Quantum Physics for Burning Questions by George Schoenfelder

George

Loved your essay and the principles. Rated you much higher as it's well underrated. I think you're pretty spot on, just not conventional enough for most!

If you're really interested in a route unification check out my own; 'Perfect Symmetry', you may like to check through the posts first!

Best of luck.

Peter Jackson

Dear George Schoenfelder,

You say: "I am disappointed with [field theory] as follows. 1) It does not have a local mechanism of how photons travel "at a distance" in space. 2) It gives photons the behavior of choice. As Feynman says, "the photons actually 'decide'". In my life at least, colors do not seem to make choices for me. Instead, my molecular-self has been making my choices" ... 3) It does not resolve the wave particle duality. 4) It does not resolve the "spooky" instantaneous signaling of entanglement. 5) It does not address the number of spatial dimensions. 6) It does not link QM with GR. 7) It does not address multi-universes.

I'm not certain that I understand your first statement, so I'll address the others.

The modern perspective is that the forces that hold molecules together are exchange of photons and/or virtual photons. So photons, or the electromagnetic field, are inseparable from the molecular elements. Therefore it is difficult for me to see how you dismiss the field and claim that it's the 'molecular-self' that makes choices. And if so, then I return to the question of how such consciousness goes beyond one atom to encompass the body-brain. How does one atom, aware of anything, share this awareness with the other trillions of atoms if not through a field?

But you state that "In my life at least, colors do not seem to make choices for me." I do not propose that the electromagnetic field has consciousness, in fact, (in my theory) it does not. The consciousness field is a gravito-conscious phenomenon, not an electromagnetic phenomenon -- one which interacts with mass, not charge.

The wave-particle duality has not considered the consciousness field, and I believe that the concept has much to offer in this respect, as I believe it does for entanglement. Are you saying that your concept of conscious molecules addresses the wave-particle duality? I missed that in your essay.

I'm not sure what you're looking for as to addressing the number of spatial dimensions, so I won't comment here, except to say that I am conscious of three spatial dimensions, and find no real problem with that fact. I neither explain it or reject it or consider it a problem.

You claim that it does not link QM with GR, but my Master equation is based on gravity and this immediately leads to a quantum condition that has, as special cases, both forms of Heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle. This is a more direct link than I have seen elsewhere.

Finally, multi-universes are unnecessary. These are meta-physical constructs that have no physical reality, but were postulated as alternative meta-physics for the purpose of explaining fine tuning. The consciousness field is based on our real experience of consciousness, not a pseudo-religious idea created to counter another religious idea.

As for EMR being a bigger issue than gravity, it is certainly more useful for gaining information about the molecular world. But my argument was that we typically need some intermediate entity to perceive the portion of the spectrum that we do, whereas we perceive gravity and consciousness im-mediately, requiring no media. For example, a blind person cannot perceive EMR, but can still perceive gravity and consciousness. So it seems reasonable to base a theory of physics on the most basic sensed phenomena, rather than on abstractions. As you state above, as soon as you bring electromagnetic phenomena into the picture, you are immediately faced with the wave-particle abstraction.

You ask: "In that respect do you think we have in common the general strategy that the "hard problem" of consciousness can only be resolve after there is a reasonable model of how the universe works at the required Planck scale?"

I think of the 'hard problem' of consciousness as explaining how awareness and volition arise from unaware material-- a problem that no one has solved. The problem disappears if one assumes that consciousness is an innate property of the universe, as both you and I appear to do. I propose that consciousness is instantiated as a field, and you seem to propose that consciousness is associated with matter. Both of these ideas remove the 'hard problem' by making it irrelevant, since consciousness does not arise from constructions (Lego blocks). But if one believes the current model of the big bang, then I believe that there is a period of time before material condenses from the 'fireball'. Do you believe that consciousness came into being only when the material arose?

Thanks for your comments and questions,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Peter Jackson,

Thank you for appreciating my essay. I think it is great your essay challenges the basics like mine. It only takes one wrong turn to get lost. I am glad you appreciate my slightly different spin on the aether drag. I also liked your discussion on funding. It is good that FQXi is trying to do something about it. I plan to rate your essay much higher as it too is well underrated.

I contend that most of the recent contortions of physics are to salvage the very early "wrong turn" of wave mechanics, which is a current problem, not a solution. More specifically the wave interpretation of the slit experiments is simply wrong. That is not to say that the wave interpretation has not been descriptive, and thus a useful language for the engineering specification of equipment, but as many of the FQXi essays point out "mathematics is not physics." To move forward a universal "field" mechanism needs to be made. Then the mathematics follows the "mechanism" and not the other way round, as is the unfortunate state of modern physics. In regard to criteria of a scientific field that is complete, I invite you to comment on the last half of my response below to Edwin Klingman.

