Lorraine Ford
A good essay with super radical ideas for a great discussion and interested brainstorming on the basics of knowledge.
About "existence", "matter", "movement" and "numbers".

John Archibald Wheeler, "unsung paragon of science", left important philosophical testaments to theoretical physicists:
"We are no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."
"To my mind there must be, at the bottom of it all, not an equation, but an utterly simple idea. And to me that idea, when we discover it, will be so compelling, so inevitable, that we will say to one another, 'Oh, how beautiful. How could it have been otherwise?'"

A good testament to understanding matter as a holistic generating process was left by Albert Einstein:
“I like to experience the universe as one harmonious whole. Every cell has life. Matter, too, has life; it is energy solidified."

The modern conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical/ontological basis of fundamental science is, first of all, a "crisis of understanding" ("J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), and as a result - mutual understanding between scientists and people. Mathematics also has problems with foundations for more than a hundred years, manifesting itself as a "loss of certainty" ((Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"). "Loss of certainty" and in logic (D. Zaitsev "True, following and modern logic").
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences A. Zenkin notes in "" SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS":
"Thirty years ago, for the sake of sporting interest, I began to collect various "logics" used in modern logico-mathematical treatises. When their number crossed the second hundred, it became clear: if logic can be chosen "to taste" (or even constructed "according to need" ), then such a thing as "science" becomes simply inappropriate here.
Perhaps, the situation in some sense resembles the famous "Babylonian" epic: the sounds-symbols of abstract speeches are almost the same, and each has its own meaning, if any. How the First Babylon ended is described in the Bible ... "
As a result, A. Zenkin concludes "the truth must be drawn ..."
[http://www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm]

Unfortunately, you do not give a definition of MATTER. And this is very important! Today, a new understanding of matter is needed on the basis of the paradigm of the world as an holistic generating process, taking into account the testament of the mathematician and philosopher V. Nalimov - the construction of a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World." ("The Self-Aware Universe" ) https://web.archive.org/web/20111205183605/http://v-nalimov.ru/articles/111/395/
I agree with the main thoughts of V. Nalimov: "We know that the spatial perception of physical reality is set not so much by the World around us, but by the ability initially given to our consciousness to see the World as spatially ordered. We can also learn to perceive the World of meanings spatially if we are able to way to set the image of the semantic field. So we can geometrize our ideas about consciousness and create a language close to the language of modern physics. "... But I do not agree with the approach of V. Nalimov...
So, based on the paradigm of the world as an holistic generating process, MATTER is that from which all meanings, forms, structures are born.
Understanding is "events of grasping the structure" (G. Gutner "Ontology of mathematical discourse").
Note that N. Bourbaki in his work "ARCHITECTURE OF MATHEMATICS", introduced a good concept of parent / generative structure "les structure mère ", but they do not give the main generating structure of "La Structure Mère ".
Also in physics and cosmology.
Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Yu.S.Vladimirov notes in the article "PRINCIPLES OF METAPHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS" (No. 1, 2017, page 10):

<<At present, the main goal of theoretical physicists is to build a holistic (monistic) physical picture of the world based on a single generalized category. At this point in time, it is "seen" (interpreted) differently from the standpoint of the three named paradigms: a single vacuum in the field theory approach, a single geometry in the geometric worldview, or a single system of relations (structure) in the relational worldview. In our opinion, these are different names for the same desired physical (metaphysical) first-beginning.>>
[https://lib.rudn.ru/file/Метафизика%20№1_23_2017%20печать.pdf]
But Yu.Vladimirov does not give a "single generalized category", which will be the basis not only for the "sciences about Nature", but also for the "sciences about the spirit". As a result, there is no structure of a single "physical (metaphysical) first-beginning".

So, returning to the philosophical testament of John A. Wheeler, in order to understand "EXISTENCE itself" means to "grasp" (understand) the nature of the primordial TENSION of the Cosmos. And for this it is necessary to "grasp" the primordial ontological structure of matter as an eternal holistic process of generating more and more new meanings, forms and structures (material and ideal). That is, to build a model "being-nothing/otherbeing-becoming", taking into account all the modern achievements of science and problems in the foundations of knowledge ("crisis of understanding").

