FQxI's Essay Competition Asks How Quantum is Life? Plus Plant Intelligence, Phys

Steve Dufourny

Steve Dufourny
I am going to develop this idea within the framework of spherical geometric topological algebras in my theory of spherisation, because it seems generally relevant.
If we consider this 0D omnipotent, eternal, infinite consciousness as a mathematical seed that gives rise to logic and the flow of information into physical dynamics, then, in my model, the quantum series of spheres and the three merging systems ,dark energy (DE), dark matter (DM), and photons , along with entropy and negentropy, together organize evolution, stability, and change.

The spherical volumes are important because of their symmetry. This 0D principle acts as a kind of mathematical generator, or a global operator. The different choices it allows can determine physical parameters such as couplings, constraints, and constants.
Now, by taking the logic of IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, THEN, we find logical connections to algebraic objects. These rules can be transformed into operators that modify physical states.

We can even correlate these with bits represented as vectors, which may relate to the fine-tuning of the universe. Thus, tensors, vectors, and scalars can be extrapolated as products of space with additional possible hidden parameters. The encodings can also be ranked in a purely logical way.

At this point, we are no longer in 0D , we begin to enter physicality and dimensionality. The E8 structure and my spherical approach can help establish rankings and possible configurations. The groups, subgroups, and states can be extrapolated through correlations of negentropy and entropy, in connection with Shannon entropy, Gibbs entropy, and Boltzmann entropy.
Therefore, statistics, mathematics, and probabilities become essential. The role of this consciousness is relevant for information processing, particularly concerning entropy, negentropy, and evolution.

The fields, particles, and dimensions can then be ranked within spacetime, and correlated with quantum field theory (QFT), possibly revealing deeper hidden parameters that could complete the puzzle involving consciousness, dark energy, and dark matter. This approach could help extend the Standard Model and aid in the renormalization of unknowns.
Hence, spherical volumes become a crucial element, as they organize all possibilities , both negentropically and entropically.
The relevance lies in the states and their properties. The von Neumann entropy may also play an important role.

Philosophically speaking, we can extrapolate this consciousness, but the real question is: does it originate from this 0D source, or does it emerge within physicality and complexity ,or perhaps both, as a kind of synchronization?
I do not know for sure, to be frank, but the information and geometries involved are deeply intriguing in this line of reasoning.

Perhaps the reduction of entropy is a key ,not by considering only the 0D omnipotent source, but by examining how it might be correlated with physicality and its dimensions. If so, such a reduction could indeed be possible, and this is what I find particularly relevant.
Thus, the volumes of these spheres become very important in understanding entropy, negentropy, and the general idea of my theory. I must work correctly about these spherical geometric topological algebras for the tensors, vectors, scalars ,associativity, commutativity, non commutativity of Connes, I have never published but I will do it correctly this winter between piano and guitar lol

EmeraldBeetle

Steve Dufourny Be professional, EmeraldBeetle. We are discussing, not asserting things that others have not said.

I just find your idiosyncratic nonphysical notion of an:

omnipotent, eternal, infinite consciousness as a mathematical seed that gives rise to logic and the flow of information into physical dynamics – Steve Dufourny

uninteresting from a philosophical and science-based perspective. Mainly because I find it to be an argument from natural theology dressed up as pseudoscience. Having actually bothered to engage with your 0D argument, I really don't think you know what you're talking about with regards to basic concepts of empirical science and natural philosophy, the difference between mathematics and physics, or the meaning of terms like 'ontology', and are just making things up as you go to suit your idiosyncratic metaphysical thinking, what we might call your 'Dufournyism', which AFAICT no one else on the planet subscribes to.

And you're flooding my essay competition forum thread just to keep peddling your idiosyncratic wares and ridiculously grandiose claims that your '0D' pseudo-theory is somehow a fundamental ontological rewrite of the foundations of modern quantum mechanics and relativity theory.

Steve Dufourny The universal wavefunction alone, as in MWI, is like describing music with no instrument and no performer ,mathematically interesting and elegant but ontologically incomplete. The de Broglie–Bohm theory adds the instrument (particles) and the rules of motion, giving physical meaning to the melody.
My OSI adds one more layer a physical geometry and informational logic underlying the instruments themselves, which could unify matter, energy, and information.

