I agree with Janko Kokosar's basic proposition that:

"Evidently consciousness influences on movement and evidently it is part of physics. .[and] Free will is not the same as coincidence - an intentional movement of a hand is not the same as coincidental movements of the hand."

"For a model of quantum consciousness (or any physical explanation of consciousness) we need an atomization of consciousness, ... an analysis, what is consciousness. If it is so, some sort of consciousness is stored already in an one-cell organism. ... So we obtain a panpsychism, where consciousness is everywhere. If consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, it should really exist everywhere."

This approach is followed in my essay: that consciousness is a field phenomenon. It does exist everywhere, like gravity, but in varying strength. If this is the case, and, as above, consciousness influences movement, then one must ask how this field couples to matter.

Here it depends upon how one views matter. If one believes in the reality of "superposition of the wave-function" then matter has only a tenuous existence until the wave-function collapses, and so the coupling is at best tenuous. On the other hand, if particles really do exist in reality, and it is only the unpredictability of the measured state that is at issue, then we might assume that the consciousness field couples to real matter and may even be responsible for the quantum unpredictability of the material particle.

In a sense this is a "hidden variable" approach to quantum mechanics, but of course Bohm did not anticipate that the hidden variable would be a consciousness field with an element, no matter how small, of "free will"

Kokosar insists that consciousness must be part of physical reality. Also, I like his statement:

"We are used to connect consciousness with logic, but logic is important only for survival, not necessarily for awareness."

In my essay, I separate logic (machinery) from conscious awareness and volition, for this very reason. The logical machinery is subject to evolution, and the development of brains is based on survival. The brains essentially "enhance" the local consciousness field, they do not generate or give rise to consciousness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I have read and enjoyed your essay. I posted this comment in your essay and repeat it here to link some of your ideas to some of my own.

You state that: "The relation between physics and human consciousness may never be fully answered (due to the fact that it is "all in the brain"), but understanding the limitations of brain as a thought machine will help realize the ultimate possibilities in physics."

This is almost identical with my conclusions, although we reach this point by different paths.

You describe "human thought as a physical process, following the laws of this universe itself." and then attempt to analyze the relation between physics and mathematics. And you define: "A human thought is a signal exchanged and saved among neurons in the brain."

I agree with this, and go further to link this physical process to the logic circuitry of the brain, a physically real construction. I do *not* attribute "awareness" to this construction, but to a consciousness 'field' which has the properties, awareness plus volition. In this sense I also agree with you that:

"Whatever be the physiological and chemical processes, the human thought is bound to the nature of the universe."

The "thought" is the physical 'model' in the brain. Awareness of this thought is attributed to the essence of the consciousness field, which, in my essay is considered to be physically real, that is, capable of coupling to the brain processes. As you say: "it has to come down to a basic understanding in form of these brain signals. Humongous amount of experimental data is of no real use unless analyzed for results, and fit into a physical theory."

You then ask: "What is mathematics? A conventional answer is the study of numbers ergo of quantities, measurement, etc." and "The existence of mathematics is not a demand of nature but a need of a scientific mind."

You then look at representation and worry that "Hence 'the first number' cannot be defined absolutely, without defining 'the first operation' and vice-versa." but you then state that "One of the first scientific inventions of the primitive man was counting."

This is true, and, as a Computer Science Engineer, you recognize that one of the simplest constructions based on logic elements is a "counter". Logic and counters can be implemented as silicon, neural, and even protein circuitry. Additionally, there is much proof that many lifeforms and 'higher' animals have the ability to count (and compare).

Counting is not just biologically important, but the essence of Quantum Field Theory is the particle counter or number operator that counts particles by summing over annihilation and creation operations. This theoretical 'counting' should go hand in hand with the experimental counting of the measurement process, showing that both theory and experiment are based in counting. Elsewhere I have shown that, given measurement numbers, there exist pattern recognition principles that begin with clustering operations and then associate 'features' with clusters and so allow one, based on a group of measurement numbers, to create a feature 'map' or feature vector that represents the system being measured. This, in a nutshell, is the reason that mathematics is so applicable to physics, and so well suited to the brain. And this is why, as you state: "The studies of physics and mathematics are an extension of the human mind and its consciousness."

You ask: "Should we ever expect to understand the nature in its entirety? Let us assume that a complete explanation of all the processes in this universe exists."

