• Blog

  • The Multiverse and Existential Scale | Robert Lawrence Kuhn

Steve Dufourny
Hi Steve,

You have not yet articulated what you mean by the word “consciousness”.

I’m saying that basic-level consciousnesses are NOT at all like the following structural elements of the world:

  • Relationships between categories.
  • Categories (e.g. mass and position are categories).
  • Numbers that apply to the categories.
  • The superficial structures that can emerge from the point of view of someone observing the evolution a complex man-made mathematical system.

Instead, I’m saying that basic-level individual consciousnesses are actually on-the-spot point-of-view KNOWLEDGE of the structure, i.e. KNOWLEDGE of:

  • Relationships between categories.
  • Categories (e.g. mass and position are categories).
  • Numbers that apply to the categories.
  • The superficial structures that can emerge from the point of view of someone observing the evolution a complex man-made mathematical system.

So, I am saying that consciousness is a necessary aspect of the real-world system, it is the necessary on-the-spot point-of-view “WHAT IS TRUE” aspect of the system.

But I’m also saying that consciousness is a first-principles aspect of the world because, unlike the structural aspects of the world, the origin of consciousness can’t be explained.

…………….

Re creativity: You have not yet articulated what you mean by the word “creativity”. I’m saying that creativity is what created the structure; and also, that creativity is what initiated, and continues to initiate, movement in the numbers.

      Hi Lorraine, we have understood what you mean but like I have explained before,you have not well articulated lol the philosophical origin of this consciousness and their fields and particles, you can develop with the general relativity and the QFT and QM and even with strings or points in 1D at this planck scale connected with a 1 d cosmic field of the GR, and if yes , what is the philosophical cause, if you consider the creativity, from what and how with the numbers and categories. For example take the lie groups if you consider what I told and the hamiltonians and give causes for the effects in ranking the groups and categories , so in resume, we need causes philosophical and physical for your creativity , numbers ,categories and specific models, best regards

        Lorraine Ford For me, the universe is not a mathematical universe,I think it is mainly a physical universe and that the mathematics are a tool permitting to better understand the physical laws but they can also imply confusions in the extrapolations. At my humble opinion ontologically and philosophically speaking I think in my theory that before the universe it was an infinite eternal consciousness and this thing beyond our underatanding has decided to create an universe with the energy matters transformations and informations and it is in evolution, it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation, so the cause like I have asked you in my model comes from the informations antigravitational of this fifth force the DE encoding the photons and the DM, that is why the higgs mechanism is correlated with the DM because they are the quantas of mass in my reasoning and the photons permit this GR and SR and the bosonic fields in a simplistic resume .And the consciousness so is a pantheistic vue where we have these baryonic matters connected with this 0D of this infinite eternal consciousness,so there is something in our QM with a specific mechanism permitting the uniqueness of minds probably. I don t affrim,I just see like this .Why this thing hasdecidedto create this universe,maybelike an experience of evolution and evenmaybe this thing was alone simply . The intelligence is not the same than the consciousness . For the origin of the universe , nobody can affrim to know the truth, mathematical accident or a infinite consciousness, or others, nobody knows, that said if the consciousness exists, so .....

            Steve Dufourny
            Hi Steve,

            Have you given your opinion on "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?", which is one of the issues that this whole thread is supposed to be about?

            I notice (e.g. online videos) that many people seem to assume that, at the foundations or beginnings of the world, there was ALREADY mathematical structure. I notice that many people seem to consider that a mathematical or a quantum structure is the "nothing" out of which the "something", that we have today, has arisen. I'm saying that a mathematical or quantum structure can't be thought of as "nothing".

            So, in the context of "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?", my answer is that everything about the initial mathematical structure of the world, and the subsequent functioning and movement of the real-world mathematical system, CAN potentially be explained in terms of creativity and consciousness.

            But creativity and consciousness (as I have articulated them) are first principles aspects of a standalone, self-sufficient world, aspects that can't be reverse-explained in terms of the subsequent real-world mathematical structure, or the functioning and movement of the real-world mathematical system.

            I'm saying that:

            • The mathematical structure of the world had to be created and initialised; and
            • The mathematical system needs to know itself, because the nitty-gritty time-place numbers and categories are NOT Platonically true, because there is no such thing as a Platonic realm (and, in any case, a Platonic realm would require a separate explanation for its not-nothing existence).

