Jonathan,

You say above that "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."

This appears to support "free will", because, without free will, the end result would be predictable, and therefore "make sense". This is based on the assumption that "random" events are subject (why?) to some probability distribution, and are therefore, at least in a statistical sense, predictable. But free will really messes up the odds.

You also state that, indirectly due to Korzybski, "things change." and ask "Wouldn't it be more accurate, quantum-mechanically speaking, to say "changes thing" instead?"

Yes -- as Alan Watts pointed out, "it's raining" (western) vs "raining" (eastern) - no subject/object required.

So instead of "things change" we are faced with a consciousness that "changes things" and this is the "hidden volition" interpretation of quantum mechanics that I wish to attribute to the free will, hence unpredictable, aspect of the consciousness field..

You say: "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."

Jonathan, I conceive "levels of abstraction" as architectural entities, not mathematical, more like "nested dolls" but not fundamental. They are constructed from building blocks, either Lego blocks or forms drawn on paper or in your brain. They may be quite complex, such as the ISO Seven Level Communication Architecture ranging from the Physical layer protocol, through Data Link, to Network layer, Transport layer all the way up to Presentation level, where each layer may consist of multiple automata and supporting protocols. They are constructed with words, or symbols, or physical models, and I don't see them as mysterious.

And, per your question, "what states of consciousness are pre-requisites..."

I do not conceive of "states of consciousness", but in *one* consciousness, interacting with physically real (ie, massive) architectural (ie, multi-dimensional) structured entities. From the equations in my essay one expects the local strength of the consciousness field to vary depending on initial strength, local mass density, local moving mass, and self-interaction of the field itself. It may even be possible (almost certainly is) to create pseudo-stable configurations supporting local consciousness maxima, nevertheless I do not consider this a "state of consciousness", and feel the term is misleading. For most purposes of physics, the consciousness field can be analogized as a magnetic field with mass current replacing charge current and the filed interacting with itself, unlike the magnetic field, which only interacts with charge, and, being uncharged, cannot interact with itself. "States of consciousness" don't do it for me. On the other hand, "levels of awareness" does seem to have a utilitarian meaning. It's semantic, and we have not conversed enough to synchronize our terminology.

Thanks for the reference to "Drive Yourself Sane", I've ordered it, and I plan to look up your Quantum Biosystems paper. This comment continues...

Jonathan

You state that, "You and Kronecker say integers are basic; Penrose and Rucker think that Imaginary numbers are bits of Math which pre-dated their discovery."

Step into my parlor-- If, as Kronecker says, integers are basic, we should recall that he insisted that God made the integers. Instead, I call upon logical circuits to produce integers, and from there we're off and running. All the rest (of mathematics) was 'made by man', through the effort to connect rational ('ratio-based') numbers, upon which all men could agree and reach a consensus, to irrational (no ratio) numbers, which spanned the logic bridge all the way to the "understanding" bridge, which only is achieved in the consciousness field of the universe, anchored to local "logical machinery" sustained by "living machinery" that is physically real.

All of the logical steps of math can be instantiated either via symbols or constructs, and I view these as originating in the brain. One probably must depart (or at least withdraw) from such to realize Korzybski's attempt to "transcend words entirely, and to work from a consciousness where we run the word machine." The major point of semantics is that apples and oranges must be handled carefully. If physicists must be careful of the Map and Territory issue, how much moreso mathematicians, who deal only with Maps of Maps?

Finally, you state: "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.

I suppose the question is whether the universal consciousness field could physically self-induce a vortex motion, or whether it required the permission of a Platonic "ideal universe" in which case, had it failed, we'd be up the proverbial creek, wudn't we.

I don't see why the universe needs "pre-existing" permission to behave as it does.

"Penrose and Rucker think that Imaginary numbers are bits of Math which pre-dated their discovery." Jonathan, I don't even know what this means.

Penrose states 13 times (I counted) that complex numbers "are magical" and I certainly share this feeling. But I do not find any need or desire to assume that this magic "pre-existed" physical reality in any sense. I just don't see it.

