Dear Edwin,

I found your essay to be interesting and beautifully written. And I thought your explanation of the problems with Special Relativity, and a possible way of solving these problems using a different ontology, was very clear.

However, as you might realise, I disagree with your view of time (also your views about number and consciousness). As you say: "the problem is in the ontology, i.e., the nature of physical reality." I see a universe of subjects. I take the view that time is created by the subjective perception of discontinuous change, i.e. the creation of time is only representable as an algorithmic step, where there is a stepwise change in time whenever there is a perception of (what we might represent as) a stepwise change in number for a variable. I can't see time as a pre-existing universal dimension or continuum, i.e. something representable as a smoothly changing variable in an equation.

Re consciousness: I think it is necessary to consider how one would derive the information content of consciousness, which clearly consists of higher-level information categories like "food" "danger" "tiger", "songbird" and "striped". And how one would derive that content from the lower-level information categories (like light frequency/ wavelength) arriving via interactions with the eyes and ears.

Regards,

Lorraine

    Hi Lorraine,

    Thank you for your kind remarks.

    As I recall you live in Australia, and if I were to phone you we would probably both agree that it is "now" where each of us are, independent of position in the universe. I believe that the concept of 'absolute time' as 'universal simultaneity' is simply more useful than thinking that "time is created by the subjective perception of discontinuous change." Certainly 'awareness' of time is engendered by such, but the way things hang together throughout the physical universe goes deeper than subjective perception, I believe. I am not a solipsist in any way.

    I'm not sure I would describe time as "a pre-existing universal dimension" but mathematically, it is convenient to treat it as such. The question for physicists is whether the dimension varies with position, as the 4D ontology claims, or whether time and space are essentially unconnected, as (3+1)D-ontology supposes.

    As for "information content", while that is certainly a useful concept, I tend to avoid it today because too many people believe that "information is physical". The reality, in my opinion, is that "energy state transitions in a specific context" describes what actually happens without making any physical assumptions about "info as real".

    The question of algorithmic vs non-algorithmic consciousness is more complex. Clearly the fact that neural networks support logic points to algorithmic. But perception of shapes, for example, is, in my model, essentially non-algorithmic. I don't believe I "compute" the difference between a ball and a cube using logic. I really believe it operates as I described in my essay.

    Based on your many essays and comments over the years, I think we generally see the world in much the same light, but of course our preferred descriptions will never be identical; it's just too complex.

    Thanks again for reading my essay and thinking about it. I always enjoy hearing you viewpoint.

    Warmest regards,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Dear Dr. Klingman,

    You have well laid out how Einstein showed that reality is not just a simple given. The nature and structure of space and time even which is which is relative to states of motion (and in GR, acceleration too.) It seems a rather tight pivot to the next subject, of your concept of the Consciousness Field, but I understand the space (;-)) constraints here, and it being further explained in the references. If you can link that concept with the feature-building power of Wolfram's constructs, that would be a neat feat.

    BTW if any readers might take at look at my own piece, addressing the issue of the strong correlations of entanglement and how neo-mechanistic models of quantum physics aren't enough - it could use more votes on this last day. Thank you.

      Hi Neil,

      Thanks for your response. Yes, it was a pivot, and I only did it because of timeliness. I struck while the iron was hot.

      Since then I have been model building with Mathematica; not doing Wolfram's graphing but computing fields in an idealized axon cube or 'cell' with 12 edges and various flow patterns. I'm getting some very nice results!

      I've just reread your essay. As I've noted, Bell's qubit approach to Stern-Gerlach is simply wrong and a real 3D spin produces both the required correlation (purely local!) and the actual 'postcard' distribution of deflection states.

      Unfortunately I have not worked out the analogous analysis for photons, which are actually used in Bell tests. However your essay is a goldmine of information, so I have scored you highly.

      Best regards,

      Edwin Eugene Klingman

      A delightful essay Ed...

      I like to save some of the best for last, and you did not disappoint. I have fundamental agreement on several of your key points. You know what some of my sticking points are. But at this time the disagreement separating us is paper thin.

      I'll comment further but I want to get to a few more essays now. One of the best!

      Regards,

      Jonathan

      Edwin,

      Just as good on a fuller 'moderation' read through, so very much in line with Jonathans comments above. Reading so many a reminder is always good. Again we're close in just about all ways! It's now 03.00 in the UK so on my last scoring round way past my bedtime!

