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