Of course we are blessed that the range of behavior includes the production of physical particles, and these can be used to build the world as we know it. But if a photon can propagate through space and time as we currently conceive it to do, then we can, by writing symbol sequences down, derive all of the logic and math necessary to describe the behavior using complex numbers, where the imaginary number typically relates to a ninety degree rotation, that is, an orthogonal direction, which requires something that maintains orthogonality. This 'i' keeps 'x' and 'y' from mixing and merging, and allows the wave to propagate along 'z' while preserving the orthogonality of the 'x' and 'y' components. Of course you know that we can formulate the same thing using two-dimensional vectors and never introduce 'i' at all.

Why, if one can invoke physical reality, including a consciousness field capable of being aware of and freely affecting physical reality, and can therefore produce integers, and from there all mathematico-logical constructions, would one even *want* to have, let alone require, some other ideal universe that will forever remain outside of space and time, and hence be non-physical. What is the difference in this and an insistence on God, biblical or otherwise? God at least gives us a ground for morals (missing otherwise). What does a Platonic ideal universe give us?

Some other author talks about "where music goes when we're not listening to it" I don't view these as well posed problems. They have the general form: "If a man says something in the forrest, and there is no woman around, is he still wrong?"

I'm not a professional philosopher, but these seem like 'category' errors to me.

I have been struck by how many Platonists there are coming out of the woodwork, and ask myself: why? I think that it is related to the theme that I wrote on Terry Padden's page, where physicists have become almost drunk on ornate maps. And further, if one buys the "collapse of the wave function" physics, then one has become accustomed to believe in some "possibility space" which is essentially mathematical, not physical. In short, it seems as if there is a tendency not to believe in physical reality. That is one reason I ground my physics on gravity and consciousness, rather than someone else's abstraction du jour.

Jonathan, you say "But I think it would be hard to prove that something like the Mandelbrot Set doesn't exist outside the observable universe." Does this mean you think it would be easier to prove that it does?

Somewhere else you discuss the Tao. In those terms, I view the material-based entities as "the ten thousand things". Given them, the problem for me has always been to account for awareness and free will. Specifics about the ten thousand things themselves and their interactions, interest me only peripherally. It is awareness and free will that I strive to grasp, and how these interplay with the things. The current consensus is that *somehow* consciousness "emerges" or "arises" from these things. When someone can explain to me just how that happens, I'll have to reconsider my theory of the consciousness field.

BTW, congratulations on sticking to the wall and not sliding back down. You deserve it.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Jonathan,

You say: "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)?"

You start with reality, and then, through the power of words to link various levels of the hierarchy, effortlessly, painlessly, and realitylessly, ending up with-- no effect. The idea has left the tracks, and is voyaging through the realm of ideal forms. We started, I believe, with Lego Blocks, and ended up with a circle. Now I can explain the algorithmically derived circle, scale independent, but I suspect you would be hard pressed to come up with a geometric circle, which, if I'm not mistaken, you wish, an arc of which to attribute the consciousness field to.

Jonathan, either form rules, or free will rules. Our choice.

Further, you state: "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?"

First, may I state that it is not the "consciousness coupled with logic that allows computation." No consciousness is required for computation, only logic circuitry. It is the awareness of, or apprehension of, logic that we call intelligence that requires consciousness plus logic. The old mechanical calculators did quite well thank you with only logic, no consciousness required.

The universe could *not* compute distances and proportion, until the logic-based computing machinery evolved, but there would be no distances and proportion to compute, if these properties were not built in to the universe as we experience it. We might as well ask "at what point could the universe compute giggle-gibbets and X3-9v? If there is no physical referent, then it's just gibberish - per Korzybski. But my assumption is that the gravitational field is aware of the Earth and the Sun and behaves appropriately without any computation of distance or proportion. It is the direct experience of this field that I ground my theory on. Computation comes much much later, and, apparently, the universe did quite well without computation for a billion years or so.

