Increasingly, it seems, there is talk of consciousness being a fundamental aspect of matter. But there is not much talk about the nature of this consciousness.

I contend that consciousness is a functional aspect of matter; consciousness is the necessary information, about matter and its local surroundings, that a viable system needs in order to operate. This type of basic-level consciousness can be symbolically represented in something like the following form:

(category1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (category2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (category3=number3 IS TRUE),

where the categories are basic-level categories like mass and position.

However, how come that where 2 entangled particles are separated by large distances, a change in one of the particles A could have a physical effect on the other particle B? (As I contended above, both A and B only have information about themselves and their local surroundings.)

Without resorting to wildly hypothesising that a new type of particle which would violate causality, tachyons, must exist, it is clear that “law of nature” relationships between categories, while they are an integral part of the structure of the world, they are independent of space and time. These “law of nature” relationships between categories, taken seriously, are seemingly the only things that could potentially explain an A-B outcome that is independent of distance and time.

Is physics taking these “law of nature” relationships between categories seriously, when it comes to causality?

It seems truly absurd that physicists don’t yet see any difference between a pile of equations and a genuine viable system.

A pile of equations is pretty useless because, despite the optimistic use of delta symbols, nothing moves.

Physicists might themselves move the equations and numbers in their minds, or by writing another line of symbols on paper or screen, but they never seem to notice that their own mental and physical involvement is required to make it all work.

The difference between what is represented by a pile of equations and a genuine viable moving system lies in the aspects of the real world that are represented by the following types of symbols: IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN. These symbols represent the causal properties that animate systems and subsystems.

These multipurpose logical/ algorithmic symbols can be used to represent the necessary causal aspects of the real-world system. And they can also be used, together with other types of symbols, to represent the necessary inputs to the system, that are required in order to build the vertical hierarchy going from atoms to particles to molecules to living things.

(People have been labouring under the mistaken idea that “emergence” just naturally happens. But in fact, the plot of the Mandelbrot set shows otherwise: something new seems to emerge, but this is only because the man-made algorithm is made to repeatedly and systematically input something new to every point on the plane on which it is plotted.)

There IS input to the world. A quantum number jump, by a particle or other matter, in response to a situation, IS the input of new number information to the world, where this number applies to a category like the position category.

A number, that applies to a category, is not the type of thing that can morph into another number.

So, it seems that number jumping is the ONLY way that the world can move forward, because the equations, i.e. the relationships between the categories, can only implement number movement IF some other number movement has been initiated for the other categories in the equations.

The only way that the world can move forward is by the input of new information to the world, where this new information is a natural ratchet on the system: there is no going backwards in time.

How does the world work/ function?

A set of equations and numbers, on paper or screen, does not model or represent how the world works.

A set of equations and numbers, on paper or screen, mentally and physically controlled by a human being (e.g. a mathematician or physicist) can more closely model how the world works.

It is the consciousness and agency aspects of human beings (that can be symbolically represented by algorithmic/ logical symbols) that allow a set of equations and numbers to work as a system.

I.e., the world requires consciousness-like and agency-like aspects in order to work/ function.

While people continue to look for special, amazing, equations that will explain the world, the fact is that there are aspects of the world, including aspects of the low-level mathematics of the world, that are not covered by equations.

“Law of nature” equations, i.e. relationships between categories, with their associated numbers, are necessary to the world, but they CAN’T explain what happens in the world.

Looking at the nitty-gritty step-by-step mechanics of how mathematics itself works: mathematics can only ever work because of non-mathematical aspects of the world.

These necessary non-mathematical aspects can be represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols. But these algorithmic/ logical connective symbols represent aspects of the world that can’t be explained: they can’t be broken down into component parts.

So, it is not enough to describe the world in terms of equations/ relationships and numbers. At the heart of what is happening in the world, the following aspects are necessary if you want to have a viable moving real-world system (and these aspects can be represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols):

  • The matter of the world (particles, atoms, molecules, cells and other living things including human beings) needs to know itself and its surroundings; and
  • The matter of the world needs to initiate movement by jumping its own numbers (whereby other numbers also jump due to the “law of nature” mathematical relationships between the categories).