      Very best

      Peter

      Hi Edwin,

      Does the contextual interpretation you describe for SR apply also to GR? The contextual dissipative conceptual model (DCM) so nicely accommodates quantum mechanics and SR. If GR is also describable contextually as 3D space and universal time, I see no reason that DCM could not accommodate GR. And perhaps a path to quantum gravity.

      If you like to pursue this, please email.

      Best Regards, and good luck with the essay.

      Harrison

        Hi Harrison,

        In Phys Rev Lett 124,081301 (2020) Glavan and Lin note that, "According to Lovelock's theorem, Einstein's general relativity with cosmological constant is the unique theory of gravity if we assume (i) the space-time is (3+1) dimensional [plus three other conditions]."

        Einstein's non-linear field equations are not Lorentz transformable.

        An argument can be made that only special relativity supports the Lorentz transformation. In energy-time theory the gamma function of velocity applies to inertial mass, not to space and time. The inertial mass then causes moving clocks to slow down, since the restoring force that is the basis of all harmonic oscillations is resisted by the greater mass and hence the clocks count fewer oscillations in the same time period. This exactly matches 'time dilation' of special relativity, but has none of the nonsense implications of relativity.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        18 days later

        Hi Edwin...

        Thanks for digging deeper!!!... don't know why you are unable to view the UQS links?

        I tested them from my essay.pdf ... https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3483 ... no problem, and I daily get an average of 10 worldwide virtual visitors to the UQS open source on-line commentaries.

        The UQS website is http: not https:.. but I visited http://www.geneman.com/... and assuming your browser security settings allow you access to your website, it should not be the issue?

        In that most mathematicians, physicist, and philosophers, are some combination of two or more of these scientific disciplines, they frequently dabble in cross discipline inferences, and contextual clarification is a critical element in conveying cross discipline "we are on the same page" validity... i.e. given a CAD spatial quantization environment in which to verify context, metaphors for a Cosmic Consciousness are much more likely to converge, and to mitigate verbalization, I rely heavily on CAD illustrations in my open source on-line commentaries.

        In that semantics, as equations or poetry, or some combination, can not facilitate contextual clarification to the degree of detail necessary for us to discuss whether a Hydrogen Proton is "self-aware"?... and does it have logic circuitry to process field intelligence??... to facilitate the discussion, your ability to access the UQS Consciousness Investigation... www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php ... 3D CAD illustrations of the UQS Hydrogen proton model, is required.

        I have read, enjoyed, and 1st. draft re-viewed:

        CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009)

        TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of Consciousness by Edwin Eugene Klingman

        I will post my review to your 2009 Essay page, as soon as I get an edit on it.

        Thanks again...

        Sue Lingo

        UQS Author/Logician

        www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

        15 days later

        Hi Edwin...

        I was unable to add a new post to your FQXi Essay Contest (2009) CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Author Page, as per my Jun. 8, 2020 @ 06:53 GMT post to our thread above.

        In order to give continuity to what I consider a highly relevant discussion, I am herin posting a summary of my initial review (now essay length) of your - TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of Consciousness https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561.

        Your willingness to wager your credibility is admirable, and I suspect it has contributed significantly to subsequent FQXi Essay Categorical focus... i.e. effectively opened the flood gates for thought provoking discourse on risky, cross-discipline extrapolations.

        I might even be able to multi-task my verbose review of your 2009 essay, in its entirety, in terms of the next FQXi Essay.

        "In fact, the problem becomes, how does the universe emerge from consciousness, not how does consciousness emerge from matter."

        REF: Author Edwin Eugene Klingman Oct. 11, 2009 @ 00:37 GMT post to 2009 FQXi Author page... https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561

        Terminology... e.g. "PHYSICAL"... utilized to verbalize a Space-Time THEORY/CONCEPT without specifying the relevant Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL, inherently lacks definition in terms that can be correlated to FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of a specific Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL... i.e. "SPACE" and/or "MOTION ENTITY" must be graphically illustrated before any term that is defined in terms of "SPACE" and/or "MOTION ENTITY" can be given visual context within a specific Space-Time GEOMETRY MODEL.

        Correlation of conceptually derived terms, to FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of a specified GEOMETRY MODEL can be the key to convergence of seemingly incompatible THEORIES/CONCEPTS.