Recall that my theory denies any anthropomorphic "laws of physics" imposed from outside the universe, whether imposed by God or Platonic rules. It just *is* in the Tao sense. It does what it does, and what it does is increase complexity and thereby gain in the ability to reach higher levels of abstraction and also of understanding. Why? It seems to be the nature of the universe.

"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."

Jonathan, we are really running on different tracks. I see the universe as behaving as it behaves, in a physically self-consistent way, and this self-consistence provides all we need to develop math. If there were no consistency, just oil on water, ever-changing but never stable, then we probably wouldn't have math. We would have "relations" but they would never repeat, and how you gonna make math out of that? You, on the other hand, seem to feel that the math has to be "dreamed up" before the universe can do its thing. Why?

Do you really believe that the universe behaves by computing answers before it acts?

I don't.

Murray Gell-Mann is right: the harmony of the Math comes right out of the Physics

All the best back at you,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Thank You Edwin Eugene,

I have no arguments for you, you are exactly right. I agree with you (mostly) and I know it must be confusing that I'm spelling out alternatives. But I only half believe the universe evolved without Math, or Geometry, or Logic, in some form or measure. If, on the other hand, I must choose between implied order and free will, I choose the latter. It is free will that sets the tone, and undertakes the exploration, by which some realities of Math and Logic eventually get 'discovered' by consciousness, or 'created' by the universe. It may seem like a bit of verbal sleight of hand to say that whenever it's discovered, the Mandelbrot Set always looks the same, instead of 'it exists outside of time and space.' But the way it appears even surprised Dr. M, who initially thought he'd made a program error because it is so oddly irregular.

It was more than 20 years ago that I began playing with the Mandelbrot Set, and changing the code to create a family of related figures including a Fractal Butterfly. And I even had a few conversations with Professor Mandelbrot, all those years ago, because I believed it could teach us about Cosmology. I became convinced that it showed us the cosmological epochs, symmetry breaking, nucleosynthesis, the evolution of galaxies, and almost everything else. But lacking a clear road to testable predictions, I began to investigate the question of why form around the edge of the Mandelbrot family of figures depicted a process resembling the universe's evolution, and to what extent that resemblance depicted what we actually observe in the cosmos.

So my idea that - perhaps Mathematical objects such as M serve as a template for the universe's evolution - became a working hypothesis for me, long before I learned that Plato had a similar idea - and likewise for Zuse, Wigner, Rucker, wheeler, and Fredkin. But I did find Paola Zizzi's Computational Loop Quantum Gravity, and her idea of a Quantum Computing Universe compelling. It fueled my desire to investigate certain things with a little more vigor, and a more serious attempt at rigor in my studies. Again; I was still trying to demonstrate either that my Mandelbrot Cosmology had a clear basis or could be falsified. And it's only in the last few years I've come to evolve a protocol to accomplish that.

But I did not think that an unproven theoretical idea was the appropriate way to answer the FQXi contest question. Instead; I decided that some survey articles I'd written 10 years ago provided a suitable basis, because there had been no definitive theory of Quantum Gravity and many of the questions I raised had remained unanswered, during that time. And it seems others feel that I have answered the Institute's question appropriately. Until I can make clear predictions with my Mandelbrot Cosmology, it is more theoretical than Physics.

Nonetheless; if it were not for the urgings of people like Alex Mayer and Murray Gell-Mann, I might now be seeking to understand why Math has an 'unreasonable effectiveness' in Physics, rather than cautioning folks to avoid getting drunk with Mathematics. On the other hand, I won't toss my idea of the Mandelbrot Set into the dumper, until I can clearly show it is not a giant thermometer with the universe's highest energy represented at the cusp near 0,0i, and absolute zero depicted at -2,0i.