I guess it is because they are not also professional Systems Analysts, that professional Mathematicians, Physicists and Philosophers seem to have no idea why a set of physics’ equations and numbers cannot represent a viable moving system.

A viable moving system needs aspects whereby the system can interrogate or know its own numbers, and a viable moving system needs aspects whereby the system can jump its own numbers. These separate, necessary, aspects are not covered or dealt with or represented by physics’ equations and numbers, even when the equations include delta symbols.

A computer with its computer programs can symbolically represent a viable system. But in a computer, the numbers and equations are symbolically represented by organised arrangements and arrays of higher and lower voltages and transistors: these are not the form in which the real-world numbers and equations exist.

When, oh when, are Mathematicians, Physicists and Philosophers going to perform a systems analysis on the real-world moving system?

    Lorraine Ford
    (

    Re my above paragraph: “A computer with its computer programs can symbolically represent a viable system. But in a computer, the numbers and equations are symbolically represented by organised arrangements and arrays of higher and lower voltages and transistors: these are not the form in which the real-world numbers and equations exist.”

    It should be remembered that the real-world categories, equations (relationships between the categories) and numbers are what physicists represent with their special man-made symbols.

    But the real world doesn't "know about" the symbols; the real world only “knows about” the actual real-world categories, equations and numbers.

    Except for human beings, nothing knows about man-made symbols, on paper or screen, or inside the workings of computers/ AIs. Only people know what man-made symbols are meant to represent.

    Man-made symbols can be re-represented with other man-made symbols. But the real-world original source of the symbols is not itself a symbol, it is the real world. The real world is different to man-made symbols of the world. Duh.

    When are the people, who make comments on these FQxI blogs, going to stop ascribing knowledge/ consciousness of man-made symbols to computers/ AIs?

    )

      Forget about “causality”, because physics hasn’t got any variety of “cause”.

      Physics has no cause for the existence of the distinctive and unique relationships between categories that are represented by the “law of nature” equations.

      Physics has no cause for the existence of the initial number jumps, where numbers were initially assigned to the categories in the equations, causing a consequential movement/ jump in other numbers due to the relationships between the categories. At this point all movement pretty well stops because there is no cause for the numbers to keep moving.

      Physics has no cause for the continuation of movement. I.e. physics has no cause for the continuation of number jumps, where new numbers are assigned to the categories in the equations, causing a consequential movement/ jump in other numbers due to the relationships between the categories.

      In other words, the equations and numbers of physics do not constitute a viable, moving system.

      In order to represent a viable, moving system, “cause” needs to be symbolically represented, and as we already know from computer systems, cause can only be symbolically represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols.

      6 days later

      Claudio Marchesan
      Hi Claudio,
      I think that the belief that faster than light equates to backwards in time is wrong. So no proofreading before you write your post.
      Cheers
      Dave

        Claudio Marchesan Who knows! Perhaps in the future this paradox, with its implications for causality and the nature of communication, will be presented to students in a philosophy lesson, just as today we analyze Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise to explore the limits of our intuition about the continuous.

        To me, the crux of the matter arises from the very nature of the calculation system: does the tachyon break clocks synchronization? This paradox is an invitation to rethink our logical foundations.

        But how can the synchronization of clocks belonging to the same light cone be broken?

        This story suggests that a tachyonic telephone cannot connect regions within the same light cone: their ability to communicate would produce a causality paradox. However, quantum entanglement exists, and whether or not we call it “tachyon” changes little; therefore, our conclusion is that some form of superluminal communication can occur regardless of the frame of reference. It is evident that whatever the nature of this “mediator”, it does not respect the Lorentz transformation: the gamma factor is imaginary. In Alice's frame of reference, she cannot calculate when Bob will receive the signal, but this does not imply that Bob will not receive it. To know when, she only needs to ask Bob with a traditional communication.

        From all this, compact dimensions are not necessarily deduced, and the undivided universe is not excluded.