So I think it's your simplistic interpretation of MWI that is the problem here as you continue to just ignore the fact that the universal wave function, together with decoherence, explains why we observe a quasi‑classical 3D world within which musicians make music and in this sense is as ontologically complete as any other foundational interpretation of QM – whereas your apparently preferred Bohmian ontology has relativistic problems.

And your concept of 'ontological lack' appears to just be about your preference for a primitive 3D “stuff” ontology vs any form of wave function realism or ontic structural realism (your maths vs physical gloss). That's just your preference and not a philosophical consensus within current foundational debates.

Finally, your claim that 'OSI' adds another layer means that you're just adding even more ontic structure – some physical geometry and informational logic tied to a 0D infinite, eternal consciousness (in your own words, even if you're backing away now!) “underlying” QFT and GR – which means you fail Ockham's parsimony test vs Everettian purity while claiming your idiosyncratic and fundamentally nonphysical metaphysical additions somehow reveal a new (psychophysical?) basis underlying quantum foundations.

I just sincerely and honestly think your 'theory' is pseudoscientific blather that you just keep posting here because you're incapable of actually engaging with any theoretical debate outside the ridiculously overblown sense of your own apparently revolutionary genius.

And yet again, what has any of this to do with an actual, thoughtful engagement with my conceptual model of a ‘what it is like to be human’ phenomenal world co-instantiated with real patterns discerned in the decohering memory trace of a Relative State Observer's cybernetic servomechanical entanglement with its local sensory environment as one branch trajectory within the wider correlation structure of the universal wave function?

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Yes, but this is the way that I would put it:

Underlying the world, not just billions of years ago, but right now, lies a mathematical system, i.e. an underlying physical world that we can only represent using mathematical symbols for categories, relationships and numbers.

But a lot of people seem to mistakenly believe that a mathematical system can exist without something that knows what is time-place-true, and something that time-place jumps the numbers, e.g. to resolve mathematical impasses.

To attempt to represent the above, non-physical and non-measurable, knowledge and agency aspects of a real-world mathematical system requires the use of statements containing algorithmic/ logical connective symbols, as well as the mathematical symbols representing categories, relationships and numbers.

These statements containing algorithmic/ logical connective symbols very specifically represent the system’s knowledge of itself, and the system moving its own numbers. No other symbols can directly represent these specific aspects of a system.

I’m surmising that, only when represented this way, these statements, that represent necessary aspects of a viable moving real-world mathematical system, in some way coincide with the mysterious “quantum” aspects of the system. Because the quantum aspects of the system seem to have a mysterious-to-science knowledge aspect, and a mysterious-to-science movement aspect.

So, what underlies life is not “quantum mechanics” as such; what underlies life is a viable mathematical system.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
I should add that there are symbols used in physics, e.g. the delta symbols used in “law-of-nature” equations, that might seem to, or purport to, represent movement. But in fact, these symbols merely ASSUME that movement occurs.

The actual problem is: “why would number movement ever be initiated, and why does number movement persist, in a mathematical system?”

Only statements containing algorithmic/ logical connective symbols can very specifically represent the system initiating movement of its own numbers. No other symbols can directly represent this specific aspect of a system.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford If we adopt the quantum framework, also numbers should be changeable (expanded and compressed) I think. Otherwise we end in superdeterminism (t'Hooft)? This means the quantum should contain a lot of deltas. We have so found the uncertainty is fundamental. This I have asked many math ppl.
Also the algoritms reflects a knowledge, otherwise they would be made at random, so it fits your reasoning?
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
Yes, knowledge is required. The mathematical system (or small parts of the system) needs to be aware of, have knowledge of, its own categories, numbers and relationships. But my reasoning, about number change, is as follows:

Underlying life is a viable real-world mathematical system, not weird, mysterious quantum mechanisms. But what is a viable real-world mathematical system?

Firstly, the laws of nature, i.e. the relationships between the categories, are not a set-and-forget perpetual motion machine, where the categories are initialised with numbers at the beginning of the universe, and where the laws of nature keep the numbers, that apply to the categories, moving and changing forever afterwards.