On the nature of numbers. There is such a good metaphysical maxim:
"God created the Universe according to the Logos. Numbers are the work of man."
The Logos is understood in the spirit of Heraclitus as the LAW (meta-law) that governs the Cosmos. By the way, the concept of "meta-law" is used by Lee Smolin in "Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe".

So, There are three and only three absolute forms of existence of matter (absolute states) - an integral generative triad: absolute rest (linear state, Absolute Continuum) + absolute motion (vortical, circular, Absolute Discretuum) + absolute becoming (absolute wave, Absolute DisContinuum). What is especially important: each absolute form of the existence of matter has its own ONTOLOGICAL PATH (bivector of the absolute state). Accordingly, SPACE (absolute, ontological, existential) has three ontological dimensions and nine gnoseological dimensions. It is necessary to “dig” deeper into ontology in order to “grasp” the MetaNoumenon — ONTOLOGICAL (structural, cosmic) MEMORY, “soul of matter”, its measure. Ontological (structural, cosmic) memory is that "nothing" that holds, preserves, develops and directs matter (enteleschia, nous, Aristotelian mind, "prime mover"). Physicists at one time threw out the absolute rest of matter from the picture of the world. This is the main mistake.

About "artificial intelligence". This concept is a marketing metaphor. And this metaphor misleads the mind. The adding machine can also be called "artificial intelligence".. Philosophically true: "artificial quasi-intelligence".

That is, the Big Ontological revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics".
A.N. Whitehead: “A precise language must await a completed metaphysical knowledge.”
P. Florensky: “We repeat: worldunderstanding is spaceunderstanding."

      Vladimir Rogozhin
      Just a brief initial reply:

      Thanks for your kind review/ evaluation of my essay.

      I agree that I have not defined “matter”. I was aware of that, but I am leaving it open at this stage (in my own mind) in order to discuss other aspects of the world, that I think physics needs to clarify.

        Vladimir Rogozhin
        Re “MATTER is that from which all meanings, forms, structures are born”:
        I appreciate what you are saying, but I have a slightly different view, a more specific view. Firstly, physics has shown that very specific things about the world are true. Physics has shown, there is no question about it, that the physical world has a certain type of structure: measurable categories that only exist in relationship to other such categories, where the result of measurement is a number. I would go further and say that this type of category-relationship structure is necessary, because one can’t build a world out of things that have no relationship to other things. For example, you can’t build a world out of numbers alone, e.g. numbers represented using the binary digit number system, because unlike categories, numbers are things that have no inherent relationship to anything else. This alone does not explain what matter is, but it is part of the answer.

        Secondly, the physics’ view does not explain why the world is moving and changing: though physics’ law of nature equations acknowledge the fact of change, they do not explain change. The physics’ view is that nothing causes “random” number jumps; my view is that matter causes its own number jumps; i.e. matter has limited free will over some of its own numbers, where this number change can in turn cause other numbers to change, due to lawful relationships. This might correspond to your “MATTER is that from which all … forms, structures are born”.

        Thirdly, the physics’ view does not explain what consciousness is. My view is that the unmeasurable aspect of consciousness is all about the unmeasurable logical connectives (IF, THEN, AND, OR, IS TRUE) and the unmeasurable mathematical operators that link the world. This might correspond to your “MATTER is that from which all meanings … are born”.

          Complaints department:

          • At least one essay author revealed his/ her actual name, by replying to another essay author using their actual name instead of their pseudonym: presumably they should be disqualified?

          • One essay (a good essay) appeared for the first time only 8 hours ago on the QSpace Essay Competition forums!

          • Some essays (mine included) have no, or less than 3 ratings. Every essay author was assigned 3 essays to “review” (this means “rate”) so that their own essay would be “eligible for review by the Expert Panel”. So presumably every essay should end up with at least 3 ratings, if the system was working the way it was supposed to work.