I look forward to hearing from you.

George Schoenfelder

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Every morning we wake up and are confronted with the astounding empirical FACT that the cosmos is capable of consciousness. This is the most reliable fact within the discipline that we call physics, yet the most difficult. Only the environment can tell us which field theories are real. Below I offer criteria for a "real" complete field mechanism on which we should be able to agree.

At the end of your last comment you asked, "Do you believe that consciousness came into being only when the material arose?" I think that consciousness in human beings evolved mutation by mutation. That means that for the last 4 billion years or so specific mutated protein behaviors eventually evolved consciousness within the human brain. Since atoms and molecules by themselves are not conscious, then somewhere along the evolutionary line between C. elegans and primates biological cells in brains became the subconscious mind and conscious mind. That means that some "constructions [of] (Lego blocks)" remained subconscious and some "constructions [of] (Lego blocks)" came to be conscious. I do think that fields play a part in why the latter differentiation of minds is true. However, we need to agree on a field mechanism first.

As far as "only when the material arose?" in that the big bang coming from nothingness and the big crunch going back to nothingness, as I say in my essay, the concept of nothingness must be stricken from science because it is by definition not measurable. I think today human talent is much better spent in the physics of molecular biology and the technology of quantum computation than attempting to answer the philosophical questions, "When did something come from nothing and when will it go back to nothing" This is because biology and computation are here, now, and have such great potential with improving the human condition. For example, the cholesterol-lowering drug Crestor is enormously more important to the human condition than black holes potentially gobbling us up in the dark. Until no-thing-ness can be proven, then all physics must be based on thing-ness. This means fields are not of local nothing but comprised of local things. Leave philosophy to the philosophers.

I next give my iconoclastic opinion on "fields" starting with Webster's definition, "12. Physics. "the influence of some agent, as electricity or gravitation, considered as existing at all points in space and defined by the force it would exert on an object placed at any point in space." With Webster as an outline, I suggest the following as the criteria of a scientific field that is complete.

1. "the influence of some agent [mechanism]...existing at all points in space" must be of one all encompassing agent mechanism type, a.k.a. a unified field theory.

2. A "point" must have a discrete size because it is not nothing.

3. Scientifically "space" must be of something.

4. How "force" is "influence" must be shown to be a measurable change of ATOMIC states "on an object placed at any [LOCAL] point in space."

5. A complete field explanation must account for the Planck scale.

6. It must account for how some atomic spin states appear to change instantaneously.

7. It must resolve the duality of EMR, wave collapse, measurement, etc.

8. It must include a local mechanism of how things travel from place to place.

9. It must be compatible with language, mathematics, and/or computer simulation.

10. It must show how and why some regions in space are not conscious and some are.

11. It must only incorporate fundamental assumptions that are directly observable. Direct observables include: 1) charges, [a.k.a. the quanta of discrete matter] 2) move [change state] 3) in a coordinated [computational choice] way 4) that evolved 5) subconscious brains and 6) conscious brains. Not observable oxymora and assumptions that must not be incorporated include nothingness, infinity, zero size, absolute zero motion of all things, zero time, and action at a distance without agent mechanistic things in between.

12. It must be congruent with the entire empirical record, and not just that implied above.

Did I miss any thing? I look forward to your thoughts?

George Schoenfelder

Dear George Schoenfelder

We certainly agree on the *fact* of consciousness and its significance for physics. Furthermore we agree on your list of oxymora in item 11.

Going down your list of items:

1. OK

2. OK, except that mathematical concept of 'point' is useful.

3. OK, since "space" is filled with field[s].

4. OK, if by ATOMIC you mean indivisible.

5. OK, and I refer you to my quantum flow principle which yields an identity when the Planck measures are plugged in.

6. OK, if you are using the word 'instantaneously' loosely.

7. Not so sure. My theory re-interprets QM so that "wave collapse" is not a relevant concept. Also unsure of what you mean by "resolve measurement".

8. OK, I suppose. not sure what you have in mind here.

9. OK

10. OK, if you accept "degrees' of consciousness differing from place to place. The consciousness field in interstellar space is so weak as to be meaningless.

11. Generally OK, but I don't distinguish subsconscious brains and conscious brains.

12. OK

So we are generally in agreement on physical reality and how physics should be formulated.

Where we disagree is on the nature of consciousness. If I understand you correctly, you believe that consciousness comes into existence and evolves with constructions of material. I do not, without arguing about 'nothingness' or what preceded the big bang. I believe that the primordial field G/C is fundamentally conscious, and the evolution of material and material constructions lead to logic and essentially enriched the "content" of consciousness and enabled intelligence, which I define as consciousness (field) plus logic (machinery).

