, given C's clock at a distance of 10 ls according to A, C's distance traveled in 10 sec on A's Clock will be given by

          1.9 = 10(sqrt(1-s^2)) with s being the ls C travels in 10 sec on A's clock

          .19 = sqrt(1-s^2)

          .036 = 1-s^2

          s^2 = 0.964

          s = .98

          So while A observes B to be moving at .9c and B observes C to be moving at .9c in the same direction, A observes C to be moving at .98c

          You may think it absurd or counter-intuitive, but it is with Relativistic mathematics consistent with the physical world.

          For a simple, graphic explanation of Special Relativity, see:

          https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335989541_Special_Relativity_graphically_explained

            James you have not understood the issue, but apparently that has not kept you from knocking my score down with a 1 score.

            Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman!

            We agree with you that relativistic theory is a complex conceptual construction. And new interpretations of one or another of its conclusions are possible. For example, you write:

            "...He provided absolute space for each by effectively assigning each world its own 'ether', whereby light propagates with speed С in each world..."

            This is so, but a different conclusion can also be made: there are not many 'ethers', but one 'ether', which has zero speed relative to all reference frames. Why not? This is no more strange than the same speed C relative to all reference systems. Dear doctor Klingman! We are encouraged by the courage with which you discuss fundamental problems. Unfortunately, in modern science there is a lot of conformism and few breakthrough ideas.

            We hope that our essay "New ontology: algorithmic laws and the passage of time" will cause your positive interest.

            We have downloaded your publications from the site "vixra.org", and we will get to know them. We paid attention to the problems of the Quantum Spin. Please tell me, can it be argued that the energy of rotation is contained in the Quantum Spin of elementary particles, which can be converted into radiation energy? If so, we are getting a new direction for energy development. We are sure that this is how we have been reflecting on this problem for many years.

            Truly yours,

            Pavel Poluian and Dmitry Lichargin,

            Siberian Federal University.

              Dear Pavel and Dmitry,

              Thank you for your interesting comment and analysis. I agree that there are not many ethers but one ether, and hypothesize that it is the universal gravitational field that light propagates in. Unlike the ether expected by Michelson-Morley, it is not universally homogeneous, but locally defines a preferred frame, in conflict with Einstein's 'spacetime symmetry'. Einstein said that the existence of an ether would destroy relativity, yet post-1918 he accepted an ether as necessary for light to propagate in! Obviously the 'local ether' travelled with the MM lab so they detected "zero ether wind", to within their instrumental resolution. Because they were expecting a homogeneous universal ether their null result was interpreted to mean "no ether". Just a little bit more imagination would have changed the entire century of physics in a positive way!

              I noted in comments on your thread that Peter Jackson replicated Hafele-Keating and asked for a rationale, as to why "why east and west acceleration have the opposite effect on oscillation rates?"

              In my viXra:1812.0424 paper, "Everything's Relative, or is it?" on pages 45-52 I explain the HK and the Michelson-Gale experiments which are essentially unexplainable by relativity. The various Wikipedia-type explanations are based on "ontology-switching", which I believe is not legitimate, but is compatible with the fact that relativists ignore ontology and choose whichever is needed in a given situation, as if physical reality is "problem specific"!

              In your essay your AREAL set is an interesting model of time, compatible with the (3+1)D-ontology of 'presentism', in which past and future events are unreal. This is somewhat analogous to the Peano axioms, in which only the latest integer exists, identified with the 'moment', NOW. This algorithmic 'counting' of cycles is the basis of all measurements of time. As you say, "the functionality of a mechanical clock is one of the simplest algorithmically arranged processes."

              This of course differs from the 'experience of time', which is not measurement-based, as you seem to imply with your discussion of St Augustine.

              I believe that all axiomatized theories are algorithmic, and your analogy with Feynman's chess board appears appropriate.

              Thank you again for reading my essay, analyzing, and commenting.

              My best regards,

              Edwin Eugene Klingman