        In the case of entanglement, the measurement performed on particle A causes the collapse of the state of the other, B. This represents a cause-effect relationship, in reference frame B. Here, the cause triggered by A precedes the effect on B, and from this perspective the tachyon cannot reverse the arrow of time, thus preserving causality.

        The no-communication theorem, about the impossibility of transmitting information superluminally via entanglement, doesn't change the fundamental issue of its non-local correlations, which remain puzzling in the context of relativity.

        Hi Claudio,
        I enjoyed your deep analysis of the issue. However I disagree that tachyonic communication within the same light cone would cause a causality paradox. In my model (previously described in various essays) all particles (fermions) are superluminally entangled via their em field. (in essence a tachyon is my virtual gluon). Quantum measurements that collapse the wavefunction (destroy the coherence between entangled fermions) preserve causality as you suggest. But the decoherence also occurs naturally without measurements being made. That is a big issue with quantum computers. How do we preserve entanglement over large distances and times? In fact it is interesting to consider how we actually entangle a system in the first place. I think it may be possible in the future to use magnetic fields for faster than light communication (breaking the no communication theorem) since my model allows superluminal fields as distinct from em radiation which is limited to c in a vacuum, or <c in other mediums.
        Synchronization of clocks in relativity is via light (em radiation) which is subject to c, and hence has simultaniety issues.
        I think of time, for each defined volume of space, as being proportional to the inverse of the energy in that volume of space. Hence time interval is a scalar property of each defined volume of space, which is bristling with energy from fields and particles traversing through it, as well as from its inherent cosmological energy. This makes a natural NOW impossible (except for LaPlace's demon), unless we use the tick of a master clock as the expansion of the aether, about which we currently know very little. All of our 'intended' communication is via em radiation which thus subject to relativity, hence having simultaneity issues. Causality is only broken if we allow time to flow backwards. Superluminal whatevers do not mean backward in time!
        My FTL communication will only work if I am correct about the distinction between fields and radiation. Having worked in EMC for over 40 years, I now consider fields to be part of every fermion (hence field particle duality, although I think of it as unity) Modulation of a field produces em radiation. However it may be possible to modulate the magnetic component only and receive a signal before the em disturbance arrives at the speed of light. This may become an active area of research in the future I hope.
        Cheers
        Dave

          Lorraine Ford Why bother with hypothesizing that particles might exist that move faster than the speed of light and travel backwards in time?

          What is time anyway? And what is a particle anyway? And what about “laws of nature” which are relationships that, obviously, definitely exist, but are independent of categories like time and space and mass, and are not subject to restrictions like the speed of light?

          "Laws of nature" exist, they seemingly in effect create time and space and mass, but they clearly can't exist IN time or space or mass. Do people ever take law of nature relationships seriously, or do people want relationships to exist IN time and space, hence hypothesizing that "signalling" is required?

          Hi Lorraine,
          Good questions that I guess we all grapple with.
          In my reductionist thinking there are only particles and force laws. I have it simplified down to two types of particle and two force laws (attraction and repulsion). Everything else is emergent. Still, as we "emergent creatures" exist in our "emergent time and space" it is only natural that we think in terms of relationships that require signalling and causality.
          Our modelling of our emergent universe is done both with mathematics and algorithmic calculations. What seems to be important in my thinking is that we skuld or sentient creatures can choose to "stop" whereas our calculation systems aka computers cannot choose.
          Cheers
          Dave

              Hi Dave,
              Thanks for your thoughtful and stimulating reply. I'm still not fully equipped to explore the quantum mechanical aspects in depth, but I'm currently studying them to eventually propose a hypothesis—related to my model—for the quantum vacuum. In fact, if you've published anything on the vacuum, I’d be very interested in reading it.

              I found your remarks on decoherence and entanglement particularly stimulating. It’s striking that entanglement can degrade even without measurements, simply through interaction with the environment. This natural decoherence presents a major challenge for quantum computing and also raises fundamental questions about how entanglement is established in the first place. Perhaps this difficulty in both preserving and creating entanglement reflects a deeper complexity in how particles interact with the quantum vacuum and their surrounding energy fields.