The idea that awareness and free will did not originally exist, but suddenly come into existence at some point of constructional complexity is one that I simply reject, after decades of considering the problem. I know that this is the current consensus theory, but it is hopelessly wrong. I also believe that your term "subconscious" should be included in your list of observable oxymora.

George, we agree on most of the issues. I hope that you will continue to consider my ideas on consciousness.

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Klingman,

First let me say that I am happy with our dialog and that we generally agree on the field criteria from my last post. Thanks for your detailed reply.

In regards to your statement, "The idea that awareness and free will did not originally exist, but suddenly come into existence at some point of constructional complexity is one that I simply reject..." I agree with you. I reject it too. Let me elaborate why.

I show in my first book in more detail than below HOW the atomic elements of the periodic table are the intrinsic source of all that we call human, with the one exception of consciousness. This is why artificial equipment can be so intelligent. For the sake of discussion I list below 16 human features that cell phones can do. I contend that cell phones have those abilities because its constituent elements of the periodic table have them too. In this way these abilities, as you say, did not "suddenly come into existence at some point of [biological] constructional complexity" but instead have been around before the earth formed. I kept the numbering scheme from my book so you will notice I left out the more difficult ones for now. My problem solving strategy has always been to solve the obvious problems first and then solutions of the hard problems become obvious. So, lets agree on those below first, so we can move forward to awareness, free will, unconsciousness, and consciousness.

Some human abilities that cell phones have for your comment.

2) Cell phones access memory.

3) Cell phones store memory.

4) Cell phones computationally choose which signaled calls to take and not take.

6) Cell phones initiate physical action based on its past environment, e.g. after it is called it rings.

7) Cell phones make EMR "field" measurements before they choose to ring.

8) Cell phones have a classical position in space.

10) Cell phones keep time.

11) Cell phones participate in cause and effect.

12) Cell phones cooperate in a network.

13) Cell phones physically move their sounders.

14) Cell phones signal each other.

15) Cell phones process information.

16) Cell phones communicate with others.

17) Cell phones are intelligent.

18) Cell phones learn by changing behavior based on their environment.

20) Cell phones have self-governing behaviors that depend on the arrangement of its parts.

In summary, I contend that humans also have the above abilities because its constituent elements of the periodic table have them too. In other words, the phrase atoms and proteins could be substituted for the phrase cell phones in 2-20 above.

I look forward to your comments.

George Schoenfelder

Dear George Schoenfelder,

Your background as well as your attitude seem to have a lot in common with mine. Admittedly the essay of mine is even more at odds with the widespread and always applauded hope for a lazy remedy to the already obvious failures of theoretical physics and to the still expectable ones. Could you agree at least in part?

Regards,

Eckard

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I too am happy with our dialog and that we generally agree on the field criteria from the last post.

And you state, in regards to: "The idea that awareness and free will did not originally exist, but suddenly come into existence at some point of constructional complexity is one that I simply reject" that you agree with me. You reject it too. Then you elaborate why, in terms of a cell phone example.

I have designed both digital communication adapters for IBM PCs, handheld ISDN test sets, and ISDN phones that work worldwide, so I have opinions in this area. Specifically, as I indicate in my essay, I separate intelligence and consciousness, where, as you know, I define consciousness as a field that possesses awareness and volition (the ability to act) and interacts with matter. But I define intelligence as consciousness (the field) plus logic (hardware). It is the operation of the logic hardware that allows the logical manipulation of signals, combining them, calculating results, storing results, recalling the stored results, transferring results, recombining results, comparing results, etc, etc. I have explained all of these operations and more in two Prentice-Hall textbooks: "Microprocessor Systems Design, Vol I and II".

All of these I group under logical operations, and I do not associate *any* consciousness with these operations -- they are purely logical in nature, and more specifically, physical in nature. In fact, in James Putnam's terminology, these are all mechanical operations, deterministic in nature. In fact, many of the operations were achieved by teletype machines which were purely mechanical. That they can be said to be analogous with some human behaviors does not imply that intelligence should be attributed to cell phones. Humans have bio-hardware that operates largely mechanically, that is, logically. It is the interaction of the bio-hardware with the consciousness field that I define as intelligence.

So we probably disagree on the meaning of "self-governing" in your last statement. They are programmed machines that exhibit deterministic, mechanical behaviors without the slightest "free will" or intelligence, in the specific way that I define intelligence, that is, the cell phones have no consciousness. Yes, they exist in the consciousness field, but their interactions with the field are absolutely minimal, since they do not produce mass currents of any significance. The brain has evolved to maximize the movement of mass in the consciousness field, cell phones have not been designed to even take the C-field into account.