My essay attempts to define the ultimate limits of understanding based on a model of consciousness. I hope that you enjoy my essay as much as I enjoyed yours.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Giovanni Amelino-Camelia,

While insisting that the end of fundamental physics is nowhere in sight, you do acknowledge the "recent standstill", ie, the lack of new discoveries. If, as I believe, there will be neither Higgs nor new particles found at the LHC, then the end may be closer than you think. I am assuming that a TOE means only that it is consistent with all currently available experimental data.

You seem to view this as the end of the world, and a desire for a 'theory of everything' as almost evil. You ask "who could want that", referring to the end of fundamental particle physics. I believe many physicists would far prefer a theory that led to true comprehension of the nature of the universe versus the eventual end of fundamental physics due to a "saturation" in our ability to discover more and more things. (Physics as consumption?) I believe more people enter physics in a search for understanding than to pursue an endless data acquisition.

As one stricken with the "theory of everything" virus, I prefer an ultimate understanding to an eternal quest or an endless accumulation of facts.

As to the feasibility of such a TOE, assume for a moment that nothing new is discovered at the LHC. Does that mean we're stuck with the Standard Model? Not on your life. The lack of a Higgs almost guarantees that QCD is wrong, even nonsense. Most current views are those formed beginning in 1900 when only alpha, beta, and gamma rays were known, and Planck's constant. The experimental and theoretical tools imposed a framework that was necessary to model "point" particles slammed from minus infinity and measured at plus infinity. Second quantized creation/annihilation operators and symmetry/matrix analysis techniques were favored as tools for discovering collision products. But if the particle zoo is complete, new 'non-point' analysis techniques may be possible, so that "looking back" from 2000 becomes completely different than "looking forward" from 1900. That is, the tools of explanation may be vastly different from the tools of discovery.

If there are no new particles found, what would a new theory do? It would resolve/explain the many mysteries currently existing in particle physics and cosmology. How could the Standard Model achieve so much and yet be drastically wrong? In the same way that you describe how Fermi's 4-point model, while completely missing bosons, still managed to "describe and predict several weak-interaction processes."

A poor analogy, but not completely useless, may be to consider the search for fundamental particles as analogous to the search in biology, pre-1950, for proteins. Today we believe the human is made up of about thirty thousand different proteins, so let's be generous and grant you thirty thousand more fundamental particles to be discovered as we progress to the Planck realms. Discovering all of these proteins would have been of questionable value, but the discovery of the DNA structure and mechanism was ultimately valuable. We don't need to discover any more fundamental particles. We need a DNA-equivalent idea.

You remark that a Theory of Everything would endow us with God-like powers. It's hard to know just what you mean but I assume you are referring to ultimate engineering capabilities, which may or may not follow. Others have remarked that 100 percent explanatory power does not necessarily mean 100 percent predictive power. Emergent phenomena tend to resist prediction, and the most interesting physics of biology and even materials science are truly complex in comparison to fundamental particles, and the "discovery" which you lament as missing will still occur in these fields.

It may be that your remark about God-like powers is based on imagining a Reductionist fantasy, whereby everything, matter, life, consciousness is derived from elementary building blocks (a la Lego). An alternative possibility is given in my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Greetings Eugene,

I would guess - from some of the comments flying around on the forum pages - that I will enjoy your essay. It would seem we have some views in common. I haven't read it yet, but will be downloading it now. Comments will follow.

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau

Hello again,

Sorry, the above post should read

Greetings Edwin,

I just realized my error. Have yet to finish the essay. Will report back.

Regards,

Jonathan

Greetings,

I'm not sure what I think yet, good sir. Despite the fact that I came into the process half believing in some of your more far-out premises, I must say that I find your essay to be the most far-fetched one I've read, at this point. I would say you are likely both inspired and deluded, but I would need to examine what you are saying a lot more closely before I could conclude either with certainty.

You did make me think, however. Your essay is thought-provoking, to say the least. I have to wonder if your choice of mathematical analogies was merely a carefully tweaked construction, to support your premises, or whether it is the case that the Math flows from your assumptions. By admitting to your readers that such suspicions are natural, you defuse this somewhat, but still leave me with plenty of questions (which may take a while to coalesce).

It makes sense to me that a rudimentary form of consciousness could be pre-existent, and take shape through the laws of logic imposed by the nature of processes - leading either to awareness or the creation of form. In my view, there is a hierarchy of levels of abstraction - that emerges in any creative or observational process. As determinations are added, we move from oneness to conditions or relations. It seems, therefore, that a primal consciousness could give rise to form via the Observer effect, simply by making determinations of what is.