          ……………..

          Note that, unlike other essay authors, I have every right to complain.

          Seemingly the majority of essay authors believe that every outcome is some combination of inevitability and randomness, so they have no right to complain if the outcome of inevitability and randomness was (e.g.) the rejection of their arXiv paper. If they were truly consistent in their beliefs, their complaints should be directed to the universe; let them impotently rage against the unfairness of the universe’s inevitability and randomness.

          I, on the other hand, am saying that people (shock! horror!) actually, at least partially, create their own outcomes: I am saying that people are literally responsible for their own outcomes. I have every right to complain about what people do, because I believe that the FQxI people and the arXiv people are genuinely responsible for what they do.

          You say:

          "These isolated numbers are concepts that exist in
          subjective consciousness, and they would seemingly have physical correlates that exist
          in a person’s brain, but just like fairy tales, they only exist in the human imagination, they
          can’t exist anywhere else.

          You seem to be rejecting the idea that numbers have anything to do with the physical world. This makes no sense to me. We have numbers everywhere.

            Roger Schlafly
            As I commented to you on your own essay page, the real physical world, including bodies, brains, and the physical correlates of consciousness, is built out of real-physical-world categories (examples would be mass, energy, position), real-physical-world lawful relationships, and real-physical-world numbers. Number symbols are used by people to represent these real-physical-world numbers, when people measure the real physical world.

            There is an enormous difference between the real physical world (e.g. a real-world number associated with relative position) and the symbols that people use to represent aspects of the real physical world (e.g. a string of number symbols). Although symbols may be made out of measurable physical matter, the symbol aspect of the matter only exists from the point of view of people. Symbols, including number symbols, are things that only exist in the human imagination: they don’t exist “out there” in the real physical world.

            What I am saying in my essay is:

            “Science could progress if physicists … examined the essential differences between what can actually exist, and what can only exist in individual subjective human minds and imaginations.”

              Dear CornflowerCicada,
              I completely agree with you that “matter is the causal entity”, which has “additional powers” - to move.
              I caught myself not answering this very important question in my essay, which you voiced in your essay - “Why is the universe moving?”. Therefore, I immediately appreciated your essay.
              Unfortunately, on this site, not many will be able to understand what you were trying to say.
              In my opinion, you have chosen an unfortunate form by assigning changes in numbers to moving matter, instead of using changes in the parameters of the movement of matter elements.
              In my essay, I focused on the problems of tendentious interpretation of the results of experiments and actually came to understand the reason for the motion of the elements of matter relative to each other.
              The driving force of motion of the elements of matter is the gravitational potential in the material soliton gravitational field. Those. any element of matter in a gravitational field is affected by a force in the direction that corresponds to the minimization of the interaction energy in a soliton gravitational field, which consists of particles of matter and which also move along approximately circular trajectories, being in potential wells. Those. the gravitational field drags the orbiting bodies.
              For example, it was experimentally established by the "Pioneers" that all the planets of the solar system revolve around the Sun in toroidal gravitational fields of pilot wave potential holes. The gradient of the gravitational potential of the toroidal field is equal to the gravitational potential in orbit from the Sun, but the gradients are oppositely directed. Therefore, Nature does not waste energy on the formation of the force of attraction to the Sun and the force of centrifugal inertia. Those. Newton's law between cosmic bodies does not apply.
              According to the same principle of formation of pilot wave potential wells, all elements of matter from micro to macrostructures of the Universe are forced to move.
              This understanding of potential pits must be at the heart of another Science.
              I wish you success!

                Vladimir Fedorov
                Thanks for taking a look at my essay, and thanks for the good wishes, and good luck to you too. But what my essay says about number change seems to be the exact opposite of your lengthy description of your own essay. And I never said or implied any such thing: "you have chosen an unfortunate form by assigning changes in numbers to moving matter, instead of using changes in the parameters of the movement of matter elements". I am not taking seriously your statement that you “immediately appreciated [my] essay”.