The laws of nature are not a type of perpetual motion machine. Instead, a viable real-world mathematical system needs a causal aspect which, not only initialises the numbers at the beginning of the universe, but the causal aspect is also needed to continually reinitialise/ reset/ re-jump the numbers, in order to keep the stalled universe moving. Without a causal aspect to jump the numbers, the universe would screech to a grinding halt. There is no perpetual motion machine driving number change; instead, a viable real-world mathematical system needs a causal aspect to continually jump-start the numbers.

Secondly, the laws of nature can only cause limited number change for the categories, and only if other numbers change for other categories, because the laws of nature are relationships between categories; scientific experiment has only ever found relationships between categories; scientific experiment never found a perpetual motion machine.

The “weird” number jumping of “quantum mechanics” merely exposes the necessary “mechanism” required for number change to occur in a viable real-world mathematical system.

The uncertainty, that you mention, lies in the freedom of matter to jump its own numbers, where (I contend) this number jumping is essential to keep a viable real-world mathematical system moving. However, law-of-nature relationships mean that the system is not totally mad and random.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

And with these free number jumps, performed by matter or highly organised matter (i.e. organisms), I guess the size of their effect on the world depends on how many numbers are simultaneously jumped by an organism.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine,
In logic, we could conceive a kind of deterministic approach to explain the fine-tuned universe through these 3D spherical volumes forming the quantum series. By connecting this with your ideas about categories, numbers, Tegmark’s mathematical universe, and the concept of a 0D omnipotent, infinite, eternal consciousness, we can see the emergence of a deeper logical partition , although it is not easy to define precisely because of current limitations.

Evolution also appears to play an important role. If the viable real-world system and its motions oscillations operate within a specific, finely tuned universal partition, then it becomes highly relevant to focus on that structure and explore its possible configurations.. Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford In XOR you can look at transformations, as instance flips and swaps.
I also think your view of uncertainty as such is too simple, you can maybe relate to thermodynamics also?
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Hi Steve,
This is how I see it: While physicists are interested in what relationships and materials exist in a system, systems analysts are interested in how a system works. How the real-world system works is a different issue to the issue of what relationships and materials exist in the real-world system.

Trying to explain how a real-world system works is where people might resort to hand waving, and poetic language. Because the relationships and materials that exist in the real-world system can’t explain how the system works.

And so, I think that the “quantum” behaviour of matter is a sign of how the real-world system works. The evidence is that there is a basic knowledge aspect of the world, and that there is a basic causal aspect to the world, and that these aspects exist at the “quantum” level.

These knowledge and causal aspects are the systems aspects that can explain how the system works, with no need to resort to extravagant and over-the-top MUH scenarios. (And it should be mentioned that the power of computer systems lies their ability to symbolise (using voltages, transistors and circuits) these knowledge and causal aspects of a system.)

How these relationships and materials, and knowledge aspects and causal aspects, came to exist is a different issue, and probably something that we can’t fully explain. Because we are in it, we are part of it.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Dear Lorraine,
Yes, all of this is interesting. It seems that we also need a structure for these quantum matters, in order to allow this fundamental knowledge to interact with motions, oscillations, and the basic causal correlations.
Mathematics and physics, in their logic, dance together within the same universal framework.

I wonder what the key is regarding this 0D omnipotent, infinite, eternal consciousness. Is mathematics the key that, from this 0D source, gives rise to knowledge? Or are these quantum 3D spheres the ones following the information coming from the 0D?

Or perhaps both act together , mathematics and physics existing within specific universal structures. It seems easier to describe the dynamics and mechanisms using spherical volumes and their oscillatory motions.
Regards

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
Maybe this uncertainty is nothing more than the uncertainty of human observers who want to be able to predict outcomes, but can't fully predict outcomes? Both 1) long-term outcomes involving system complexity plus lack of knowledge of all the details of the system, and 2) next-moment outcomes involving lack of knowledge of precisely what the smallest parts of the system will themselves "decide" to do.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
The structure is in the categories, relationships between the categories, and the numbers that apply to the categories. At least, this is how we need to represent the structure.

The issue is not in the categories, relationships and numbers bit. This issue is in how a viable system works. Equations, categories and numbers alone can't explain how a system works.

So, I contend that a viable system needs to know what categories, relationships and numbers are time-place true. However, there seems to be an assumption that a system would automatically know itself.