But what you are positing in your essay is a bit more radical, and it will take some additional thought before I can conclude that your construction makes sense. At this point, I am not convinced, but I would rather suspend judgment until I can examine or digest your ideas further.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

Dr. Edwin E Klingman,

I enjoyed reading your essay. I think your work is potentially very important in rescuing theoretical physics from the shackles of mechanical inventions of the mind. Your approach of introducing one original property and deriving all else from that property is, I think, an essential part of any correct attempt to define the nature of the universe. My own work is very different in its particulars; however, your use of a single fundamental cause for both mechanical type effects and intelligence is shared by me.

I like how you separate the consciousness field from the use of material to form logic and then combine them together to explain the existence of intelligence. Your approach neatly includes the unification of intelligent effects and mechanical effects. I am not sure that they are separate; however, they appear that way to us. So, it is a practical useful way to approach the problem. You have done a great deal of work and I realize that we are limited in space here in these forums. I did want to ask one question:

You speak about ... If a limit to Cr-field curvature of space-time does exist, it can be shown that this limit leads to quantized charge creation, ... Did the magnitude of electron and proton charge reappear naturally as a fundamental constant in your theory?

James

Dear Jonathan J. Dickau,

I placed this comment on your page, and wrote it before reading your above comment. Thank you for your comment. It is difficult to argue with, but I have written roughly two thousand pages presenting all details necessary. Let me remark here that the conception of the gravito-magnetic field at the particle physics level has little relevance, so the most detailed presentation, "The Chromodynamics War", does not even mention consciousness. It simply treats the field in terms of mass, energy, time, and space. On the other hand, biology and, apparently, cosmology are significantly affected by consciousness, and these details are presented in "Gene Man's World". If, after digesting things, you have more comments or question, please communicate them to me.

Your statement that a primal consciousness could give rise to form via the Observer effect, simply "by making determinations of what is", sounds like an attempt to explain fine tuning, and I have looked at this in detail in Gene Man's World. I find it far more convincing than the Multi-verse.

Like you, I often begin with Korzybski's "the map is not the territory." It is in this sense that David Mermin recently wrote about the habit that physicists have of mistaking their abstractions for reality. This cannot be ignored when one considers a consciousness field, because there is no way that the abstraction can actually possess awareness plus volition, while this appears to many to be the key factor in our universe.

I strongly reject others ideas of Platonic math (see "Automatic Theory of Physics") and anthropomorphic "laws" of physics. If the only 'mathematical operation' on an entity (the primordial field) is the field interacting with (/operating on) itself, then this sentence easily becomes a symbolic Master equation. By assuming that the field has energy (Maxwell) and that energy has mass (Einstein), we quickly find Newton's equation of gravity, implying that our symbolic operation is the vector divergence operator, allowing the equation to be solved. The time rate of change of the self interaction of the field leads to my quantum flow principle. At this point I believe that my theory meets several of your criteria. First, I assume that the G and C fields are "two faces of the same thing" (the primordial field), although the properties of each differ, and the force associated with each differs.

You ask about energy-time or matter-space. In my theory the time derivative of the self-interacting field leads to an equation that can be physically interpreted in at least three different ways. Because we have no reason to choose one way, we assume all three are valid, implying that all must equal a constant, and the dimension of the constant is that of energy-time, h. I generally feel that this minimal 'action' is the most fundamental aspect of the universe. Because we can't measure it as easily as measuring space and time, we tend to suppress it, but it shows up in observations. And note that this quantum condition derived from a Gravity field.

But what about matter-space? If we multiply both sides of the quantum flow principle by the speed of light, we obtain on the left the rate of change of mass times the rate of change of space (volume) and the right becomes the well known conversion constant, hc.

Regardless of the form, the quantum flow principle combines matter, energy, space, and time in the first equation derived from our Master equation.

You then ask for a framework in which matter is made from energy. I derive this in detail in 'the Chromodynamics War". It is not feasible to do so in an essay.

Next you assert that time is real and may be more primal than space, energy, or matter. When one works out the dimensions of consciousness, it turns out that the C-field has units of inverse time, which makes all of the physics equations work out and also implies that consciousness is fundamentally about awareness of 'change', that is, change per time. This supports your belief that "the most fundamental quantity is time" (or consciousness, the "other face" of the same thing.)

So, from a statement that the 'laws of physics' must derive from the interaction of the (continuum) primordial field with itself, we can immediately derive the quantum condition on observables -- the basis of physics.

Because the C-field is effectively the rotational aspect of gravity, there is a strong correlation between the mass of the C-field and local curvature of space. When this is represented symbolically, it leaves room for the geometers to enter the picture. It is only when they start claiming that it is geometry that gives rise to all of the above that Korzybski must be invoked.