And since that idea is what has kept my investigation into Physics and Cosmology alive, all this time, I shall continue to entertain the possibility, until clear proof or disproof is obtained.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hello again,

I wanted to thank you for your good will gestures, having seen that you recommended my paper to others and commended Narendra for doing the same for you. To the extent that I see common ground to explore with other authors here, and don't see you actively engaged in the conversation, I will extend my recommendations of your work. I would also like to extend an invitation to submit for publication in Quantum Biosystems. When I alerted the editor that both Florin M and I - who appeared in QBS 1-1 - are in this contest, he informed me of the call for submissions for an upcoming issue. I think much of your work would be well received by that audience.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

I have enjoyed our back and forth immensely, and appreciate your openness. Few people who have pursued their own path for decades can be easily dislodged, and there are many of us here. The discussions have been stimulating, and I believe that you should now work with a wider audience that will view your top rated essay. If you think of anything new and relevant, I will be happy to hear from you.

It's been fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hello again Edwin Eugene,

Our discussions on this forum have been extremely thought-provoking, and I've just had a flood of thoughts. I really like a lot of what you say, but it makes me think about possible connections to other work. I apologize if this post addresses none of the most recent comments you made (I'm composing off-line), but I hope it will touch on some of the over-arching issues attendant to your topic (and this forum discussion), and will facilitate rather than prevent further communication.

One point I feel I need to make is that once the subject of Consciousness is woven into the subject of Physics, it opens the door to all kinds of questions and assumptions - which are a result of how people have viewed these subjects in the past. For some; Quantum Information Physics (where quantum mechanical and information theoretic descriptions are combined) automatically has connections to the subject of consciousness. Some feel that when one opens the door to Consciousness being an foundational element of Physics, this implies that questions of observability, computability, and conservation of information, are automatically germane.

It is similar to Owen Cunningham's assertion that when Robert Oldershaw speaks about a Fractal Cosmos, this implies a connection or basis in Math. Well; Rob raked Owen through the coals several times for having the audacity to assert this, but on some level Owen could be right - as there is a kind of mathematical precision to the analogies of scale Oldershaw highlights, which likely has a cause or reason to be.

Perhaps I was tempted to imagine that the meaning of important concepts that makes the most sense for me - was actually what you are talking about, or is essentially connected. I meant no offense, but was only trying to point out the connections that make sense for me, which I thought you may have overlooked. Instead; you have examined some of these ideas and dismissed them as irrelevant to your search. You could be right! And you certainly have the right to search the avenues you feel have the most relevant connections first. But; it would seem that my philosophy of investigation and discovery has not been perceived for what it is. So; I'll spell things out to make it easier for you to understand where I am coming from.

My creed can be summed up in one sentence. "One open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self." I actually have a number of ways to state the same thing, but this version works well in most settings. So you see; I not only like to entertain multiple possibilities - trying to follow this credo - but I also try to balance that against nothingness, which I feel also holds answers. Then I always try to remember that there is a far shore to chaos and complexity, with some sort of embedded order waiting on the other side. I find this construction has utility both as a tool for individual growth, and for the study of the Natural Sciences. So there you have it; my unspoken secret that is woven into the sub-text of my essay.

And if you are looking to champion a theory of Physics which has Consciousness as a fundamental element, it may be of value for you too. At least I hope that is the case.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Jonathan,

It's good to provoke a flood of thoughts.

One point you made is that "once the subject of Consciousness is woven into the subject of Physics, it opens the door to all kinds of questions and assumptions - which are a result of how people have viewed these subjects in the past."

That is certainly true, and will probably cause no end of misunderstandings, as people bring old ideas to a radically new theory. I'm not overjoyed about this, but I know no way to prevent it. As was mentioned earlier, the relevant terms are usually very loosely defined, and people use mind, brain, soul, consciousness, awareness, free will, intelligence, etc sometimes in interchangeable or at least partially overlapping ways. That is why I carefully define consciousness as awareness plus volition (free will) and intelligence as consciousness (field) plus logic (hardware). While most of us will probably generally agree on what we mean by awareness and free will, the problem arises when one tries to associate awareness with the field equation and free will with the force equation. In the past it has been assumed by most that equations could not possible apply. It's important to note that the equations do not define awareness or volition per se, but only their interactions with mass. When they interact with mass, either there are equations or the interaction is somehow non-physical. My essay outlines why I believe the equations are reasonable, and my books explain in detail the benefits to physics of this viewpoint.

