A Landscape of Consciousness

Matej Pavsic Thanks for sharing, This perspective on consciousness, using Hilbert space to conceptualize the relationship between individual experiences and an "objective" world, is intriguing and resonates with certain ideas in quantum mechanics and philosophy of mind. I ask me if it is sufficient or if we need deeper parameters,Chalmers told interesting philosophical things about the hard problem of consciousness, can we reduce the consciousness to the brain processes or physical structures, all seems there . Is it a thing arising from the physical systems or is it a foundamental property of the reality.

The self referential dilemma that you told about the sperpent eating its own tail is interesting when we consider the brain like a part of the reality and the subjectivity of the experiences of consciousness merit deeper analyses. That tells us that the observer cannot fully explain its own foundamantal consciousness through something.

The hilbert space and quantum state of consciousness mathematically is interesting for the possible quantum states of a system, the wave function so implies unique experiences of consciousness with multiple subjective possibilities , the singular experiences so become interesting in this reasoning, like if we had a general foundamental hilbert space of consciousness but with different quantum states, I like this idea but I have stopped to consider it because there are probaly deeper paramaters to add to our actual SM, QFT and GR. But that does not change the fact that there is a unified whole of consciousness with different possible perspectives if I can say. If the interaconnections are a reality , so how to consider the solipsism transcending this Hilbert space because each consciousness is unique and the quantum states also. That becomes complex for the objectivity and the subjectivity .

You speak about the works of Hofstadter and the recursive structures and self reference and the loops . Can we consider that the consciousness is self referential and observe itself , I don t know but it is a little bit against the real subjectivity considering this subjective experiences like a shared objetive general one. Can we consider that each subjective experience is not isolated but a part of a complex recursive network of possibilities, Maybe I don t know , it is intriguing. It becomes metaphysical I think . The mathematical abstraction and all these possible quantum states permitting an objective reality is interesting but it seems that something is missing like a link between the outside and inside .

If the consciousness is a foundamental field, so what is its origin philosophical, we return at these limitations about the foundamental objects, the primary informations, the philosophical origin of the universe.can we reduce the consciousness like told Lorraine at basic units or in this case at fields permitting all possible perspectives in the hilbert space. The problem is these limitations and so each individual experience with specific quantunm states or basic units interconnected in the reality with an emergent objective reality need proofs and to reach the foundamental informations or objects and it is not the case, we are not even sure if this GR alsone is the key and if the SM and QFT are complete even if the a quantum gravitation is not renormalised, That said the non locality and entanglement are intriguing. If all this is true what is this unified field of consciousness and how it is interconnected, if all is false, what are the other logics of reasong to reach this consciousness. We have the same problem for the interpretations of our quantum mechanics and the measurement problem, all these interpretations like the qbism, the informations theory, the many world, copenaghe, the relational one,de broglie bohm , the transational one, or wheeler interpretation or others, are limited interpretations, we cannot affirm that one is the truth, maybe all these interpretations are unified in a kind of universal objective interpretation, but for this we must be sure about the informations primary and foundamantal objects and origin of the universe and it is not the case, the same so for the consciousness,
Regards

Matej Pavsic thanks for sharing, I am going to read the papers and see your youtube, it seems very relevant, regards

Dear Lorraine,thanks, I have explained if you read well my ideas, it is a model with ideas that I don t affirm, It is important to not affrim when we are not sure and when it is not proved, It is yes in a sense functional but there is philosophically deep unknowns where we can go beyond the functionality, the universe has deep unknwons. What is the origin of the universe, what are the foundanmental objects, do you consider strings in 1D at this planck scale or points like in the geometrodynamics and after the geometrical algebras for the details about the fields and so the basic units for the matters and consciousness have details. Or spaces like the hilbert space, that needs details about the basic units. and you don t give them, Do you consider bits for example and that the universe is like a computer in this logic, Tell me more please generally speaking . You are going to understand me better about the functionality of this consciousness .