                  What CeruleanJackal says, and his essay, seem to be a good example of the error in thinking of many physicists (not including the QBists), and their unthinking followers:

                  In these people’s imaginations, and written papers and essays, all cause, all movement, and all outcomes, can be completely sewn up at the ground level of reality, leaving human beings, and what human beings do, to be mere impotent, ghostly, and superficial shapes that the complex system assumes as it evolves.

                  Not to worry though, because apart from the QBists, these people are not in the slightest bit troubled by holistic considerations of the nature of the world.

                  Lorraine Ford

                  Dear CornflowerCicada, I like your examination of the relationship between numbers, logical operators and matter very much. It goes very deep into what can reasonably be said about the fundamental nature of reality.

                  Interestingly, the logical operators allow a certain freedom to construct new things, like you illustrated with the example of the computer programmer. More astonishingly, these operators have the same “qualities” as numbers, they can nowhere be found as natural physical things “in the wild”. They are indeed about relationships and possible outcomes of something that we equally do not fully understand: the changes in the world – and – our terms with whom we want to explain these changes. These terms are for example force, energy, time, space, particles, waves, probabilities and the like. In every scientific theory, these terms either define each other mutually, or they are taken as irreducible – or both.

                  Your critics of a deterministic world exclusively only held together by numbers (the latter seen as "forces" by many scientists) is very justified, since presumably many scientists conclude that numbers and operators nonetheless can be found as natural things “in the wild” – namely in their own consciousness. Exactly at that place they then conclude with the help of some self-examination of their thoughts that these “numbers and operators” (when they themselves do maths or logics) very obviously exhibit forces that inevitably lead to certain conclusions.

                  What is wrong about scientists believing in the physicality of “things” like numbers and operators? Well, firstly, if these forces would be physically real and would work like external reality is supposed to work, then no scientist should make any illogical assumptions. That the latter can be seen as disproven should be clear. But moreover, what scientists additionally do not realize is that if they assume numbers and operators to be real physical things qua the sole power of their conscious minds where these things reside, then either consciousness must be very special if compared to the rest of nature, or the rest of nature must be made of immaterial things (numbers and operators) that nonetheless can exhibit forces onto each other (or alternatively spoken, exhibit forces onto other irreducible objects like energy, space, particles, waves, probabilities etc.) with all the consequences the operators provide.

                  Now some scientists will say that the latter is the case, since they believe that the world is like a computer (simulation). Independently of whether that belief should be considered as rational or not, it does not explain the existence of the needed logics for it to work nor does it explain the needed dynamics for it to work (aka why the world moves).

                  And in my opinion now comes the blockbuster: these scientists will explain the latter (a moving world) by what I wrote above, namely by their subjective experience of numbers and operators in their consciousness as forces. They obviously think that they are forced to think like they think – by their very own and subjective attributions they give to numbers and operators within the realm of their consciousness.

                  So it is no wonder that many scientists hang on to the belief that nature must be strictly deterministic, since they forgot that they defined it in that manner in the first place. However, that they are forced to do so must be an illogical conclusion, since no subjectively defined thing can force someone to think certain things – or can it?

                  Well, by the explanation I gave so far obviously it can (on a yet unknown level), and that is a huge problem. Therefore, in my own essay I argue for strictly discriminating between beliefs and knowledge, at least for the sake of freeing us from many self-contained explanation schemes that are inherently incomplete if considered in a more logical manner than has been done in the past.

                      Stefan Weckbach
                      Thanks very much for reading and appreciating my essay.

                      I should have more carefully distinguished between consciousness in general, and human consciousness in particular. I’m not so concerned with the experiential aspect of consciousness because I think that experience is one of the aspects of the world that has to be seen as a given, irreducible: experience is just the way that knowledge and beliefs exist. I’m putting forward the idea that consciousness is a necessary, universal aspect of the world that is associated with the genuinely existing aspects of the world that we would represent using logical connectives and mathematical operators; but these connectives and operators are merely symbols that don’t define consciousness. The experiential aspect of consciousness is experience of relationship; this experience can’t be measured, just like logical connectives and mathematical operators can’t be measured. And, as you mention, the logical connectives “allow a certain freedom to construct new things”. But the physical correlates of consciousness (that are connected via these logical and mathematical operators) can potentially be measured, where what can be measured always has a category and a number.

