Fundamental Physics of Consciousness by Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dr.Klingman,

Thank you for the message you posted last in my forum. I did not see it until today; because, I neglected to check my forum in weeks. I looked for the possible reference you mentioned with regard to Tegmark's paper but did not find it. I will stay in touch.

James

You want $99.00 for The Gene Man Theory from Amazon ,, OUCH !

Dr. Klingman,

For a while now, I've regarded two things in the universe as fundamental, beyond any deeper explanation for what actually consitutues either. Those two being gravity and consciousness. An offhand search last evening lead me here. I never suspected anyone would have thought along these lines enough to formulate reasonable physical theory. I've been a computer programmer for a decade, and am just now starting a degree in mathematics with an eye towards physics/cosmology or cognitive science. The details of your theory will elude me until I further my education, but the principles are enough to get me excited that such things are even being considered. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts on this forum as well. I look forward to future insights and potential experiments along these lines.

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't sure if you were still present on this forum. I have a few questions on my mind if you'll humor them.

To people who have reduced consciousness to an emergent property of brains and perhaps other sufficiently complex information processing systems, how do you convince them that awareness volition are vital properties of the c-field. If the mathematics present the c-field in such a way that it's an unpredictable (but non-random) force acting upon mass, why are aspects of consciousness necessary to describe it?

If it's possible to determine the way the c-field interacts with matter, should it not be possible to create an experiment arranging matter in such a way that it is especially sensitive to c-field forces? I could be completely off the mark here to the point of sounding ridiculous, but perhaps something like a physical cellular automation composed of an ultrathin fluid and bits of interacting particles cascading in collapse from superposition.

Do the details of your theory have anything to say about the recent measurement of protons turning out to be 4% smaller than the expected amount? A bit of a problem for QED.

Adam,

You ask: "... how do you convince (people who have reduced consciousness to an emergent property of brains) that awareness and volition are vital properties of the c-field. If the mathematics present the c-field in such a way that it's an unpredictable (but non-random) force acting upon mass, why are aspects of consciousness necessary to describe it?"

An excellent question. In general, it's impossible to convince people who *believe* that consciousness is an emergent property. The fact that over a century of effort has failed to propose any credible explanation is not sufficient to dispel their belief. That's one reason "Chromodynamics War" doesn't mention consciousness. At the particle level the aspects of awareness and volition are minimal, while other significant effects can be understood based on the field equations alone. Non-random but unpredictable volition *is* needed to re-interpret the alternative to the Copenhagen 'collapse of the wave function'. At the non-quark level, the Schrodinger equation is the same for all theories -- only the interpretation differs. The C-field is more necessary for understanding entanglement phenomena, but I haven't written much on that yet. For a consistent C-field re-interpretation of the wave-function, volition is needed.

The C-field theory of flux tube quark confinement does not really require a consciousness interpretation -- wave-functions are not the primary focus of QCD.

Because the C-field interacts with mass, the interaction with proteins and cells is millions and trillions of time greater than with electrons, and hence the consciousness effects should be far more significant. And for the brain, even more so.

I am in process of filing a few patents for C-field experimentation, but they differ from what you have suggested above (mine are simpler). I am sure that there are many such approaches to experimentation that I have not thought of and I encourage you to think in this manner. There is almost certainly much "low-hanging" fruit to be harvested in C-field theory and experiment.

As for the 4% difference in proton size, the calculations for the C-field quark model are non-linear and I can not yet reach that level of accuracy. (Neither can QCD after 40 years of effort.)

Thanks for the questions. If you have more, we can continue here or, if you would like to continue this offline, my email address is in the essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello.

This essay is a very difficult read for the layman. Could there be anything to this outside of the mainstream ambitious posit? One's confidence is diminished somewhat by the author's misspelling of "minuscule".

Good morning.

I stand corrected, but being sort of a noodge...

"usage The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error."

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miniscule

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minuscule

It's a very common spelling on-line and in print journalism. I think the most commonly abused word on the 'net is "loser", which people often write as "looser" as in "you are a looser" detracting from the writer's assertion!

Anyway, keep up the good work.

Barry

Thank you Edwin for the great essay!

By the way, I especially liked really good criticism of modern physics in it's current state. Regarding the idea of self-acting nonlinear fundamental field - I share your point here totally - it inevitably leads to consciousness and self-awareness of some kind. What we really need to investigate in much deeper manner is the hierarchy of consciousnesses, from the primitive one, like the self-interaction of the gravity field to the human kind and even to some hypothetical supreme one. Some thoughts on this matter which I call "perspective of consciousnesses" you may find in my work on subjective space-time in Philica.

I want to bring your attention also to one extremely important fact that gravity is actually not the only universal fundamental physical interaction. It works via graviton exchange, but there is also so-called "exchange interaction" in QT that is not less universal than gravity and do not even need any "third party" like graviton. In my essay I actually interpret exchange interaction as the significant part of gravity, the straightforward result of "time interaction" producing changes in matter.

Valentin Koulikov