Philosophically, consciousness can be framed in ways that go beyond pure functionality. Functionally, we might describe what consciousness does, but that doesn't fully encompass what it is in a more abstract, existential sense. Because it is not merely a product of brain function or biological processes, it is at my opinion more a foundational parameter of this reality. Let s take the time, the space, the matters and let s extrapolate so the consciousness, it is in the fabric of the existence itself and so the consciousness is a local manifestation of a more universal consciousness, in my model it is even correlated with the infinite eternal consciousness, I don t affirm but I see like this yes, and there is nothing of odd in considering an infinite eternal consciousness like in the pantheirm , see the list of thiners thining like this in the first post that I have written. Nobody can affirm and nobody knows this philosophical origin,. This consciousness is a phenomena where the experiences take significance. That is why the subjective meaning is important , because in this logic the consiousness is the basis for all that has value and meaning , and it is singular and individual . This consciousness is not static , it is a process and it even evolves . It is like a flow at my humble opinion and it is shaped by this time , the experiences,the memory..... So in a sense , it is both even, functional and philosophical , it is of course about the integration of informations , but like it is different than this intelligence,we have the adaptation, the free will, the choices, the decisions,.....tell me more I am interested to know more Philosophically speaking, That is wh the questions that I have asked are important to see the whole of ideas and model, Regards

Matej Pavsic I have listened your yourtube and it is excellent ,congrats , I liked your approach and how you analyse the conscience experiences and the quantum mechanic,. It is very interesting the links with the biocentrism. If the life and consciousness shape the understanding of this reality, it becomes relevant when we consider the observations and the objective reality. So your interpretations and links with Everett and the many worlds become relevantr for the outcomes and the different versions . So no collapse of the waves function. It is intriguing for the experiences and the superpositions. If the space , time, matter are constructs from this consciousness , so the observer becomes a key . It imples the relativity of wave functions in function of these observers. Entanglement in biocentrism where all observers are connected is a complex topic , and I am understanding the diffiulty to extrapolate about this topic.

If the consciousness is a primary aspect and not a product of matter but give rise to matter and reality, so the observer role is essential Like you told .If these observations define this reality and that time and space are subjective in a sense creating by the consciousness and don t exist independently, So the consciousness is foundamental, It is this that I like a lot because it is like it is the main foundamental essence of the universe. These higher dimensions with the hilbert space so are very relevant because the measurements and collapses with the consciousness of the observer converge with the works of Wigner and the copenaghian interpretation like if the reality is co denpendent with the physicality and the observer role , it improves the biocentrism idea. There is an intriguing extrapolation about the foundamental structure of the universe and these deeper parameters to add . If this consciousness has a significant affect on the fabric of this reality, and that the observer dependent is essential so these higher dimensions and their properties are relevant philosophically. I like because it is beyond the physicality and need deeper parameters and higherdimensions like pregeometries , deeper spatial structures. Your works give questions about the nature of the consciousness and the impacts on the foundamental laws of nature.

Your interpretations of the waves functions and these many possibilities like in the ideas of hawking and wheeler and Everett are intriguing if the observations affect or create the reality . If the mathematical representation in QM give various possible states, and that this wave function evolves in time, so the multiple positions , momentum ...also is the big difference with the copenaghian interpretation where we have only a single one. I ask me philosophically speaking what is the begining of the universe, it has been a main unknown in ,my theory, from what and how it has begun, hawking considered a no boundary proposal with no singular begining in time, but I told me that we need a kind of begining , but all this is beyond our understanding still .
The no-boundary proposal suggests that every possible configuration of the universe coexists within a larger wave function, and an observer's presence could influence the selection of one history over another. I am not sure about this , maybe we need a concrete begining and deeper physical and philosophical parameters.