You further note: "For some; Quantum Information Physics (where quantum mechanical and information theoretic descriptions are combined) automatically has connections to the subject of consciousness. ...when one opens the door to Consciousness being an foundational element of Physics, this implies that questions of observability, computability, and conservation of information, are automatically germane."

I believe that information theory has gone off the tracks. My first introduction to info theory in physics was Amnon Katz' 1967 book, "Statistical Mechanics: An Information Theory Approach" Clear, excellent and undoubtedly relevant. But some of the latest books, by top name physicists, apply information theory to black holes and seem to me utterly confused about information, in some cases appearing to believe that a 'bit' of information is somehow like a 'particle'. This confusion will surely muddy the waters if consciousness is taken seriously. Finally, there is entanglement. The consciousness field is almost certainly relevant to entanglement, but my analysis is currently incomplete.

You again bring up (Cunningham and Oldershaw) a connection or basis in Math. I've commented on the relation of math to physics, and don't have much new to say. It is almost a religious issue apparently. Some wish for a God to be above and beyond the physical world and some wish for a Platonic ideal world of math to be above and beyond the physical world. I long ago resolved this issue for myself, and have no need for, nor desire for Platonic realms, independently of problem or application, such as Fractal Cosmos or "a kind of mathematical precision to the analogies of scale". In my mind the real physical universe is the source of relations; math is the map or description of these relations. I simply don't want to go outside of reality and don't feel the need to to make sense of it all.

To paraphrase: more than 20 years ago you began playing with the Mandelbrot Set, because you believed it could teach about Cosmology. This is compatible with my beliefs. Existing relations can be discovered by conscious brains, and the brains can play with and 'extend' these to become aware of new relations, that may then be discovered in reality. I probably believe everything that you do in this regard, with the exception that I do *not* believe in either the necessity or the desirability of a Platonic world of pre-existing forms. Just don't see the need for it.

comment continued...

  • [deleted]

...continuation of Klingman response to Jonathan Dickau:

You state: "Perhaps I was tempted to imagine that the meaning of important concepts that makes the most sense for me - was actually what you are talking about, or is essentially connected. I meant no offense, but was only trying to point out the connections that make sense for me, which I thought you may have overlooked." First, it's foolish in a contest like this to take offense. Even if someone is trying to be offensive, that's their problem, not mine. Second, the entries in this contest, you will notice, are not typically from students but from older scientists who've spent years pursuing understanding of what they consider important problems. Even to submit an essay here indicates that they feel they have some basic understanding of the issues. So when I come up with a radically different theory from what is out there, I certainly do not expect immediate acceptance, nor do I expect that people can erase their own ideas and immediately understand mine, and the consequences. Everyone looks at my theory through the lens of their own theory, one in which, by the way, they have invested time, effort, and emotion. For example, one of the other essays spends ten pages leading up to the conclusion that something like my theory *must* be the answer, but then the author dismisses my essay with no attempt to understand it. Why should not those who haven't even seen the need for physics to encompass consciousness reject it out of hand.

There are more new ideas, than there are good ideas, so it is a healthy social defense mechanism to reject most new ideas. If this were not true, then society would follow many new ideas over the cliff. It's frustrating for the purveyors of new ideas, but best for everyone in the long run.

You sum up your creed:. "One open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self."

Jonathan, that's a pretty good summation of my own creed, it's just that I have been perplexed for years as to exactly how this interfaces with the "real" world of physics. My essay points to my best answer. But if you are hinting that the "true relation" is actually a Platonic ideal world or math, then I disagree. When and if the physical world vanishes, math vanishes. It doesn't remain behind as some 'scaffolding'. Only awareness exists there, and it is awareness of "not-two".