              Steve Dufourny
              I'm saying that:

              • The mathematical structure of the world had to be created and initialised; and
              • The mathematical system needs to know itself, because the nitty-gritty time-place numbers and categories are NOT Platonically true, because there is no such thing as a Platonic realm (and, in any case, a Platonic realm would require a separate explanation for its not-nothing existence).

              Do you agree?

                  Lorraine Ford
                  I should add that, it is irrelevant whether relationships/ equations, categories and numbers etc. actually exist, in the same way that we high-level human beings might imagine them to exist. What is important is that we need to represent what exists using special man-made symbols. And so, we have to think of what exists in terms of these relationships/ equations, categories and numbers.

                    Steve,

                    I’m saying that what created the real-world system hasn’t retired and gone on a holiday.

                    I’m saying that what the particular equations and numbers are in the real-world system (i.e. what we represent with equations and numbers) is almost irrelevant. Because equations and numbers CAN’T describe a moving system. Can’t. How many times does it have to be explained that none of these special mathematical devices can describe a moving system?

                    I’m saying that what IS relevant is that the real-world system needs to know itself, and the real-world system needs to move itself. These are necessary aspects of any viable system.

                    So, if you are claiming that the real-world system is a zombie automaton, like everybody else is claiming, can you tell me how you think the real-world system knows about its own very specific on-the-spot time-place relationships, categories and numbers?

                    And, if you are claiming that the real-world system is a zombie automaton, like everybody else is claiming, can you tell me how you think the real-world system moves its own numbers that apply to the categories?

                    How does it know? How does it move? Because the particular equations and numbers, and other mathematical devices, are almost irrelevant.

                    EQUATIONS.

                    Steve,

                    People seem to think that fundamental physics should be the search for the ultimate laws of nature, i.e. the search for a special set of equations, that perhaps could be experimentally validated. Unfortunately, these people have seemingly never noticed that a set of equations does not make a viable moving system. A mathematical system is NOT all about the equations.

                    In one sense, the equations are almost irrelevant. The important aspects of a mathematical system are: How does the system know itself? and: How does the system move itself?

                    How come a mathematical system knows itself? Because, in a mathematical system, only some equations (relationships between categories), but not others, are true; and only some numbers (that apply to the categories), but not others, are currently true. This knowledge aspect of a system can’t be represented in terms of relationships, categories and numbers because the knowledge is OF the relationships, categories and numbers. The issue is WHAT knows, and the answer is clearly that small parts of the system know.

                    How come a mathematical system can move itself? How, exactly, does number movement work? Clearly, purely due to mathematical relationship, relationships between categories do change the numbers, but only if other numbers have changed. So, mathematical equations/ relationships are not the actual aspects of the mathematical system that is moving the system. It is clearly number jumps that are moving the system. The issue is WHAT is jumping the numbers, and the answer is clearly that small parts of the system are jumping their own numbers in response to knowledge of situations encountered.

                    The world IS inherently mathematical, let’s face it. It is no freak accident that people are able to send and track spacecraft, and at the other end of the scale, investigate the smallest particles and atoms: it is because the world IS in fact mathematical, with categories, numbers and relationships.

                    But, more importantly, the world is a moving SYSTEM, and in a moving SYSTEM, the equations are pretty well arbitrary. The only necessary aspects of a viable, moving SYSTEM are that the system must know itself, and the system must move itself.

                    These necessary aspects of a SYSTEM are the same aspects of the world that can’t be explained, when the question is asked: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

                      Lorraine Ford
                      Mathematics lets us express and communicate ideas. Well written it very precise avd very succinct and unambiguous. We are taught with simple problems that there is a right or wrong answer. Later on we may come across the idea that the maths we are using only applies if there are certain background assumption built in, an example is what's known about Euclidean geometry does not necessarily work in a non Eucidean World/Universe. Our assumptions about the existing World/Universe may be different from what we imagine to be true. Complience of results or observations with the mathematics description is not enough to say 'certainly correct'. There may be another explanation for the result, that has been overlooked. We do not know that what we have assumed the metaphysics that actualy applies. The correct dimentional arrangement, for a start. Is the mathenmatics actually modelling the World/ Universe we live in.

                          Georgina Woodward
                          Mathematics, correctly written, can describe all sorts of hypothetical existence and relationship bewtween parts which do necessarily exist. Physics is about the real World/Universe, Maths can be about anything or their relationships. Being mathematically self consistent is not the same as being realistic.