Uncle Al commented that we need to consider c, G, and h non-zero, and this is the basis of the quantum flow principle. He also requires an explanation of the chiral phenomenon, and the C-field, being inherently left-handed, can give rise only to left-handed neutrinos. The problem disappears, as does the need for three SUSY right-handed neutrinos needed to explain neutrino mass in QED.

As I've explained in several comments, the wave function does not 'collapse', but the C-field serves as a "super hidden variable" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I've tried to tie the ideas in my essay to those in your essay. I believe we are largely in agreement. In addition, my theory explains all known particles and does not appear to open the way to any other particles, so my prediction is that no new particles (other than resonances) will be found at the LHC, including the Higgs.

Thanks again for your comment,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear James,

Thanks for your very kind remarks.

You state, "I like how you separate the consciousness field from the use of material to form logic and then combine them together to explain the existence of intelligence. Your approach neatly includes the unification of intelligent effects and mechanical effects."

After reading your essay I was hoping that you would find this approach pleasing. It is the key to the biological evolution of increasingly complex logic and intelligence without the need to believe that awareness and free will could ever arise from material/mechanical constructions (Lego blocks).

Your further remark about the unification of intelligent effects and mechanical effects: "I am not sure that they are separate", is valid. See the comment I made to Jonathan Dickau above, to the effect that the mass forms (condenses) from the field, so, in that sense, they are one and the same, merely different "phases". Yet the difference clearly separates the 'logical structure' aspects, so important to the evolution of intelligence, from the fundamental aspects of awareness and volition/free will, which are not tied to any particular structure, and in fact interact with protein, silicon, or neural logic elements.

In essence, the field carries awareness and volition, the material logic structures allow the emergence of ideas, thoughts, or models. The interaction of the consciousness field with itself provides 'self-awareness' and the interaction of the field with logical structures allows "thoughts", etc. The logical structures also store info (the past) and combine or project info (the future) while always existing in "the eternal now".

Your question: "If a limit to C-field curvature of space-time does exist, it can be shown that this limit leads to quantized charge creation, ... Did the magnitude of electron and proton charge reappear naturally as a fundamental constant in your theory?"

The "quantization of charge" (unexplained in QED) arises from the existence of a limit to curvature. Because the actual units of charge are dependent upon other physical units, what falls out of the process is the derivation of the "fine structure constant" relating charge to h and c. This fine structure constant, the key to QED, is nowhere explained in today's physics. So I believe it's safe to say that, yes, the value of the electron charge is explained by the theory.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank You,

I appreciate the time taken to make a thoughtful response like this one. I have read the comments on my essay's forum page (where I made a few comments), and the additional preamble above. It seems there would be much to talk about, if I had adequate time for reading your work and corresponding.

I like to imagine I have an open mind, but I like to be discerning as well. So I may need a while to digest or assess things. There are many aspects of your work I like, and even moreso - I find reason to applaud many of the comments I see you have made elsewhere on these forums. Ergo; we can conclude that there is a substantial level of agreement between you and I - far greater than any random approximation.

Kind regards,

Jonathan

Hello again,

I just wanted to add that it will be interesting to see what does or doesn't show up at the LHC, once it's up to speed. If you or Franklin Potter are correct, we will not see a Higgs particle at all. But where he predicts more quarks (another family), you predict that no significant new discoveries at all will be made.

I think it's a safe bet something interesting will be observed, but I'm not ready to go out on a limb with any predictions. There might be interesting observations of cosmic ray spin-offs or some such, as well. I would not completely rule out the possibility they will discover far fewer than the range of particles expected to be seen. In fact, I think it's likely there will be a few 'absentees' when the tally is made, forcing people to go "huh?" But I imagine there will be some surprising appearances as well, and Frank Potter was already an early predictor of the correct Top quark mass.

His essay is about Physics possibly being based on Math, where the Monster Group is used as a generator of particle masses, and so on. But it leaves room for another quark family. So is there one? The exquisite symmetries Frank Potter highlights say yes, but we'll have to see if extra quarks show up, or a Higgs boson. But a massively symmetric object like the Monster Group is not the only object Math has to offer.

I had noted similarities between the evolution of form along the edge of the Mandelbrot Set, and the evolutionary epochs of Cosmology, more than 20 years ago. In my theory, M exists outside of space and time, or predates its existence - helping to shape the evolution of the universe. It does offer a nice graphical depiction of symmetry breaking. And the evolution of form around the edge is highly directional. But do mathematical objects serve as attractors in possibility space?