Congrats for your works encircling the consciousness, the reality and extrapolating the works of Everett, Hawking, Wheeler, it is a beautiful and relevant general idea with the observer playing a foundamental role with this consciousness to define and determine the reality through the collapse of the wave function and the many possibilities,

Best Regards

Matej Pavsic thanks for sharing, I am not myself sure to be fran about this begining of the universe and this hypothetical BB, I have a theory but not easy. I have thought a lot about this and why we exist and from what and how is really created this physicality. I have imagined several possibilities and learnt many papers about the different interpretations but we have deep limitations . Our quantum mechanic and QFT even we have improved a lot the details are emergent properties but we don t know unfortunatelly what are the primary informations or the foundamental objects. So it is difficult also to conclude about the philosophical origin of this universe, we know that the matters and energy are under specific laws of nature and this general relativity has permitted to better understand this universe but is it the only one truth with the QFT and EFE , we have difficulties to renormlise this quantum gravitation due to divergences and infinite quantities to eliminate when we consider the gravitons like the quantas of gravitational waves, we have also this dark matter and dark energy wich are not easy to understand really, these limitations are a reality, we evolve but we are arrived at technological and philosophical and physical limitations. Have you alreadythought about this quantum gravitation , have you a model with the hilbert space or clifford or lie geometrical algebras, maybe the non commutativity could solve but it seems complicated.

The concepts of gravitational waves must distinguish at my opinion first the gravity waves and these gravitational waves because they arrive in different contexts. If we take the gravity waves in fluid dynamics so the fluid medium implies forces and density gradients like in hydrodynamics , so like the navier stokes equations for the motions of these said waves.
The gravitational waves in the GR are different than these classical fluid dynamics because they are ripples in the fabric of the spacetime due to acceleration of massive objects like BHs or neutron stars gnerating these waves. The perturbations so are relevant to analyse considering the Einstein field equations and metrics of the spacetime.
The waves are quadrupolar due to the second time derivative and the quadrupole moment of the distribution of mass, it is different than a dipole moment lie in the electromagnetic waves and it is ther that it becomes relevant. The gravitons so are hypotherical elementary particles mediating the force of this gravity like the photons mediate the electromagnetism, so if the gravitons are the quanta of this gravitational field and so the smallest quantum of possible energy of gravity , so that implies problems to create a quantization of this gravity like th other foundamental forces , it is non renormalizable due to infinite quantities and divergences, if they are considered like spin2 bosons like the gravitational waves spin 2 polarization states, so the difference is there with the photons spin 1 .
The moments and lagrangians so are relevant but it is there that the complexity implies these divergences . So maybe and it seems evident that they dont exist these gravitons du to a lack of empirical evidences, the gravitational waves yes have been detected but not these gravitons, there is an enormous incompatibility with the QFT. Maybe the problem is that they don t exist and so this bridge between the quantum mechanics and GR for this gravity is on an other philosophical resoning. I don t affirm of course, I try just to understand why we have this problem not possible to quantize.
It is there that the problem appears with the spin 2 nature of gravitons associated with the quadrupolar moments , the fact that they carry 2 units of angular moments in QM creates the problem of quantizing it because that does not conferge with the actual quantization of other forces. If we take the EFE and the 2 polarization states like for the electromagnetism for example , so the problem is due to the curvature of this spacetime and changes of shape , it is different than for the electric and magnetic filds , so the tensors taken instead of vectors are important. So the tensors representations instead of vectors representations .
That is why the spin 2 is not renormalisable due to a philosophical problem ,something must be changed or added in the differences btween dipoles, quadrupoles and the oscillations, moments and spins. The mass is correlated in this case with the mass distribution and the changes and the time is important for the motions. The diffrence so between charges and mass seem a key .
The non renormalizability due to these infinite quantities to eliminate even with the non commutativity is a reality , we can take the feynmann diagrams or the lie groups, the non commutativity , the strings, the loop QG ....that does not solve the quantization of the gravitons and the links with the fluctuations of the geometry of the spacetime , so the divergences and infinite quantities are real We see easily that the spin 2 gravitons interact with themselves at the difference of photons spin 1 interacting only with the charged particles and it is there the most important. So the QFT and this self interaction of gravitons is more than challenging, it seem even impossible even at the planck scale or in considering the vaccuum.
What is the operator to the solution of the wave equation to quantized excitations , how this spin 2 and the angular momentun can correspond of the changes of the metric of this said spacetime,. The photons being the quanta of electromagnetic waves and these gravitons being the quantas of gravitational waves is more than problematic considering these gravitons, They could not exist so I repeat due to the high energy energies small scales analyses.

I d be happy if you have ideas to share about this quantum gravitation, best regards