But, after touching this awareness, one always seems to return to the real physical world, and that's where my physics attempts to connect the material world we experience with the consciousness we experience.

You say: "but I also try to balance that against nothingness, which I feel also holds answers. Then I always try to remember that there is a far shore to chaos and complexity, with some sort of embedded order waiting on the other side."

This may give you peace and inspiration, but it is not my inspiration. I am inspired that nothingness means nothingness, not underlying math forms. Chaos and complexity are high order abstractions, dependent upon the existence of awareness, not vice versa. The only universe I 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.

Because you brought up little new physics, this reply has been more psychological in nature, but that is important too. Much of today's problems in physics are conceptual in nature, in my opinion.

Enjoyable, as ever.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

Dr. Klingman,

Hello again. I have been busy reading these essays. I see you have been having some significant discussions here. I am printing them off and will catch up.

James

Hi Edwin. How do you see your "primordial field" (as explaining current physics) in comparison to/or in keeping with the following:

The essay that wins this contest should explain/advance the understanding with respect to sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism) IN GENERAL.

I will now prove that how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is THE central and MOST valuable physical idea.

The reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant. The completion and balancing that dreams/sleep give to the unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is consistent with the 90 degree angle of the two experiences/states (waking and dreaming). (Gravity is fairly constant at/near the surface of the Earth.)

The extremes of distance/scale and speed point up the connection involving electromagnetic/gravitational space (e.g., the Sun and photons).

The dream combines (and includes) invisible and visible space in conjunction with exhibiting wave/particle duality.

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light occupies the center (and best) position with regard to improving our understanding of physics in general.

To unify gravity and electromagnetism/light fundamentally and comprehensively, balancing/unifying scale by demonstrating gravity as repulsive and attractive AS electromagnetic energy/light is required. It is critical to demonstrate electromagnetic energy/light as gravitational space. The unification/balancing/inclusion of both invisible and visible space is central to:

1) Balancing/unifying scale and...

2) Balancing attraction and repulsion in conjunction with space manifesting both gravititationally and electromagnetically. Think wave/particle. Note that the repulsive and attractive aspect is manifest in the variable distances of space/distance in the dream (think of this in relation to touch and feeling as well).

These ideas need to be applied to atomic structure/interactions, and to electromagnetism/light and gravity generally. How space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is a central and very valuable physical idea. Do you see how this post (and my essay) cover/include: space, time, matter, energy, wave/particle, balancing/varying scale, repulsive/attractive, and visible/invisible?

You can see how the aspect of cylindrical space also applies to/is manifest in dream experience. Schroedinger was perplexed enough by life to suggest "a new type of physical law". This new physical law is the known mathematical union of Einstein's theory of gravity and Maxwell's theory of light in a fourth spatial dimension. It is common sense (and obvious) that this unification must be (and is) present in our experience. The physical reality of said unification is dream experience. I have proven this definitively (in detail and with specifics). Note that I have demonstrated how time and space are both balanced in a fourth dimension. (I am not so concerned with what is the Kaluza-Klein interpretation of the unification as I am with the unification itself.) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism/light).

Reductionist thinkers tend to pick apart my essay, as they lack [what is a greater] integrated extensiveness in their thinking/knowledge.

The increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations is very important/relevant as well.

My essay is the fourth from the top.

To All,

I made this comment on Jonathan Dickau's page, but will copy it here for your convenience.

In response to another author Dickau states "I just hope you know that part of the theoretical framework you have have adopted with Kaluza-Klein was a brilliant step forward when first proposed, but has been superseded for mostly good reasons."