And I contend that a viable system needs to initiate movement in its own numbers that apply to the categories. However the equations that represent relationships contain an assumption that the numbers move.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford knowledge and ignorance follow the same uncertainty rule, I think. It is basically about the wave-particle duality.
you talk of partial ignorance, like some system error?
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
Not a system error. There is nothing "wrong" with the system. People mathematically represent their own ignorance of the system.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Hi Lorraine,
Categories, relationships, and numbers form a representational framework, but that framework doesn’t automatically instantiate a living, viable system if we have not a kind of physical strucutre at my humble opinion , in all cases it is a philosophical important difference because it describes patterns, but not the being of the system itself or how it sustains internal coherence through time. We need motions, rotations, oscillations, changes......

Where I think we can go further is by grounding these abstractions in physical structure. If we take the fundamental entities of the universe ,what I call quantum structural 3d series of spheres as the basis, then categories, relationships, and numbers become descriptors of these deeper, real structures.

In my approach, these fundamental quantum objects can be modeled as 3-dimensional spheres carrying intrinsic relational information (topological, geomtetric,energetic.....) that underlies the numerical and categorical relations we see in physics. In that sense, the “numbers” move because the physical structures themselves evolve, so the dynamical geometry provides the substrate for change , it is there that the volumes are important for the evolution and about the negentropy and entropy for the stabilities and changes.

The 0-dimensional omnipresent consciousness ) represents the ultimate unifying reference, so the consciousness is a key , this infinite eternal source intrigues me about how all structure arises, mathematical like physical and the relational dynamics. We can even extrapolate with the observations and a kind of meta observer but it is philosophical.But it is relevant about what you told for the self referential coherence because it allows to the systems to know themselves
So, to make a viable system truly self-consistent, we need maybe both

The structural substrate (quantum geometry, physical form of the relations), the 3d series of spheres, and the informational or conscious reference point (0D omnipresent awareness) that allows the structure to know and maintain itself and we can so consider there the relations, categories , numbers like a partition correlated with these 3d quantum structures.
In that way and it is very important categories, relationships, and numbers aren’t just abstract butthey’re reflections of deeper physical and conscious structures interacting across scales. But the conscious structure is in 0D , so paradoxally without structure, so it is relevant what you told about the know itself in this case universally speaking considering this God of Spinoza. That implies so that our consciousness needs physical structures to allow a conscious state in a physical systems, so life and consciousness are a kind of pure universal essence , so all live and is conscious because the 0D infinite eternal consciousness living is the primary essence and is omnipresent, omnipotent. Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford tere are two errors you describe. 1. error in the eq due toignorance about the full system

error due to a changing system, which makes it open. This is the situation in life.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford
Dear Lorraine, dear Ulla, so in my theory I see like this.
Self-Referential Coherence and the Spherisation of the Universe

At the foundation of existence, there is a 0-dimensional omnipotent infinite eternal consciousness s without extension, the ultimate reference of all being, of the universe physical. This 0D source is not a nothingness but a potential without limit, an absolute of awareness that contains within itself the seed of all structure and so we can extrapolate the informational mathematical systems with the categories, relations.....but how to consider it physically with fields if it is in 0D.

From this origin emerges the process of spherisation, the evolution improvement of the universe ,the self-organizing reality through quantum 3D spheres. These quantum spheres 3dso are units of fundamental structure: a quantized, finite manifestation of relational coherence derived from the infinite 0D potential, the begining of the universe so becomes intriguing in the production of series and the 3 main systems cosmologically speaking, the photons, the DM, the DE. If the DE is antigravitational and implies a fifth force, and that this DE encodes the Photons and DM to create the ordinary matters, so the negentropy and entropy become very relevant for the stabilities of physical structures and the changes and evoltion and consciousness. There the spherical volumes of these series become a key for the negentropy and stable informations, that explains the diversity of atoms, the ckemistry and biology and free will in this logic.

These spheres are not static; they embody quantum dynamical relations ,oscillations, rotations, and interactions that define their intrinsic properties (energy, spin, phase, etc.). Through their relational dynamics, they generate categories, relationships, and numerical laws.
But crucially, the coherence of this evolving universe does not arise from equations alone. It is self-referential , it is the paradox , each level of structure “knows” itself through the feedback of its relations with all others, mediated by the background consciousness , this 0D , that is why we are conscious in our physical systems like all and that all lives.This is what allows the universe to be a viable system,it sustains its own dynamics because its structure is rooted in a continuous reference to its own origin. We are in a kind of project of evolution of this God of spinoza like einstein said.
The 0D source provides the infinite reference.
The 3D quantum spheres are the finite expressions (structure, dynamics, multiplicity).
So there is liks a self-referential coherence between the infinite (0D) and the finite (3D) , it is like a communication between them informationally speaking,so the consciousness and structures and maths sing the partition in apoetic universal general philosophical reduction.