        SPECIFIC GEOMETRY MODEL EXAMPLE: UQS

        The Unified Quantization of a Sphere (UQS) resolves a single point source charge emission geometry, which graphically illustrates initial Space-Time REALITY emergence.

        REF: "DIFFERENTIATION of SPACE-TIME REALITY ENERGY by CAUSE ENERGY" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSMarcelMLTD.jpg

        The initial frame of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, graphically illustrates the root Space-Time logic entity... i.e. "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS"... as the Spaceless LOGIC SINGULARITY point... i.e. the ORIGIN of the UQS CAD environment... of transition/transformation between the Spaceless-Timeless CAUSE logic operatives and our Space-Time REALITY logic operatives.

        If CAUSE logic operatives facilitate a Spaceless "AWARENESS" of a Timeless NOW, the initial Space-Time graphically depicted logic element... i.e. "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS"... as the (0,0,0) coordinate of ORIGIN for the UQS CAD quantization, can acquire an "AWARENESS" of Self that is consistent with operatives of UQS Space-Time logic framework.

        On key-frame 2 of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, initialization of the UQS CAD environment, graphically illustrates an "AWARENESS" of Space-Time INTELLLIGENCE, as the available address/occupancy structure of the 3D GEOMETRY SINGULARITY that encapsulates the UQS Space-Time ORIGIN... i.e. the GEOMETRY SINGULARITY is the fixed graphic representation of a spatial Self-Aware "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS".

        REF: UQS Space-Time Differentiation Video (9sec.)... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzf6NlU8q4UQS

        Key-frame 3, QE Pulse-1-Open, of the UQS Space-Time Emission SIM, graphically illustrates a Timeless... i.e. Time as a single Q-Tick is undefined until QE emission Pulse-1-Close... "AWARENESS" of a CAUSE ENERGY sourced Time-Space ENERGY emission Pulse, as impetus... i.e. "VOLITION"... to make application of INTELLIGENCE... i.e. the address structure... to spontaneously harmoniously resolve initial occupancy as 24 minimum/indivisible quanta of spatially defined ENERGY (QE), equally distributed within the 24 unified 2D planar minimum/indivisible quanta of SPACE (QI), as defined by the UQS 3D GEOMETRY SINGULARITY, and close Pulse-1-C as NOW.

        REF: "UQS P-1-Open/P-1-Close Illustration" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/GameQIscrnP-1.jpg

        The unified/uniformly defined QI address geometry structure of the UQS SINGULARITY expands infinitely in shells of radius = 1 UQS volumetric Base Unit (BU).

        REF: "UQS Root Architecture Illustration" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSWTEE.jpg

        As a consequence of UQS emergent composite circuit complexity hierarchies, the pulse sampling rate of subsequent Self-Aware entities/circuits within the UQs Space-Time logic frame, are progressively greater than 1QT, but as a consequence of a unified field address structure, all subsequent circuits inherit the properties of the initial Space-Time "COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS", and therefor all processes of "brain in the CONSCIOUSNESS field", can be reduced to the most FUNDAMENTAL GRAPHIC elements of the UQS GEOMETRY MODEL.

        Your theoretical explanation of "how matter (neutrinos, electrons, and quarks) derives from a "CONSCIOUSNESS field", suggest a definition of mass/"stuff" as hierarchal choreographies of QE.

        REF: "UQS Hydrogen Proton Illustration" http://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQSPAECST.jpg

        Observations of the "C-field as the weak force that transforms particles"... i.e. Energy Phenomena (PHE) events.. seemingly suggest mass/"stuff" density as a variable in C-field processes, but given an exponentially smaller minimum spatial resolution than that which is consistent with Plank's constant... REF:Stephen Wolfram ... those observations do not invalidate C-field mechanix having infinite range at QE resolution.

        I agree with your comment to [linK:fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3437]J.D. Crowell's 2019 FQXi Essay[/link] that we have "no need for new theory".

        In my comments to J.D. Crowell I reiterated your comment to him, I also insisted that what we do have an immediate and critical need for is conversions of speculative theories into CAD environment geometry/structural models, and I defined a "rigorous math model" as:

        ... requires all GEOMETRY ELEMENTS... i.e. as elements of spatial definition... are derived from a digitally coded CAD environment quantization algorithm that is codec compliant with the CAD engine.

        ... requires all GRAPHIC ELEMENTS... e.g. minimum/indivisible spatial unit (QI), minimum/indivisible icon/sprite (QE) that experiences SIM animation... are defined in terms of (x,y,z) coordinates to pass to the CAD engine.