I would like to point out that, according to Lee Smolin, "Kaluza-Klein applied Einstein's relativity to a 5-dimensional world and found electromagnetism." such that "the charge of the electron is related to the radius of the little circle" in this dimension. In my theory of the gravito-magnetic field, the self-interacting vortex in the field shrinks until the limit of curvature is reached, an event that brings charge and the electromagnetic field into existence. Thus the field would seem to be equivalent to another dimension. But note the following: the Kaluza-Klein dimension is too symmetric, whereas my field solution breaks symmetry as required for nature

Smolin has also remarked: "A property of an extra dimension -- the radius of the extra circle in Kaluza-Klein theory -- can be interpreted as a field varying over the other dimensions." So my construction is, apparently, not fanciful, but feasible. And the field has been shown by Martin Tajmar to exist (and by ongoing NASA experiments.)

So Kaluza-Klein linked the charge of the electron to the radius of the circle in the fifth dimension, whereas my theory links the charge of the electron to the radius of the circle at which the shrinking vortex reaches the limit of curvature of spacetime, just as a black hole is the point at which the gravitational field reaches the limit of curvature of spacetime. But the major difference is that my theory agrees with the reality of broken chiral symmetry, whereas Kaluza-Klein does not.

My approach to consciousness is based on the interpretation of a real field, initially proposed by Maxwell on the basis of symmetry, and later investigated by Heaviside, Lorentz, and Einstein. They all missed a critical fact, that the field interacts with its own mass-energy and eventually dropped the field as physically insignificant. My recent interpretation of this field as the "carrier of consciousness" and Tajmar's measurement of unexpected strength of field, should bring the field back to the forefront of physics. Further, I would point out that the field has physical significance at the particle level of physics, as explained above, where, for all practical purposes, the consciousness aspects can be ignored. But at the biological, and apparently cosmological levels of reality, the consciousness aspects are paramount.

What a joy it is to communicate with the well informed essayists in this forum.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Frank Martin DiMeglio,

You ask, how I see my "primordial field" as advancing understanding with respect to sensory experience including gravity and electromagnetism. You then describe how you believe that space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is the central and most valuable physical idea, claiming that the reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant.

Rather than repeat or attempt to rephrase your ideas about dreaming as significant for physics, I will answer your first question.

The primordial consciousness field is the "carrier of consciousness" defined as awareness plus volition or free will. This is as opposed to the current consensus that consciousness is an artefactual phenomena arising from the way in which material is organized in brains.

Further, the equations that I present describe the interaction of the field with mass. Specifically, the field equation describes the effect on the C-field from changing mass and changing gravitational field, while the Lorentz-like force equation describes the effect on moving mass from the consciousness field. Please note that these equations do *not* describe either awareness per se or free will per se -- only their interaction with mass.

Because the body-brain is full of moving mass, blood flow, vesicles and proteins in cells, ions flowing in nerve cells, vesicles across synapses, etc, the field is conscious of the body and its transmission of signals along neural axons and across synapses, and in this way keeps track of sensory inputs and logical operations of the brain. These form the "ideas", "thoughts", etc that we are customarily aware of.

For evolutionary reasons the body 'shuts down' much of the sensory/effector circuitry during sleep, but many of the various flows continue during sleep, therefore the brain is still interacting with the local consciousness field. But with the sensory signals reduced, the 'connection' to the outside world is diminished, and the experience of dreams is therefore less tied to physical reality.

I know that this is not your interpretation of dreams, but you asked for my interpretation.

I hope that this contributes something to your ideas, as the topic of consciousness is very important to physics.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

  • [deleted]

Hi Edwin.

You say:

"The primordial consciousness field is the "carrier of consciousness" defined as awareness plus volition or free will."

You need to consider that the following is central to any proper and complete understanding of both thought and experience in general:

Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well.

When you write:

"Because the body-brain is full of moving mass, blood flow, vesicles and proteins in cells, ions flowing in nerve cells, vesicles across synapses, etc, the field is conscious of the body and its transmission of signals along neural axons and across synapses, and in this way keeps track of sensory inputs and logical operations of the brain. These form the "ideas", "thoughts", etc that we are customarily aware of."

...Make sure that the integrated extensiveness of the picture (and your thinking as well) is not overly complicated, compromised, fragmented, and reduced by putting so many different, unclear, and various words/concepts together like that.