The evolution of the universe is therefore a process of progressive spherisation , the formation of increasingly complex and coherent configurations of quantum spheres, guided by the underlying informational awareness of the 0D origin.The complexity in the higher orders intrigue me about the fact if we have souls and that this universe evolve, we create maybe a kind of paradise and all is in a continuity evolving and we utilise this consciousness in this project. This infiniet eternal consciousness so improve all this and lives all this and even maybe experiment, I don t assert, I just extrapolate several general possibilities.

In this theory of spherisation, so the physical laws are emergent structures and the consciousness and matter are two aspects of the same process.
The universe evolves not only through expansion and entropy, but through self-organizing coherence so rankings of negentropy for the stabilities, the diversity and the evolutio.
Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny Good reasoning, but now you handle two kinds of consciousness, one entropic and one negentropic, note. We generally talk only of the negentropic, coherent, convergent one. This makes us miss out on the fundamental entropic consciousness that must be seen as 'all possible choices', both +and -? In this case the 0D?
Clue, what is a fundamental 'signal' or 'sensor'? Or a fundamental information?
Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
So in a resume there is like only one sciences because all lives and all is conscious, the biology , so the essay contest how quantum is life, it is simple, all lives and all is conscious.....

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk Could you develop about the 2 different consciousness, negentropy and entropy please I am very interested to know more , regards

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk if I speak about this DE antigravitationl encoding the photons and DM, it is because we need something to balance the gravitation, the newtonian and relativistic ones because all the universe living acts between always a balance betwween 2 systems,+ – for the charges, the males, females, entropy negentropy, the gravitationl antigravitation, the protons electrons, this and that , in fact we need always this , I don t assert of course, I just tell me that it is a fundamental universal principle. That is why I consider the spherical volumes essential and their motions, rotations, oscillations....the sense even of rotations also for the rankings and dynamics in an evolutive points of vue.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny Newton had an 'absolute' ref. and here you put 0D as such fundamental pool of consciousness, like a standing wave of everything.... We need to attatch the reasoning in something not changeable, absolute, to avoid infinities. This was an effort of Penrose that gave him a Nobel. Surprisingly this pool of consciousness can work as such limit, unchanging in its changing...
Einstein made it continous as a PDE and this made the difficulties in quantizing gravity, but it solved other questions. This is maybe how science evolve, we transform our understanding or consciousness. But there is always a cost also. String theory is a chain in this link. Spheres has been and maybe come back again as a link? Math tries to describe this dynamicity but it has difficulties doing so. If we use numbers as categories they must do a very quick 'dance' (as Hamiltonians?). t'Hooft said we should only use integers as 'absolute limit', but he got a fractalisation. Quantum is like a limit, but there may exist deeper limits or 'wells' as pre-quantum (Adler). 0D is such an effort? If we think about spacetime it is such kind of problem, it is changeable (infinite dimensional?).
Surprisingly it is the quantum computer folk that today think hard about this all. They have seen the problems. I am deeply impressed of what they do.
Ulla.

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny Could you develop about the 2 different consciousness, negentropy and entropy

If we think uncertainty you can see it maybe. Heisenberg found the middle point where we have a chance to see it as a fundamental character, and we can perturb it, then we see the question we ask will get clearer (more particle-like) but the other end escape towards infinity in a Fourier-like way. And vice versa. This was my answer to Lorraine seen as knowledge (the particle) and ignorance (the expanded situation). Basically this is entropy and negentropy, but note it is your question that define which end it is or strive towards. So of course you are right that consciousness is one, but we get confused if we talk about the entropical consciousness as a negentropic dito. There is already enough of confusion as it is...
Adler has the uncertainty as non-commuting, but in the middle it can be commuting (max information transfer in Shannon).
This is something I have thought about in a long time, but it was David Chester that again brought it up with the link to causal entropy.
Ulla.

« Previous Page Next Page »