Luke Leighton Hi,
The problem is our limitations. We need to link ontology, why we exist and what actually exist and from what and how,we need also a theory concrete of consciousness and a kind of foundation for the the informations and the correlated logic. We can all agree that the equations alone are not enough and it is the ontological problem. That is why Lorraine is right in telling that equations don t move anything , these equations are static and the real world is dynamic. There is something inportant missing and it is why the ontology is essential .We must in fact try to go deeper in the causes of this reality like the fields, the relations, the informations causing this,.....It is like if we had a pure abstract description without real universal engine or cause. The consciousness problem so becomes essential because it is like a truth hidden somewhere and with mechanisms concrete and deterministic.
So Lorraine is still right because we need something determining what is true simply and it is the pure logic for our maths and physics. It is like if we must extrapolate the states in trying to fin a pure universal logic, so the observations and measurements are important but they need deeper causes. Why we have negentropic stabilities , why there is selection of actual states from all the others. It is about the possibil;ities and intepretations. That is why Lorraine is probably right in telling that consciousness is essential for the kind of truth instantiating systems, I consider an universal eternal consciousness in my theory but of course I don t assert and don t know how this thing acts and where at this quantum scale. The maths describe these possibilities and so there is smething important to find for the negentropic stabilities and changes even but it is not easy to understand the universal logic behind this and for the moving system and their causes, we must find the causes from static to dynamic. Linear logic so are not sufficient , we need non linear reasonings probably for these dynamics and in considering deeper ontological causes and so a better understanding of these primary informations and a better understanding of what are these fundamental quantum objects.
I consider spheres instead of strings but we cannot assert. Entropy ande negentropy in these quantum mechanisms have a logic with informations, fields, particles, consciousness.... Must we consider higher dimensional analysis and complexity for this consciousness , I dont know, because the problem is ontologivcal about the primary essence, have we only this GR and photons like primary essence and after the oscillations, waves universal functions, hilbetrt space, hopf fibrations like in the works of Jenny Lorraine Nielsen, I don t know but the problem is ontological and about our choices for the extrapolations . Maybe the extrapolations can be in a pure logic of motions, oscillations of spherical volumes instead of strings.
But we don t know. In all the cases we need a topology and geometries for all this puzzle at all scales and an ontology for the consciousnerss and informations. What are the structures of these informations, Bob Coecke works well about the quantum computing and Bloch Sphere,there is a bridge towards the universal informations, maybe these volumes spherical are a key. Informations are not just Bits at my humble opinion. We need relationships, constraints, structures....... Logic, maths, physics have in fact hidden truths. Physics , logic, reality, minds, informations,fundamental objects,........there is a kind of universal logic permitting to go from this static to dynamic. It is like if I said that this ontology found can permit with a structure for the fields, particles, informations to have a dynamic permitting the changes and evolution, like if the nature, the reality choose the truth and permit the negentropic stabilities and the changes also.
Measurements, observations, causations, consciousness need this ontology about the nature ,the reality, the consciousness, so yes it is a hard problem this consciousness. We cannot conclude philosophoically, it becomes non scientific in telling this about Advaita Vedanta, we cannot actually claim that consciousness with negentropy is egal.It is not proved. Maths I repeat describe possibilities but reality requires a strucutre, a process, and a selection,that is why ontology, dynamic, and negentropy more evolution and changes are essential to find but we have not found still. Regards