I do not see that it has anything to do with the periodic table. The C-field effects at the atomic level are minimal. The increased mass density at the nucleus increases the effects, and the larger mass of bio-logical systems increases the effect, but the C-field is negligible at the atomic and molecular level, else there would be problems with chemistry, which does quite well without the C-field. As always, it is not only the concepts that must make sense, but the numbers must work out as well.

So we're probably not in as much agreement here as we were on the subject of fields.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Eckard Blumschein,

Thank you for your interest in my essay. From one engineer to another that has worked with biological mechanisms, we do indeed have a lot in common. As a design engineer the fine structure of the ear has always fascinated me. Especially I was awed by the precise arrays of stereocilia that are tuned to the audible frequency range. How did they get that way? Isn't it amazing what protein behavior can do in and out of the womb?

I enjoyed your discussion on the spectral analysis of the cochlea and the related mathematics. In my past I worked on artificial vision and taste. I came to realize that eyes do not see and tongues do not taste but brains do. Likewise I suppose your work was fraught with challenges because ears do not hear but brains do.

From my engineering perspective multi-dimensionality mathematics the likes of Hilbert space, functional analysis, Gauge theory, etc. are useful because they allow multiple parameters as dimensions to be incorporated in calculations that give guidance toward design engineering choices. So to answer your question yes I agree that fine-tuning the likes of a Hilbert space may help in the short run. However, I think one mathematical model is destined to continue to be incomplete and misleading in the general unified field sense. This is because in reality's complex systems there are just too many parameters. Therefore, I think computer simulations will eventually unite the best of math models. For example, I contend and I outline in my essay that any unified field must accommodate the complexity of embryogenesis, the detail of which--remembering the precise arrays of stereocilia--is far to complex for any one math model regardless of how many dimensions it poses. On the other hand, the nodal Turing machine based architectural topology that I propose seems capable of that.

You asked in your essay, "Is there really an absolutely empty [no-thing-ness] space...?" Of course not, this is because "nothingness" is an oxymoron, and the evidence of vacuum polarization is overwhelming. To answer that in more detail and to solicit your opinion, I request you read my criteria for a unified field that I have been discussing on my FQXi page with Dr. Klingman. I have copied that part below for your convenience.

I next give my iconoclastic opinion on "fields" starting with Webster's definition, "12. Physics. "the influence of some agent, as electricity or gravitation, considered as existing at all points in space and defined by the force it would exert on an object placed at any point in space." With Webster as an outline, I suggest the following as the criteria of a scientific field that is complete.

1. "the influence of some agent [mechanism]...existing at all points in space" must be of one all encompassing agent mechanism type, a.k.a. a unified field theory.

2. A "point" must have a discrete size because it is not nothing.

3. Scientifically "space" must be of something.

4. How "force" is "influence" must be shown to be a measurable change of ATOMIC states "on an object placed at any [LOCAL] point in space."

5. A complete field explanation must account for the Planck scale.

6. It must account for how some atomic spin states appear to change instantaneously.

7. It must resolve the duality of EMR, wave collapse, measurement, etc.

8. It must include a local mechanism of how things travel from place to place.

9. It must be compatible with language, mathematics, and/or computer simulation.

10. It must show how and why some regions in space are not conscious and some are.

11. It must only incorporate fundamental assumptions that are directly observable. Direct observables include: 1) charges, [a.k.a. the quanta of discrete matter] 2) move [change state] 3) in a coordinated [computational choice] way 4) that evolved 5) subconscious brains and 6) conscious brains. Not observable oxymora and assumptions that must not be incorporated include nothingness, infinity, zero size, absolute zero motion of all things, zero time, and action at a distance without agent mechanistic things in between.

12. It must be congruent with the entire empirical record, and not just that implied above.

Did I miss anything? I look forward to your thoughts.

George Schoenfelder

Dear Dr. Klingman,

As one accomplished engineer to another I am happy to say that we fundamentally agree on physics and its engineering applications of cell phones and microprocessor systems. However, we have an issue in the realm of psychology regarding the subconscious mind based on your statement, "11. Generally OK, but I don't distinguish subconscious brains and conscious brains."

Although I agree with you "cell phones [and their microprocessor systems] have no consciousness," the subconscious mind has been proven to have intelligence as tested in innumerable psychology labs. The empirical record strongly suggest that intelligence is not contingent on consciousness.

As a middle ground that we share, I agree with you that the hard problem of consciousness is core to how the universe works, and that a core issue there must be a comprehensive field theory that incorporates an explanation of the conscious mind, i.e. our field criteria line item 10. My gut tells me that we can both improve our works by better understanding each other. For example, since our anti-subconscious mine position is so radical you need to be specific on how it is not so. In my case I need to show more how my work is "congruent with the entire empirical record, and not just" what I show in my FQXi essay and books.