                      The difference between beliefs and knowledge (in your words), and the difference between what exists “out there” and what only exists in the human imagination (in my words) is not just relevant to science, it is relevant to human affairs in general. I guess all “more advanced” consciousnesses have a tendency to come to incorrect conclusions, and imagine things that are not actually there. For example, a cat will chase a rounded brown leaf blown by the wind, seemingly mistakenly imagining for a brief moment that the leaf is a mouse. Somewhat similarly, I think that a lot of mathematics and number theory only exists in the human imagination, it doesn’t exist “out there” in the real measurable physical world; I guess they exist in the human imagination because it is important for living things, for their own survival, to correctly deduce valid relationships between things. But in general, I guess people can easily build, in their private imaginations, an edifice of incorrect conclusions about the world, seeing a rounded brown leaf, blown by the wind, as a mouse.

                      I’m interested in what actually exists “out there” as opposed to what only exists in the human imagination. Because of what physics has shown to be true about the structure of the world, I would identify the characteristics of what exists “out there” as categories, logical and mathematical relationships and numbers, where numbers can only exist if they are equated to a category: I’m assuming that nothing can physically exist “out there” without logical or mathematical relationship to something else. It is not only unattached numbers that don’t exist “out there”, written and spoken symbols also don’t exist “out there”: while what is seen and heard involves physically measurable aspects of the world, it is the symbol part that only exists from the point of view of the human imagination. I think it is important for scientists and philosophers to be clear in their own minds what types of things can only exist in the human imagination, as opposed to what can actually exist “out there”.

                      I like your “it is no wonder that many scientists hang on to the belief that nature must be strictly deterministic, since they forgot that they defined it in that manner in the first place.” And I agree that “discriminating between beliefs and knowledge” or, as I would put it, what exists “out there” and what only exists in the human imagination, is a huge problem.

                      I have been reading your essay, and I will comment on it later.

                          12 days later

                          Stefan Weckbach

                          Dear CornflowerCicada,

                          I want to thank you so much for our exchange of thoughts. I just read your essay again and I highly recommend it for everybody to read and contemplate it. This is good and solid work you have done and worth much more attention than it has received so far in my opinion.

                          Best wishes
                          AquamarineTapir

                              Stefan Weckbach
                              Dear AquamarineTapir,

                              Thanks very much for your kind words about my essay, and I like your essay very much too. I also want to thank you, because our exchange has helped me clarify my thoughts. And I am very glad to converse with you because we seem to think about the world in very similar ways.

                              Best wishes,
                              CornflowerCicada

                                  Right on the mark!!!... with 3 questions that expose the degree to which Science unjustifiably promotes Fact-less abstraction.

                                  IF Fact does not precede abstraction, THEN dogma proliferates.

                                  Given recent technologically enhanced capacity to resolve differentials that facilitate more precise measurements... e.g. the James Webb sky scope/receiver, and the CERN upgrade... it has become increasingly difficult to deny the existence of observable dynamic processes that are indicative of non-measurable substance and structure.

                                  To investigate the bottom line fundamental Fact underlying the motion of the universe requires a unbroken kinematic logic chain, from the measured motion event to the fundamental momentum mechanism.

                                  Such is highly unlikely in a perturbative analysis environment.

                                  However, if one constructs a non-perturbative virtual/digital CAD SIM visual emergence analysis environment... i.e. a conceptual kinematic chain tool... that facilitates visual objectification of a fundamental momentum mechanism, substance, and distribution structure, one can give universal dynamics a basis in Fact.

                                  The derived terms of abstraction... e.g. space, energy, entity, existence etc... would only apply within the specified logic framework, but IF Fact exist prior to abstraction, THEN knowledge can be directly derived from the expression of Fact, AND IF the logic framework and its substance emergence distribution mechanix are consistent with reality, THEN application of derived knowledge to reality, will yield accomplishment.