              As for causality and communication, I believe the Tolman paradox concerns the type of relativistic calculation that can no longer be applied in this context. However, quantum entanglement undeniably exists. Whether or not we call the "mediator" a tachyon may be just a matter of naming. The correlations it enables are superluminal and frame-independent.

              Whether entanglement collapse is triggered by a measurement or by some spontaneous event affecting one particle, that event is the cause, and it precedes the effect on the other particle (even if "simultaneity" in this context is disturbing). You also seem to reject the notions of simultaneity and absolute time.

              That said, I think we should be very clear about what violating relativity implies. There’s no doubt that the Lorentz factor is imaginary in these scenarios—so perhaps the implications go beyond just communication issues.

              Your assertion about superluminal fields and their distinction from EM radiation is intriguing and will require some time on my part to study carefully.

              If you can, I’d also love to see a link to any of your publications on FTL communication.

              Best,
              Claudio

              DAVE
              Hi Dave,
              You claim that things emerge. But, in fact, you need to input/ inject, often repeatedly input/ inject, something new into a system if you want something else new to emerge in the system.

              The only things that you could potentially input to the system are new equations involving entirely new categories, or you could input modified equations, and/or you could assign new numbers to one or more categories (e.g. mass or position) in the existing equations. In other words, nothing mysteriously emerges out of the blue, for no reason.

              To represent the above you need to use algorithmic/ logical connective symbols to represent any input/ injection into the system, as well as the usual symbols for equations, categories and numbers.

              But then these algorithmic/ logical connective symbols, which represent what is driving the system, clearly represent entirely different, but necessary, aspects of the real-world system, aspects that are not covered or represented by the “law of nature” equations.

                  Lorraine Ford
                  One of the dodgiest ideas of science and mathematics is the idea of emergence, the idea that order emerges out of chaos.

                  But, despite any superficial appearances, outcomes have no order, order DOESN’T emerge.

                  Order exists on the inside, not on the outside: the ONLY order exists in the underlying equations, the number assignments, and the algorithms that drive a system.

                    Via experiments, physicists have basically found nothing more than relationships between categories (categories like mass and position etc.), and they represent these relationships with equations.

                    But it is completely laughable to believe that equations alone can represent a complete and viable moving real-world system.

                    In fact, physics has no CAUSE, no reason for the numbers (that apply to the categories in the equations) to ever move or jump.

                    Instead, physics ASSUMES that number movement occurs, assumes that there is a system that moves. lol.

                    ..................................................................................................................

                    AGENCY:

                    And this is the issue with agency/ free will/ creativity: who or what is moving/ jumping the numbers?

                    NON-RIGOROUS people seem to be perfectly happy with superficial appearances. They subscribe to the idea that if it superficially looks like agency/ free will/ creativity, then it IS agency/ free will/ creativity. In fact, that view of agency/ free will/ creativity is no different to non-agency/ non-free will/ non-creativity: it is all superficial appearances.

                    But a RIGOROUS view of agency/ free will/ creativity asks: who or what is moving/ jumping the numbers?

                    Only genuine agency/ free will/ creativity, i.e. the ability of matter to jump some of its own numbers, can “[breathe] fire into the equations”, and create a viable moving real-world system:

                    “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

                      Lorraine Ford
                      The point is that physics only has “just a set of rules and equations”, as Stephen Hawking put it (see above).

                      Physics doesn’t have any causes. Physics has no cause for the real-world relationships (represented by equations with delta symbols) to ever exist. And physics has no cause for the real-world to ever move. I.e. physics has no cause for (what we would symbolically represent as) the numbers to start smoothly moving or jumping, and no cause for the numbers to keep smoothly moving or jumping.

                      In other words, physicists can’t reasonably make any claims about agency/ free will/ creativity at all, because physics doesn’t have any cause or reason for the numbers to move: the equations of physics merely ASSUME that number movement exists.

                      So, when physicists make claims about agency/ free will/ creativity, it is clear that they have made invalid assumptions about the real-world: they have ASSUMED number movement without having any cause or reason for number movement.