                              Georgina Woodward
                              Maybe we don't exist within a Minkowski space. Relic information being confused with matter existing wholly -Now. History is given the same status as what is happening currently in such a model. Paradox results from allowing real living history to exist and be available to get interfered with. The paradox indicating something is not right with the model.
                              How does 2D hilbert space relate to the space occupied by existing material things? Does it have any relevance or is it a fiction on paper pretending it can be a fact in the real World?
                              Before we marvel at the fit betwen theory and exprerimental results, and take it as support for the theoretical structure of the UNIVERSE proposed, we should get the metapyhysical background behind the results that happen 'straight' in our minds. By accepting the supremacy of mathematics for representing and communicating we've give up some of our ability to disciminate and reject ideas that are not science
                              We forget that mathematics is an art, not science, and belongs to the imaginred platonic ideal realm.

                                  Georgina Woodward
                                  Georgina,

                                  Get over it.

                                  You seem to have deep feelings of distrust in everyone and everything including climate science. But, hundreds of years of work by honest physicists and their predecessors has shown that the world is inherently mathematical. It is no freak accident that people are able to send and track spacecraft, and at the other end of the scale, investigate the smallest particles and atoms: it is because the world IS in fact mathematical, with categories, numbers and relationships. The only thing that one can question is the particular mathematics used to represent the world.

                                  In any case, the issue is (or one of the issues is) "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"

                                      Lorraine Ford
                                      Relevant to the question 'what exists?' is 'How are we aware of anything at all, 'Is it true that if we are not aware of something it does not exist' ,as a singular material object with a definite location.
                                      Einstein asked his friend Pais,'Is the moon there when I don't look ?'or words to that effect. There is a difference between the seen moon and the material moon object that exists, I would say. the seen moon only remains seeable so long as the sensory input is recieved. Looking away or closing eyes it's no longer produced. However others can still see the moon when I can not and the material object called 'the moon' iIs uneffected by my behaviour on Earth,

                                          Georgina Woodward
                                          That an observation product is not formed when there is a lack of sensory information available , is used by illusionists ,who will deliberately conseal, obscure or disatract ,to prevent the audience being fully informed. In this way things can appear to vanish and appear, from non existence. Physisits beware of situations where information is limited.
                                          From experience a baby soon learns that an object out of sight continues to exist materially.

                                              Georgina Woodward
                                              What if our senses werre different than they are? Would it change what we think about what exists? If we could see ultra violet markings on flowers like bees and butterflies or infra redlike a hunting snake, or feel the gravity of the Earth like a migratory bird or the electrical discharge of prey like a shark or had another unknown sense?
                                              Do we have to give up on locality because maths says so and theory says that as no luminiferous ether was detected there must be no space filling substance that hosts photon particle induced waves? Even though this overcomes the problem of non locality only happening at the smallest scale, fits with the self similarity of nature at different scales, helps interpretetion of the double slit and various quantum experiments ,making them fit common sense, is fully copatible with the effects of wave interference

                                                  Georgina Woodward
                                                  Get over it Georgina. lol.

                                                  How do you know that you exist? lol.
                                                  How do you know that you have a hand on the end of your arm? lol.
                                                  How do you know that you are a mother? lol.

                                                      Georgina Woodward
                                                      Georgina,

                                                      If the world is as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is, I wonder that you would even dare to walk down the street.

                                                      I wonder how any animal or person ever survives for even a day, if the world is as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is.

                                                      lol.

                                                        Georgina,

                                                        You seem to be denying that science can even exist because you seem to think that people are full of illusion and delusion about the world.

                                                        As I said, it is a wonder that any animal or person could survive for even a day, if the world were as full of illusion and delusion as you seem to think it is.

                                                        In fact, it is only on the high-level details, of human analysis of the world, that people disagree.

                                                        All (except, seemingly, you) agree on the fundamentals, i.e. that the sky is blue, and the grass is green, and they can all agree when a tiger is chasing them. But people might disagree on the high-level details of human analysis of the world, i.e. what political party to vote for; or what is the best physics’ theory of the world.

                                                          Lorraine Ford "Lorraine Ford"#p168923
                                                          Your own maniacal laughter and vain attempts at ridicule are not an appropriate response to presentation of serious ideas worthy of sensible consideration. Perhaps you are incapable of addressing the ideas themselves and think you are clever by denigrating other people and making statements repeatedly calling their character into question. I'm neither detered or impressed by the level of debate you demonstrate. How does your ignorant, dismissive, attitude help?