To be specific I think things like the Mandelbrot Set and Monster Group exist independent of our knowledge of them. If that is the case, they may influence the 'shape of the container' the universe is in. But something remains to be seen, and maybe it will show up at the LHC.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Jonathan,

Your well thought out essay is, I believe, close to the truth, but there are several aspects of your last comment that do not appear to me to be as close to truth.

My prediction is pretty simple: No New Particles. The C-field explains all current particles, and I see no hint that there are any "vacancies" waiting to be filled. Of course this could be due to a lack of imagination on my part. We'll see.

The frontier of high energy physics will be found in the "perfect fluid" resulting from Gold-on-Gold and other ion collisions at the RHIC. And I believe that the C-field model is the best approach to understanding this phenomenon.

You say that Frank Potter's essay is about Physics possibly being based on Math, where the Monster Group is used as a generator of particle masses, and so on. This is so counter to "the Map is not the Territory" that I'm surprised you mention it. I've analyzed this idea in 'Chromo War' and in 'The Automatic Theory of Physics'.

You say that "In my theory, M exists outside of space and time, or predates its existence", and then ask: "... do mathematical objects serve as attractors in possibility space?"

What is a mathematical object?

What is a possibility space?

What does it mean to say that "things like the Mandelbrot Set and Monster Group exist independent of our knowledge of them?"

I'm sure that this must have some meaning to you, and to many other essayists here, but it is meaningless to me. It is a discussion of maps for which there is no territory, and has no discernible meaning.

I am not a dualist. The only universe I can comprehend is the "one thing" that evolves to the everything we are aware of today. There are no ghosts, no multi-verses or many-worlds and no Platonic universes of "ideal" forms existing outside of space and time. One may as well count angels dancing on a pin as discuss the existence of such non-physical conceptions.

That is the key point that I begin with--the need to base physics on things that we as humans can directly experience, as opposed to abstractions, of the kind Korzybski fought against--to the point of titling his masterwork of General Semantics, "Science and Sanity."

I have gone back to your essay and studied again your words about Korzybski, and now see how I missed this aspect. Specifically you state that:

"Alfred Korzybski ... said "The word is not the thing" and "the map is not the territory." For Physics, we can add to this "The equation is not the phenomenon we are using Math to model." Instead; an equation is a convenient abstraction, or shorthand for the understanding represented by our model or theory, and not the physical reality itself."

I was happy with this, but I must have glossed over: "I believe that fundamental realities of Math may indeed be the basis for what we have come to call the Laws of Physics, to the extent that certain qualities must evolve in the abstract before they make an appearance in physical reality."

It is exactly this belief in "laws of physics" controlled by some "math operators" outside of physics that my analysis begins with. I now see why you are having trouble digesting my theory. I begin with a symbolic operator and explain that it can only represent the interaction of the field with itself. That's all that there is! Nothing else exists, and particularly no "mathematical operators" that then must be explained. My theory is "self-contained". You don't have to go outside the universe to find laws or operators.

Yet I agree with your conclusion: "When considering what is ultimately possible in Physics, we must remind ourselves again and again that Physics is the study of observable quantities and phenomena."

The quantities derive from 'number generators', of which the archtypical is the counter. After generating the integers (per Kronecker) "all the rest is the work of man." These arise from physical reality, they don't "pre-exist" the universe.

There is no "pi" out there somewhere. There's not even a mathematical "pi" on Earth. By definition, it's a never-ending series. There IS a physically real universe that implements the relation "pi" to as close as you'd like to measure, but it's not sitting out "there" somewhere.

This may cause you to simply reject my theory, or to try a little harder to understand the completeness of the consciousness-field-based universe. I still think that we are in close agreement on physical reality, but this conception of Platonic math is a major misconception.

I've probably carried on at much too great a length, but this is the major stumbling block to understanding the essentials of my theory, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to try to explain these points.

With best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

i am compelled to post another comment here, as i feel you and Tejinder Singh 's essays have opened fresh vistas for Physics to grow from a somewhat stagnant status for the past over a decade or two. Fresh thinking and innovation comes from an unbiased free mind, that takes note of what knowledge exists already without getting overwhelmed with any existing emphasis. I feel convinced that quantumm physics has come about more due to limitations of experiments to be able to understand a phenomenon from just a single event study! Probalistic considerations can account for the intelligent and logical components that can only describe the evolution of the Universe in the way it has proceeded. Consciousness is fundamental to increased awareness of humans in order to understand the same. Thus higher & higher levels of consciousness need to be reached through individual consciousness in order to reach cosmic consciousness which is the origin of all that we have in the physical visible world as well as the dark invisible world of ours.