In general I am probably every bit as much of an iconoclast as you but in this case of the unconscious mind, I agree with the establishment. Perhaps, this is because in past my psyche as been more troubled that yours and I have had to confront my subliminal motives more so than you?

In my career I have been in innumerable situations where intelligent people disagree and I have found that most often it was a definition of terms and a semantic problem. For now, let me define terms in a way that you and I have shared experience, rather than other people's lab results.

Let us start with; when I drive my car I am not consciously aware of all my actions and yet those unconscious actions are intelligent. Is this the case for you?

Would you not agree that the conscious visual field is not created by consciousness but is instead the product of the brains subconscious "intelligent" information processing that starts with billions of retinal molecules? I am not directly consciously aware of all the minutia of information processing detail are you? I only know about it because I studied biology and have not reason to dispute their findings. What am I missing?

You said your conscious C-field "interacts with matter." This implies it is not matter. It would also help me if you clarified what the C-field is made of.

I look forward to your comments.

George Schoenfelder

Dear George Schoenfelder,

You say "the subconscious mind has been proven to have intelligence as tested in innumerable psychology labs. The empirical record strongly suggest that intelligence is not contingent on consciousness."

What we have here is a failure to communicate. My theory is very specifically based on terms that I define. These terms are ordinarily not very specifically defined, so our logic very quickly degenerates if "common usage" is mixed with very specific definitions. In the above sentence you are using common terminology, but that has no bearing on my theory. In terms of my theory what you say should be restated: "The empirical record strongly suggest that logic is not contingent on consciousness." In other words, logic (hardware) is operable in the body/brain below the level of awareness (field) (or, more accurately, "focused awareness").

I assume that awareness is the "input" property sensed by the consciousness field, and volition is the "output" property effected by the consciousness field, and I do not subdivide consciousness into two categories, 'consciousness' and 'subconsciousness'. There are of course many shades of conscious awareness, as we all know. Some of these are awake, asleep, anesthetized, hallucinatory, hypnotized, drunk, orgasm, etc etc. These are all, in my theory, variations on the consciousness field, interacting with the body-brain and non-linearly interacting with itself. All of these states vary to some degree in what we might call a "threshold" but the common usage, I believe, is more basic than that. Many seem to consider the "sub-conscious" as some basic entity. I reject that.

I do agree with: "the hard problem of consciousness is core to how the universe works, and that a core issue there must be a comprehensive field theory that incorporates an explanation of the conscious mind..."

As I've remarked in other comments, it is almost certainly "a definition of terms and a semantic problem." This is why I continually repeat my basic definitions of consciousness and intelligence. Things are complicated enough without adding sloppy terminology. But it does take a while for specialists to synchronize their vocabulary. All of my essay and all my equations are based on my definitions, which I believe to be reasonable and generally consistent with common usage, but much more tightly defined.

You talk about the subconscious and 'psyche' and then about events while driving. Those are only two of countless events going on in the body-brain, almost all of which are "below the threshold" of conscious self-awareness. Yet, it is my belief that all fifty trillion cells of the body are essentially tied together into a living whole by the consciousness field. And the field itself, interacting with both the body and with itself determines where the highest awareness is focused. This can immediately shift if you stub your toe or hit your funny bone, or see a red light, etc etc.

So when you say, "when I drive my car I am not consciously aware of all my actions and yet those unconscious actions are intelligent. Is this the case for you?", the answer is that they are all conscious actions, interacting with the logic of the body-brain, and hence intelligent. But there is no 'subconscious' at work. The consciousness simply focuses awareness where it's needed.

As for Freudian type 'psyche' problems, the body brain grows over the years and may contain brain patterns that are "problematical" from a healthy perspective. I view these more as "badly wired logic circuitry" rather than as a "subconscious" entity. When the C-field interacts with these circuits, we see unhappy results. Sometimes psychotherapy can re-wire these circuits, sometime pills can suppress them. Either way, it's "mechanico-logical" not "subconscious".

Then you say: "Would you not agree that the conscious visual field is not created by consciousness but is instead the product of the brains subconscious "intelligent" information processing that starts with billions of retinal molecules?"

I would rephrase this: "the conscious visual field is not created by consciousness but is instead the product of the brains logical information processing that starts with billions of retinal molecules?"

The interactions at the atomic level have almost no conscious significance. But eventually the logic circuitry produces ions flowing down an axon, and vesicles flowing into and across synapses, and the increased mass of these resultant events does raise the level of awareness. The logical circuitry is pretty well understood. It is only the problem of where awareness arises that is a mystery. That is why "I am not directly consciously aware of all the minutia of information processing detail."

And as for "You said your conscious C-field "interacts with matter." This implies it is not matter. It would also help me if you clarified what the C-field is made of."