        Note: if the THEORY/CONCEPT requires an EMERGENT INTELLIGENC, the quantization of the CAD environment must be a unified field... i.e. one in which an identical geometry algorithm generates all spatial occupancy addresses (QI).

        ... requires all EMMISION and subsequent DISTRIBUTION PROCESSES... i.e. (x,y,z) transformations of GRAPHIC ELEMENTS from time 0 to SIM duration time... be digitally coded to output (x,y,z) coordinates for pass to the SIM module of the CAD engine.

        I have completed the above "rigorous math model" code requirements for UQS, and coding of a preferably cross platform CAD/SIM interactive environment to utilize my code, can be outsourced to any game developer with 3D OpenGL/vulcan/dirextX experience. or to a CAD/SIM app developer.

        Admirably, J.D. Crowell replied: "I am looking for good CAD/SIM modelers. Do you have a recommendation?".

        In that an EMERGENT INTELLIGENCE .. i.e. the ability to resolve the next SIM frame without external (perturbative) input... necessitates an additional level of complexity to a CAD/SIM interactive environment, Info Process Emergence, 3D kinematic Sequencing, and Artificial Intelligence, expertise is required.

        The alpha version of the UQS Virtual Quantum Lab/Game (UQSVQLG), associates EMERGENT INTELLIGENCE with an INFERENCE module that reads conditional CAD (x,y,z) data, and compares QE choreography differentials between Pulse-Open/Pulse-Close sequenced frames of the SIM, to digitally code the UQSVQLG Technician's/Gamer's binary visual resolve procedural... i.e. VOLITION?.. .as a SWITCH FUNCTION, and with an AVAILABLE INTELLEGENC module that logs all emergent switches and conditional dictates for access by Lab Tech/Gamer resolve of subsequent QE/QI Pulse-Close.

        The intended function of the UQSVQLG as an interactive CAD/SIM environment, is to formulate Lab Tech/Gamer procedural sequences, as digital code to augment human VOLITION limitations, with digital process assistance... i.e. at UQS Emission Pulse 75, it is evident that as a consequence of specifying a unified address geometry structure, the graphic elements and logic switch types are exquisitely finite, but the Lab Tech can no longer sequence the switches, or verify on a per pulse basis that the solution is consistent with conditional dictates, whose per pulse emergence diminishes on subsequent pulses, but are most probably infinite.

        My recommendation would be to establish a collaboration of a sagacious Physicist with Micro Processor Design expertise, "Animation Master" Martin Hash, and "Mathmatica" author/logician Stephen Wolfram.

        "FUNDAMENTAL" as a GEOMETRY MODEL selection criteria implies least INITIAL STATE inferences/assumptions, and any GEOMETRY MODEL candidate that warrants investigation must survive rigorous INITIAL STATE analysis... REF: "Directionally Unbiased Point Source Emission www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/UQST-TVNH.php... but "It is unlikely that there will be more than one such correct model." ... REF: E. Fredkin; 'Five Big Questions With Pretty Simple Answers'... IBM Journal Res. & Dev., Vol. 48, No. 1, Jan. 2004.

        It is highly likely that the "correct model" can be verified by graphical/visual analysis of "FUNDAMENTAL" process SIMs within specified CAD geometry candidate environments.

        Sue Lingo

        UQS Author/Logician

        www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

          Hi Edwin...

          Just discovered some browsers may no longer allow subdirectory access links... i.e. all subdirectory links go to the UQS Home page... and it will be necessary for me to recode all .html subdirectory link in all my webpages.

          I already have done so to facilitate your access to the subdirectory links in the above post from the UQS Home page:

          Scroll down to:

          UQS: Social Media and Forum

          Click:

          Log Update: 05/28/20... (this links to an .html duplicate of my FQXi author communications)

          Text search:

          Sue Lingo wrote on Jun. 23, 2020 @ 05:14 GMT... (this is a duplicate of my above post w/ corrected links)

          Thanks for your patience.

          Sue Lingo

          UQS Author/Logician

          www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com

          Hi Edwin...

          Not a browser issue as reported above... i.e. apparently my ISP "tweaked" their user webpage functions.

          The resulting dysfunctionality has been brought to their attention, and is being investigated.

          May tenacity prevail in all things digital!!!

          sl

          Write a Reply...