The present physics limited to classical and quantum considerations present the two extreme range of considerations. The early universe mysteries all indicate that there has to be a region in between ' mesamorphic ' called by Tejinder. There hqas to be something where the Planck's constant is neither zero, nor fully effective. In fact i have seen some reports of cosmic measurements of over 12 billion years objects, where the light signals indicate a higher value for the velocity of light and a different value for the fine structure constant too. The indications indicate a possible lower value for planck's constant h and the e/m ratio.

I also seem to agree in an intuitional way that there will not be any Higg's boson. What we may discover may well be heavier family of quarks /gluons . The latter may well be unstable against decay in the stronger nuclear field itself, giving birth to lower quark families. The dark matter may well be constituted by just frozen quarks, non -baryonic, preventing any interaction between the dark and the visible baryonic matter.THUS, early days cosmology has hidden solutions for these issues that only precise and accurate measurements may be able to decipher in the days to come.

To all,

This is excerpted from a comment I posted to Stefan Weckbach, whose comments on the Platonic world of math (on another essay ) first attracted my attention.

Here I will "assume" my theory is correct. so I can address the consequences for his issues without being distracted by having to justify each point.

He links undecidability to "free will" brilliantly, seemingly based on the existence of mathematical governing laws of the universe. If the universe is self-governing, then it is the free will aspect that has reality and undecidability is a "mechanical" feature in James Putnam's terminology.

Weckbach rightly states that "there is no path from abstraction to ultimate reality." (Korzybski's "the map is not the territory"). In my opinion--the major dividing line in physics today. Many essayists apparently believe that territory can be created from maps.

Many of such arguments seem aimed at debunking ideas whose root is the belief that math "underlies" physical reality. If it does not, the arguments are a waste of time, but today it seems necessary to argue these points.

I propose that consciousness *is* a physical field, (see essay). This field, like all physical fields, has energy, hence mass, and, like gravity, interacts with mass, therefore with itself. If consciousness is awareness plus volition (free will), self-interaction implies self-awareness. Further, the rotational field supports vortices, which, interacting with their own mass, tighten the spiral until a limit of curvature is reached. This effectively creates the "distinction" you discuss--between the "oneness" and a "distinction". In essence, the massive field "condenses" to a massive particle, a physical distinction that allows our material universe to evolve. See details in "Chromodynamics War".

Having followed our primordial (gravito-consciousness) field to the production of particles, we now have material building blocks for our universe, where initially there was only a field, assumed expanding from the big bang. Eventually, building blocks can build logic elements, and these easily produce counters, whose outputs are integers, and, per Kronecker, once we have the integers, man can produce the rest of math. How is this associated with physics? A threshold detector attached to a counter produces measurements, and, properly programmed, a robot can manipulate these measurement integers, using a distance measure to perform clustering algorithms--based on intraset and interset distance--to group the numbers into feature sets. Between the center of each pair, a line can be drawn, then a bisecting line can be drawn to divide one feature from another, and a feature vector constructed, (see "The Automatic Theory of Physics"). The feature vectors yield physics as we know it.

So I believe that Weckbach's "mother of all distinctions", is the distinction between the distributed mass/energy of the field and the localized mass/energy of the (vortex induced) condensed particle and, once we have particles, we have the basis of computing machinery--logic elements built of atoms (or other).

Consciousness is awareness plus volition and I distinguish consciousness from intelligence, defined as: intelligence = consciousness plus logic.

We begin with consciousness, evolve logic, and the interaction between the two is intelligence, which increases with complexity of the logical machinery.

But consciouness does not evolve from machinery. The machinery evolves from consciousness, and that is key to Weckbach's question number 3:

"Perceptions from math or math from perception?"

Logic circuitry counts, compares, calculates, stores and accesses info, all using the physical circuitry available (neural network) to constitute the physically real "models" which the brain builds-- whose interaction with the consciousness field creates "thoughts", "ideas", "imaginings", etc.

Thus physical reality did not come from math. Math, beginning with integers, derives from physical circuitry, evolving under the "guidance" of the consciousness field. No abstract Platonic world out there somehow condensing into physical reality.

Continued in next comment

Continuation of comment from Klingman to Weckbach:

This brings us to your question 5:

"Linking quantum mechanics with consciousness."

Let's reverse the order and try to link consciousness with quantum mechanics. The consciousness field exerts a Lorentz-like force on moving mass (see essay) and this force implicitly includes the "awareness" of the moving particle and the "free will" of the consciousness field. This free will, however weak at the local level, *must* exhibit an unpredictability, which is almost indistinguishable from randomness. But random means "for no reason at all" (if there is a reason, it's not random.)