I would rephrase this: "You said your gravity G-field "interacts with matter." This implies it is not matter. It would also help me if you clarified what the gravity-field is made of."

If you can understand my rephrased statement, then you can understand the C-field. If you cannot understand the essence of gravity and consciousness, then you probably agree with the concluding sentence in my essay:

What is ultimately impossible is to explain gravity and consciousness; the essence of G and C (self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious. This defines the ultimate possibility of physics.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Klingman,

Before I comment on your last remarks I will provide the standard of discipline to which I hold my work, and therefore that of everyone else. I look forward to your thoughts on this too. This is to help you know where I am coming from when we disagree. As we have agreed, we first must define our terms.

First and foremost, I define physics as the reverse engineering of nature. In my view this has benefited humanity because the main benefit of physics is its predictive models that help engineer's design, build, and operate things. At its purest, physics as reverse engineering strives to explain physical function from physical form. In contrast and at its purest, philosophy, language, and mathematics strives to explain physical function from idea. To put this into historical perspective, it could be said this is the fundamental difference between Aristotle and Plato. The fundamental problem here is the unavoidable use of the symbolic languages of word and math in science. In my view the fundamental "problem with physics" lies here. This is mainly because the core word ideas we must use in physics were coined in and before the dark ages. For example, from Webster: intelligent, 1500AD; mind, before 900AD; free will, 1525AD; and brain before 1000AD. I have found it exceedingly difficult to expunge antiquated Platonic connotations from words and mathematics. Plato lurks at every turn and it only takes one wrong turn to get lost.

Ten years ago I decided that all words that I use to write and think must be modernized based on the current empirical record otherwise I don't use them, e.g. nothingness, infinity, etc. In other words, I would not use any idea that cannot be tested. Of course, I realized that this might lead to a dead-end, but I decided to take the risk and see where it goes. So, I in my work I have just connected the dots of experimental results. Frankly, this strategy has exceeded my expectation. I think because the gaps between the dots are much less than just 50 years ago. In other words, there is now no necessity of a Kierkegardian "leap of faith" between dots when connecting them. For example, we can now locally connect two things in a vacuum with positronium without the "leap of faith" of nothingness.

This means I have tried my best to eliminate Plato from engineering and physics. Hence I reject dualism on the grounds that its concepts are not "from physical form" and therefore cannot have "physical function" to be reversed engineered. If you like Occam's razor, then monism is better than dualism.

So with that said, when you say the C-field has no physical form I have a problem. This is because anybody can postulate anything that is without physical form and calm it affects anything and everything without the need of a physical mechanism. You might be right but how can we compare it with other models without physical form. In other words, quoting your last essay's words "the essence of G and C (self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious," because they do not have physical form. In summary we should exhaust reasonable physical form models before we move on to others without form regardless of how logical they might be.

Overall I like your ideas and I think I can help give them "physical form" but to do that we are both going to have to bend a little.

Next to resolve our difference on the subconscious mind I suggest we jointly interpret the early works of Benjamin Libet where he put electrons in the brains of brain surgery patients while they were awake and applied a constant voltage for different durations. If you are not familiar with this you may have trouble finding it on the Internet because it is overshadowed by his later work on volition. If this is the case I can summarize it with quotes from citations.

I look forward to your comments.

George Schoenfelder

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I too reject dualism.

As for form, show me the form of the gravity field. Or of the magnetic field. I'm interested in what you mean by your claim that you think you can help give them "physical form".

My theory describes the genesis of material particles from the C-field. All physical "forms" of interest are built from these particles. I'm interested in what other form you have in mind, having rejected, as I do, Platonic "forms".

The action of the brain has been explained above and in my essay as (physically formed) "logic hardware" coupled to the consciousness field. There are no "special cases" that fall outside of this model. Every neurological experiment deals with the physical brain and/or awareness. The coupling between these two aspects is described by the equations in my essay.

The interaction of mass with the C-field provides a coupling between consciousness and the physical universe that has been missing and that some other essays deny, by claiming that consciousness is "non-physical". The extent of the "form" that is relevant to these phenomena is the "form" of the equations. All other forms are special cases that are "covered by" or "subject to" or "described by" the equations. In addition, my theory makes predictions about the physical forms that will be found at the Large Hadron Collider, something that very few other essays in this contest do. So a falsification mechanism exists.

At this point, I believe rereading my essay will answer more questions than debating "physical form", but I am interested to see what forms you assign to gravity and to the magnetic field.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I am delighted to meet someone who can possibly appreciate the importance of Ren's work at least for the theory of hearing.

Thank you for providing your 12 criteria. I copied and printed them, promise to check them as soon as possible, and will then reply - if you do not object - below my essay.