                        Re "Does AI Already Have Free Will?", Sabine Hossenfelder, 20 Jun 2025, youtube.com/watch?v=YdL3QDzaPrE:

                        Sabine Hossenfelder, and the philosopher Frank Martela, have a very superficial view of “agency” in the real world:

                        (1:41) How much agency a system has depends on how much of its behaviour can be predicted by external input. The more predictable, the less agency. The behaviour of a toaster for example is strongly determined by external input. You push a button, it toasts. Therefore, philosophers would say, a toaster has no agency, it has no free will. If you push a human being, results are varied and only rarely toast. So, humans have a lot of agency. … (4:34) … humans don’t have real agency because our ultimate goals were determined by the laws of nature. …

                        So, this “agency” is a merely superficial description, which is made up of a combination of the inability to predict “random [elements] that [come] from quantum effects”, and the inability to predict outcomes if a part of the system (e.g. a human being) is too complex.

                        Similarly, Frank Martela’s “criteria for free will” are superficial high-level descriptions of situations, and he includes the very dodgy concept of “choice”.

                        But there is a problem with these views, because physicists and philosophers have wrongly assumed that physics already has a complete model of a viable, functioning, moving real-world system.

                        But physics DOESN’T have a complete model of a functioning real-world system, because physics has no causes or reasons for the numbers to ever jump/ change; physics just assumes number change. Physics only has “just a set of rules and equations”, as Stephen Hawking put it:

                        “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

                        Agency is not a superficial description; genuine agency is all about who or what causes low-level number jumps/ number movement in the real-world system.

                        Hi everyone,

                        the relativistic propagator of a massive particle in quantum mechanics assigns a non-zero probability amplitude even for spacelike intervals. This implies that, regardless of whether the particle can be precisely localized, there is a non-zero probability that it may be detected at a separation implying a superluminal velocity.

                        As a result, observers within a timelike interval might record the emission of the particle at a time t₁ and its detection at a time t₂ with t₂ > t₁ — preserving a cause-effect ordering. However, other observers, equally valid under Lorentz transformations, might observe the reverse temporal order, with t₁ > t₂.

                        If we want to uphold the principle that causality cannot depend on the observer, then we must recognize that what is being questioned is not causality itself, but rather our ability to calculate the order of events when the model we rely on — such as special relativity — becomes insufficient or breaks down.

                        In other words:
                        the cause always precedes the effect, but our model might no longer be able to determine exactly when and how. This does not imply that causality is violated — only that our calculational framework has reached its limit of applicability.

                          Claudio Marchesan
                          Hi Claudio,

                          You have used high-level human words to describe something about the world. But isn’t it true that you can’t describe the underlying low-level world using high-level human words? That is why, as a result of experiments, physics represents the world mathematically, i.e. in terms of categories, relationships/ equations and numbers.

                          But these categories, relationships and numbers can’t explain the following aspects of the world:

                          1. How come the world knows (observes?) its own categories, relationships and numbers? What aspect of the world knows?
                          2. How come the numbers are moving? What aspect of the world is continually initiating number movement?

                          These aspects of the world can only potentially be represented using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols: using high-level human words is sure to cause philosophical-type problems.

                            Hi Lorraine,

                            Thanks again for your reflections. From the standpoint of physics, I believe I’ve already addressed most of your points in my previous posts. Many of the further questions you raise—such as what it means for the world to "know" its own categories or for numbers to "move"—go beyond what physics, as currently formulated, can answer. These questions are closer to the realm of philosophy, and while certainly fascinating, they lie outside the domain I’m focusing on.

                            In my last post, I mentioned the relativistic propagator — a version that doesn't allow us to distinguish between a positive-energy particle moving forward in time and a negative-energy one moving backward. That example was meant to highlight that even in physics, things are not always as intuitively clear or settled as they may seem. We should not always take physics as self-evident or complete.

                            With that said, I think I’ve already shared what I can in this context. Thank you again for your engagement.

                            Best regards,
                            Claudio