Thus I am proposing a "generalized" hidden variable interpretation of quantum mechanics with the distinction that Bohm's hidden variable was assumed to be deterministic, whereas the free will aspect of the consciousness field is indeterminate, but *not* random. Hence quantum mechanics is probabilistic at root, due to the inherent unpredictability of free will. That, I believe, is compatible with Weckbach's summary statement: "assume that microcosmic entities can exhibit a tiny bit of self-government."

And further "contemplate the explanation of consciousness by evolutionary theory." If we distinguish between consciousness and intelligence, we see instead that intelligence is driven by evolution; it is the consciousness field that is the driving force. This scheme agrees with Weckbach that "there is no path from abstraction to ultimate reality". I've tried to show a path from reality to abstraction.

The above outline is highly compressed; my essay and scattered comments will fill in some of the blanks

I believe that Weckbach's final conclusion and mine are identical.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

Dear Edwin Eugene,

i can now give you a feedback on your essay which i read this morning.

"Because we distinguish awareness from thinking (requiring logical machinery) we can postulate that elementary particles, such as nucleons, may be somewhat 'aware' but certainly do not 'think'."

Yes, that makes sense, also your distinction between intelligence and logic.

"(self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious."

I would make her a distinction. I agree that our human logics has strong mechanical character. Maybe exactly that's the reason for why we humans cannot imagine/logical conclude that there could be intelligence without logics. Means, understanding without logics. Some understanding could really flow out of strong emotions (i would assume that subatomic particles have such emotional-like perceptions). If that's true, we could understand the mysteries you mentioned without logics, but by becoming one with it at some point of our evolution.

I think it is very important to consider a consciousness-field as an alternative to mere mechanical field-equations. I also agree that if one continues to explain ultimate reality via mechanical constructs, something will always be left out in the explanation, last but not least consciousness.

I think it's of elementary importance to consider our universe not as a dumb that randomly had some meaningfull structure. For a dump, it is almost impossible to pretend some intelligence to an observer, but for an intelligent entity it's very easy to pretend stupidness to an observer.

As far as we don't no yet what all the physical entities in their essences are (energy, space, time, forces etc.), it could be that those entities are of the same stuff consicousness is made of. So i have no problem with your connection of the effects of consciousness with the effects of "ordinary" matter.

All the best,

Stefan Weckbach

P.S. I will rate your essay later, because her at my job i haven't the rating-code to do so.

  • [deleted]

additional remark to my last comment:

I am very surprised that in your theory logics emerges out of the emergence of matter. That's in good corespondence with my own consciousness-concept. I think that time is also a consequence of the production of logics and matter.

All the best,

Stefan

Hello again Edwin,

I thank you for your attention to my response, and to further addressing of the points raised in my essay, Edwin. I also have enjoyed your other comments here and elsewhere. I am humbled by the strength of your logic, and yet I find none of it unsettling to my basic way of looking at things. You might say that I embrace paradox, or live in a sort of superposition where by suspending judgment I continually entertain what must appear like opposing views to everyone else. For the most part I don't see a contradiction. But part of that is that I long ago rejected either-or logic as unrealistic, compared to the way things work in the real world. I tend to believe that if we are being absolutely honest, people know that it's illogical to assume that everything in life makes sense.

But if one assumes that we can make sense of a lot of it, and that models offer both explanatory and predictive capacity, progress can be made toward having a genuine understanding of things. I'm just not enamored of the idea that competing models have to be mutually exclusive. The little book "Drive Yourself Sane" by Susan and Bruce Kodish relates some of these ideas back to Korzybski differently from you, and contains a lot of powerful insights. They speak quite a bit on suspending judgment, and learning to live with paradox, as a tool in evolving more open-minded views. It seems that what Korzybski was trying to get us to do is to transcend words entirely, and to work from a consciousness where we run the word machine - rather than having it drive our thoughts. But words do shape how we think.

One example from the book was the phrase "things change." Wouldn't it be more accurate, quantum-mechanically speaking, to say "changes thing" instead? We must remember that a lot of our views and logic proceed from being literate in English. In Algonquin, there is no word for linear Time. In Chinese, there is no subject-object distinction as every character describes things as a process. In fact; the structure of each Chinese pictograph (in their complete or calligraphic forms) is a story of how that character came to be (talk about built-in Platonism). And we must also acknowledge that a lot of the "Physics arising from Consciousness" issues are actually a product of pre-literate thought processes.