Regards,

Eckard

Dear Dr. Klingman,

I apologize for not responding sooner. As before I quote you and then comment.

"I too reject dualism." Yes but, we both have a "modernized dualism" that is implicit in our phrase "logic hardware." However, unlike the historic dualism ours is founded in computer science, namely software is inseparable from hardware. More generally and thus more importantly, our "modern dualism" is founded in spectroscopy in that discrete and atom-specific eigenstates constitute both logic and hardware registers, in the general sense of register. Thus I say, brains and cell phones have logic in their hardware because both are made from the "logic hardware," that is intrinsic to the elements of the periodic table. The critical differences here are 1) our modern dualism is founded on the experiments of spectroscopy and artificial intelligence rather than ancient philosophy. 2) It is consistent with BOTH inorganic and organic chemistry, and thus does not require vitalism. 3) It is based on "reverse engineering" functionalism rather than idealism. 4) It is consistent with molecular biology, embryo-self governing assembly, and how proteins regulate the brain. And 5) it is a local bottom-up mechanism rather than a top-down Platonic generality that originates from nowhere specifically.

"As for form, show me the form of the gravity field. Or of the magnetic field. I'm interested in what you mean by your claim that you think you can help give them 'physical form'". In my essay's section six I describe a physical form that I suggest to be the architecture of the universe that is based on the "logic hardware" of discrete charges that constitute atomic systems as nodes that signal and move by pushing and pulling the dipole charges of positronium in a coordinated way in Planck time. Historically, macro human brains that are tens of magnitudes greater than this quantum complexity have described many different kinds of macro atomic behavior as mathematical fields, e.g. gravitational, magnetic, etc. These macro "fields" are mathematically descriptive but not micro-mechanistic. In contrast, my section six describes only one micro-mechanistic way that incorporates all the past non-unified macro "fields." Hence, this section of my essay has "Unified" in its title. It meets all the "field" criteria that we agreed to earlier except for item 12 because describing all physics is a daunting task. In contrast, to GR it gives a specific mechanistic microstructure to space and how matter interacts with space at the required quantum detail. What do you think? Please be a critic.

"My theory describes the genesis of material particles from the C-field. All physical 'forms' of interest are built from these particles. I'm interested in what other form you have in mind, having rejected, as I do, Platonic 'forms'." This is shown in my Figs. i, 15, & 23. As I say, "1) [material] charges 2) move [change macro form] 3) in a coordinated [logical] way." I think that your C-field may be describing the quantum computational mechanism that occurs during "hidden time" as shown in my Figs.

"The action of the brain has been explained above and in my essay as (physically formed) 'logic hardware' coupled to the consciousness field." We are close here, I think the difference is what I describe as nature's "hidden time" quantum computational mode you describe as the consciousness C-field. However, I think we still need to agree on whether there is a subconscious mind/brain or not based on our agreed upon "logic hardware" interpretation of spectroscopy etc.

Now, base on our atomic "logic hardware," if we make no inorganic and organic distinction of atomic behavior, then we can say that in the organic setting the atomic "hardware" is the "body" of proteins, and thus, human flesh and brains. And, with no further distinction between inorganic and organic atomic behavior, then we can say that in the organic setting the atomic "logic" is the "mind" within proteins, and thus, the atomic mind of embryo-self governing assembly and the resulting human mind of brains.

Of course, since we have agreed that individual atomic systems are not individually conscious, we need to show how our C-field and/or my "hidden time" quantum computational mode "binds" specific protein behaviors into the specific qualia that is isolated within an individual brain. This I do in my unpublished manuscript in a way that makes sense and is consistent with the empirical record.

If you still reject that there is an atomic logic/mind that precedes the conscious brain, i.e. the subconscious mind, then I suggest we need to agree on an interpretation of Libet's early work?

I look forward to your comments.

George Schoenfelder

Dear George Schoenfelder,

As for the first paragraph, I'd prefer to leave it as "we both reject dualism". I don't think of it as "modernized dualism" since the matter is condensed from the C-field, so it's not really dualistic. Of course there has to be a distinction somewhere in the universe or else it gets to be pretty boring, but the existence of a dividing line does not constitute dualism for me.

The second paragraph is harder for me to understand. I was looking for the type of "form" you had in mind for the gravity or magnetic fields. You seem to be saying that it is simply that they interact with massive or charged bodies, but maybe I misunderstand you. I'm not big on positronium as the basis of electrical forces and I don't think Planck time has much to do with the universe beyond the big bang. There's not much confusion in my mind about space and time, but that seems to be a really big bone of contention in these essays, and I don't want to get pulled into it on either side. The fact that GR lays a tensor mesh over space-time is a reasonable approach to treating the gravity field, but the authors of "Gravitation" seem to be adamant about the need to become familiar with many many special cases if you wish to master the field.