                                  Although my 2023FQXi Essay: "Digital Science: Emergence of Quantum Consciousness" (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) was intended as a demonstration of how a non-perturbative analysis framework would change science, the demonstration utilized a single point pulse sourced emission of spatially defined minimum/indivisible quanta of Energy (QE), which inherently resolves all forces as derived of a single force, and consequently FQXi rejected my essay as being an "alternative ""theory of everything"", not an essay about how science could be different."

                                  In that the 2023 FQXi competition implementation of alias submission, does not facilitate exchange of participant essays to be utilized as background for discussion in comments, one's ability to enhance the level of the discussion without excessive reiteration is constrained, and FQXi's rejection Of my essay was perhaps serendipitous... i.e. I can herein provide a link to the rejected essay: "Digital Science: Emergence of Quantum Consciousness" (http://uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) ... and the therein proposed logic framework can be utilized to investigate your 3 questions, without danger of proliferating dogma.

                                  “Why is the universe moving?”

                                  Resolve of the underlying mechanix of the numeric differentials requires a mechanical description of emergence fundamentals... i.e. a momentum mechanism, substance, and distribution structure... and the logic component function of each as an operative of the emergence process.

                                  IF given a single source pulsed emission of substance, as a momentum mechanism, a visually objectified minimum/indivisible unit of spatially defined Energy (QE) as substance, and a QE distribution structure quantized by a minimum/indivisible unit of Space (QI), THEN are there observational properties of motion that could not be abstracted from the proposed logic framework and associated emergence mechanix?

                                  Utilizing the proposed logic framework and emergence mechanix associated with a single sourced pulsed emission, QE spin as a consequence of momentum mechanism dynamics, is inherent in Space-Time Energy emergence.

                                  Application of QE scale spin to observable reality, resolves a potential kinematic logic trace, from the fundamental momentum mechanism, with which to derive the QE choreographies of unobservable entities, which underlay observable motion of indeterminate causality.

                                  “What exists?”

                                  To examine "the essential differences between what can actually exist, and what can only exist in individual subjective human minds and imaginations" requires a definition of "exist".

                                  IF physical implies substance occupancy of space, AND space is objectified as the logic structure in which substance dynamics are choreographed by a pulse sourced momentum mechanism, which Spontaneously Harmoniously Resolves (SHR) substance distribution throughout the entire universe, THEN do all manifestations of substance, either as a minimum/indivisible quantum of Energy (QE), or composites thereof, "exist" as physical entities?

                                  Utilizing the proposed logic framework and emergence mechanix associated with a single sourced pulsed emission, a consciousness hierarchy is differentiated, which can be abstracted to imply QE composites that have SOUrceLink (SOUL) access, and other QE composites that do not.

                                  Application of differentiated consciousness hierarchy to reality, resolves a potential uniqueness between humans as digital circuits... i.e. QE composites... manifest by emergence mechanix, and AI as digital circuits... i.e. QE composites... configured by humans from QE composites, manifest by emergence mechanix, that do not have a SOUrceLink.

                                  “Can everything that exists be measured?”

                                  IF the unit of measurement is a minimum/indivisible unit of space (QI), and QE as the minimum/indivisible units of substance, can occupy QI... i.e. QE are spatially defined quanta of potential momentum... does information contained within a QI... e.g. spin direction and quantity of its QE occupants... on a given pulse of the fundamental momentum mechanism "exist" as a measurable physical entity?

                                  Utilizing the proposed logic framework and emergence mechanix associated with a single sourced pulsed emission, a networked intelligence emerges, which can be abstracted to imply a SOURceLinked entities responsibility for monitor and resolve of the "I Am" body as substance, mind as structure, in accord with the Spontaneous Harmonious Resolve (SHR) of QE distribution throughout the entire universe in which we are all embedded.