So; the study of how the levels of abstraction arise and what states of consciousness are pre-requisites for different kinds of abstract thinking is quite germane to this discussion. And I have given this some elaboration in other writings. One important point; it appears that a notion of dimensionality and a sense of distance and proportion are a pre-requisite of symbolic thinking, in human development. It comes about by alternating observe, explore, compare, from which we triangulate our surroundings. You might find my paper in Quantum Biosystems Vol 1. no. 1 helpful to clarifying this, or expanding the discussion.

For the record; I don't feel that "the word is not the thing" "the equation is not the phenomenon" means there are no basic truths to Math that exist - whether or not we believe in them. So I still give Plato, Anaximander, and the others their due - by entertaining the notion that archetypes may exist which are a template for things happening in physical reality. I don't feel it is proven that the universe emanates from Math. But I think it would be hard to prove that something like the Mandelbrot Set doesn't exist outside the observable universe. Just as showing consciousness remains intact after death is a challenge - it's just as hard to show the opposite (that our consciousness ends with death). One would have to be an immortal oneself, and situated somewhere in the 5th dimension, just to make such a determination.

You and Kronecker say integers are basic; Penrose and Rucker think that Imaginary numbers are bits of Math which pre-dated their discovery. It is ironic that my closest approach to accepting the ideas presented in your essay is out of the constructive geometrical approach as follows. Assuming a point of view is a centric act. It defines a center of action - and traces an ARC of OBSERVATION. This is the way in which Consciousness might arise as a field with a particular handedness or chirality. To explore is linear, to compare is computational, but to observe defines an arc or curve. A circle or sphere is defined by a view that is encompassing. So if the fundamentality of geometric constructions is allowed, I'll have an easier time believing in what you are trying to prove, because this construction gives it a conceptual basis.

All the Best,

Jonathan

  • [deleted]

Dr. Edwin E Klingman,

Quoting you from a post in Terry Padden's forum:

"Nevertheless, FQXI has opened the gates a crack, realizing that, even if some crackpots sneak in, the net result will be fresh thinking. God bless 'em."

Excellent remark. Thank you for making it.

James

Greetings again,

I wanted you to know that I do try to follow the advice of Korzybski, especially the part about not jumping to conclusions. I just want to make it clear that I don't think his views are irreconcilable with a rather Platonic view of Math. Count Alfred recognized the importance of words and maps as symbols - through their power of time-binding otherwise ephemeral concepts. And he advised us not to confuse these with the territory they represent. From what I can glean, however, he did not assert that it was impossible for abstract concepts to have a life of their own.

I picture levels of abstraction arising from distinctions where we move from oneness to conditions. Specifically - from oneness the first distinction is openness or observation, then the next step would be exploration, postulation, or assumption - to assume a new viewpoint. If the process is repeated, a multiplicity of viewpoints comes to be, various dimensions of reality can be explored, and after a while a sense of extent and proportionality emerges. Once that is accomplished, a whole lot of processing of information can be done. Computation, logical thinking, symbolic thought, and abstract thinking - all are unlocked by this one act.

Now; in my picture a certain amount (a critical mass) of orderly development (and the emergence of a universe with the power to compute) leads to complexity and chaos, but then there are the far shores - the borders of chaos - and relations which subsume the complexity thereof, allowing us to see the simplicity again (which is presumably the part of the story exploited by life forms to evolve).

But there is a very real sense of moving through levels, or stages of a process, and one is left to wonder if the levels of abstraction themselves have an existence outside of space, time, and the human experience. If so, why not a circle? And once we can draw circles, put dots inside, and count them, we have the natural numbers too. Why not imaginary numbers (because they are so useful)? Or the Mandelbrot Set (because of its beauty and complexity)?

If the universe has an element of consciousness that coupled with logic allows computation, we can ask "at what point could the universe compute distances and proportion?" If the imaginary numbers typify the behavior of wavelike functions, we can ask when such phenomena made their appearance. It was pretty early in the universe's development, that those conditions were met. And that's all the processing power we need for Mandelbrots. So it's no big deal for the universe to dream that one up before we come along.

But that only proves that it could happen, not that it did. I'm still trying to keep other possibilities open, and I'm willing to discuss their merits. And it certainly doesn't prove that Math creates Physics. Murray Gell-Mann has a wonderful talk on TED where he speaks about how all beautiful theories are more likely true, but states that the harmony of the Math comes right out of the Physics.

I found the link for that on Alex Mayer's book page - at JayPritzker dot org.

All the Best,

Jonathan