I don't agree that "the C-field may be describing the quantum computational mechanism that occurs during 'hidden time'." The C-field is not a computational mechanism, quantum or otherwise. The "logic hardware" is the mechanism, and works with or without conscious awareness of the computational results. The computational capability comes about simply by constructing a two-state system that can be pushed into (ideally) either state and by the ability to link such logic together into meshes (combined with a 'ratchet' mechanism to provide pseudo-stability.) No consciousness is needed to operate the system once it has been programmed (or designed). The fact that it operates almost exclusively in terms of electromagnetic interactions is just part of the mechanism, from a consciousness perspective.

I agree that based on 'logic hardware' of any kind, we need make no inorganic or organic distinction.

But I disagree that then we can say that in the organic setting the atomic 'logic' is the "mind" within proteins, and thus, the atomic mind of embryo-self governing assembly and the resulting human mind of brains. First, I do not define "mind" in my theory, although I generally know what it means. This means that I do not link the term "mind" to my equations. It's probably reasonable to say that mind has something to do with the C-field plus hardware, but it's more accurate to stick to my definition of consciousness and intelligence. Mind is a word like 'soul' that I prefer to leave undefined. Nevertheless my concept of mind does not agree with the above statement. As far as I'm concerned there is no 'mind' associated with proteins, and the contribution of the C-field to embryonic growth is so complex that I do not know where the contribution to evolutionary history of the organism leaves off and where the consciousness contribution to ongoing growth begins. Nor does anyone else.

We've "agreed that individual atomic systems are not individually conscious". That's progress.

But I don't conceive of the C-field as a 'hidden time' quantum computational mode binding specific protein behaviors into the specific qualia that is isolated within an individual brain. I conceive of *all* mass motion in a brain, not limited to proteins, as contributing to the 'models', 'thoughts', or 'ideas' of which the local consciousness field is aware. I attach no significance to any specific parts, atomic, molecular or protein, etc. These parts are of course absolutely important in the evolutionary scheme that produced conscious "beings" but, at least in theory, it could have been done with other parts. And since living cells consist of over a billion molecules, and probably constitute the lowest significant conscious organism, it seems meaningless to focus at the atomic or molecular level. Below the cell, the logic hardware just doesn't seem to have all that's needed. The C-field is still there, it's just not very meaningful, except over evolutionary time, where the consciousness field is almost 'groping in the dark'..

Because you are depending upon your unpublished manuscript, I can't really comment further.

"If you still reject that there is an atomic logic/mind that precedes the conscious brain, i.e. the subconscious mind, then I suggest we need to agree on an interpretation of Libet's early work?"

As stated above, the term logic/mind is not in my theory. I know what logic is, and I suspect I know what you mean by 'mind', but the term logic/mind doesn't fit in my theory or my conceptions. It is not surprising that the discussion hangs up on terminology, although I feel that you've missed the point I was trying to make about the 'subconscious'. [And, coincidentally, it confirms to me the wisdom of the Physical Review's rule against the use of words connected by the '/' symbol].

Since I am not at this point ready to bring the term 'mind' (or 'soul') into my theory, I'm not sure where to go. My desire was to understand your theory in case one or both of us could benefit, but it is not a foregone conclusion that our theories are compatible. Whether we're hung up on semantics, or upon basic incompatibility is not clear to me at this point. It is clear that we're hung up.

But the effort to formulate the questions and the replies has been worthwhile, so I thank you for your effort.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Klingman,

You familiar with Libet's work?

George Schoenfelder

Dear George,

Not really. I know that he focused on 'initiation of action' and attempted to connect this with 'free will'.

I don't subscribe to the belief that physical measurements of neurological action are closely correlated with conscious awareness of 'decision events' in the brain, or even that it makes any difference in terms of the C-field. Any study attempting to antedate a measure of sensory awareness in correlation with "conscious" volitional actions is subject to many assumptions. In my theory, the sensory inputs generate a 'gestalt', and the local conscious awareness of this gestalt produces either actions, or corrections to automatically initiated actions, etc.

It really doesn't matter how the temporal behavior of the monstrously complex brain-body system sequences, but how the miracle of 'awareness' and 'volition' "emerge" from Lego blocks. And the consciousness field resolves these mysteries, independently of local timing.

In physics alone, the American Physical Society (APS) output of peer-reviewed papers is 18,000 annually, and all lesser publications must at least reach 100,000 annually, so the requirement to read, digest, and evaluate all such publications is unrealistic. Detailed familiarity with a proponent of the sub-conscious (or un-conscious) has little to do with my theory of consciousness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear George Schoenfelder,

I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.

Edwin Eugene Klingman