                                  Acknowledgment of the individual human's function as monitor and resolve of "I Am" body as substance, mind as structure, has application to self healing, and social stability,

                                  In that my essay was rejected, I am unable to vote your essay the 10 rating it deserves, but thank you for your well justified recognition "that non-measurable aspects of the world do in fact exist", and that the views that Science promotes "have implications for how human beings see themselves and the world they live in, including philosophical ideas of ""free will""... i.e. Science's denial of "non-measurable aspects" absolves the individual human being from taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.

                                  S. Lingo
                                  UQS Author/Logician
                                  (http:www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com)

                                    Sue Lingo
                                    Thank you. As you say: “Science's denial of "non-measurable aspects" absolves the individual human being from taking responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.”!

                                      Lorraine Ford

                                      Dear CornflowerCicada,

                                      after a few days absent from the forum, I am back and first of all want to thank you for your kind words. I really do enjoy the exchange with you, since we are on a similar wavelength and that enabled me to also clarify my thoughts, so thanks again to you for your engagement in conversing with me!

                                      Best wishes
                                      AquamarineTapir

                                        4 days later

                                        Greetings. Ona clarification, consciousness, at least some aspects of it, can indeed be measured. There are scales like the Glasgow coma scale and others used in the clinic; and there are other more abstract, so to speak, measures of consciousness still too early to be applied in the clinic. We have to consider that consciousness is our term to describe a constellation of phenomena, from sensing and acting to emotions and self-awareness. Many of these aspects can in fact be very well measured, and the reasons as to why some of these phenomena occur are more or less well understood. I could advise you to read my book on the subject matter but I am afraid I am not allowed to disclose my identity.
                                        As you mention in your essay, it is true that people are obsessed with measuring and quantifying, and some reasons for this I ventured in my essay. I prefer A. T. Winfree's perspective, as he said in his book 'The Geometry of Biological Time': "My deeper motivation is a feeling that numerical exactitude is alien to the diversity of organic evolution, and pretense of exactitude often obscures the qualitative essentials that I find more meaningful"

                                          Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
                                          To clarify, I DID in fact note in my essay that “unlike conscious experience, awareness and knowledge, the physical world, including any physical correlates of consciousness, is potentially measurable.”

                                          Conscious experience, awareness and knowledge is never measured: only any physical correlates of consciousness are measurable. Measurable aspects of the world are (e.g.) categories like mass, relative position, voltage, charge etc. What you get from measurement are numerals (symbols) that apply to a measurement category (also represented by symbols).

                                          So, if you tried to measure the physical correlates of very bad pain, you might say that the pain is 9.5 on a scale of 10, or something like that. But “pain= 9.5/10” tells you almost nothing about the living conscious experience of pain: you can’t reverse engineer or re-construct the pain experience out of “pain= 9.5/10”.

                                          “numerical exactitude is alien to the diversity of organic evolution”

                                          I don’t agree with A. T. Winfree's perspective, that you quote. As physics has shown, numerical exactitude and law of nature relationships are the firm foundation upon which the world is built. I think that “organic evolution” has shown that there are additional aspects of the world that are needed to explain the behaviour of living thing. This is because the survival of living things, even tiny primitive worms, relies on the logical analysis and collation of information coming from their environment.

                                          But the logical analysis and collation of information (which applies to categories of information, and the numbers that apply to these categories) is an aspect of the world that can’t be derived from laws of nature (which are merely fixed mathematical relationships between these categories of information). So, this implies that an aspect of the world that can perform logical analysis and collation of information is as fundamental and necessary an aspect of the world as are the laws of nature.

                                            Jose Luis Perez Velazquez
                                            P.S.
                                            Physics’ law of nature equations represent invisible relationships that exist between the measurable bits of the world (the measurable bits are categories like relative mass or position), where the mathematical operators and the equals signs in the equations represent the aspects of the world that can’t be measured.

                                            Similarly, consciousness can probably only exist as logical connections between the measurable bits of the world, where the logical connective symbols (IF, AND, OR, THEN, IS TRUE) also represent aspects of the world that can’t be measured.