How do you think that memory is possible Edwin?: By making thought more like sensory experience in general. Dreams are much like memory. But an expanded definition/understanding of memory and dreams is at hand. Memory integrates experience -- that is HUGE.

Now, I will give you great, valuable, useful, meaningful, and original definitions/understandings of both memory and dreams:

Memory integrates experience and is necessary for the improved integration of a greater totality of experience; and here lies its connection with the advancement of consciousness and genius. Memory increases (or adds to) the extensiveness, desirability, predictability, and intentionality of experience. Memory is an aid with regard to the extensiveness of intentionality in regard to experience. The loss (or reduction) in both memory and the intentionality of experience that occurs in the dream helps to explain why we are basically (or significantly) without the use of our body therein.

Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism).

I encourage your efforts regarding the interactive nature of being and experience. Do you have any questions for me?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that there is not much that you can learn from me though, really.

Have a nice day.

  • [deleted]

Dear Dr. Klingman,

My work is still developing at an elementary level. I took a historical approach to redevelop theory. So, you are far ahead of me, both in knowledge and progress. I find your discussions about physics and consciousness very enlightening. At this time I have a question just about your theory. Since it is hard for me at this point to not view your work through the lens of my own, where I move as far away from Relativity theory as I can, I am wondering about your view of Einstein's theory of relativity. I do not mean this in the sense of having you explain his theory. I am wondering to what extent you embrace his work? For example, you mention 'Lorentz fashion' and you introduce and use Enstein's energy equation in your essay. I am not challenging the Lorentz force equation. I recognize the proven utility of Lorentz type mathematics and the huge apparent success of Relativity theory. Does your theory include both length contraction and time dilation? Or perhaps, it would be better if you simply wrote something about the role that time plays in your theory?

Regardless of how much your view may differ from mine, I view your work as exceptional. I have posted a message in my forum directing visitors to your essay and forum.

James

  • [deleted]

Dr. Klingman,

I decided to supersede the above message with a more general one. Your theory includes consciousness and still reproduces properties consistent with modern physics theory. What I am wondering is: There are other essays and conversations that dwell on exotic ideas such as extra dimensions and hyperspace. Does your theory develop along this type of path? If so, what are some implications for an involved consciouness?

James

  • [deleted]

Dr. Klingman,

The more I read your essay, the more my self-induced fog is clearing away. On page two, you compare the Lorentz force equation to an expanded form of Newton's force equation. This is where you are introducing the concept of replacing charge-based physics with mass-based physics. I was tending to read through that section too shallowly. It seemed at first to be developing two analogous type equations that could perhaps be partnered up. You are not partnering them up. You are, at that early point, replacing one with the other.

James

  • [deleted]

Dear Dr. Clingman.

I am glad that we have some similar views about consciousness.

But your theory dissagrees with some my views. I hope that I will describe them properly:

1. Your theory begins in macro-physics and go something also toward quantum physics. I more like Feynman's approach in »QED: the strange theory of matter and light«, where he starts at micro-physics and number of assumptions is small.

2. You assume background space, but space is a consequence of matter. (http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=17) For explanation of fundamental physics it is neccessary to explain, how space arises. Gravity, masses of particles and dimensionless coupling constants are necessary for origination of space, not only fields.

3. Of course, QED also gives that fields are more elementary than particles. The same is also given by Higg's boson, tested in CERN, its mass do not need gravity. (I do not believe) Who knows, we will see, if I am wrong.

4. So it seems that according to Occam's razor, your theory is not proper to my intuition.

5. Foundations of physics are close to our reach, consciousness is in foundations of physics and the only sense of matter (and space-time) is consciousness. Matter, as such, still ever need some background. I say that this background is consciousness. But your theory is not closer to this physics without background.

Of course, if you convince me, I will believe you. But the main goal of our discusion is to find new cognitions, so I should a little critisize also my supporters. And, I hope for a constructive debate also after 6. november.

Best regards.

Janko Kokošar

Dear James Arthur Putnam,

You ask what I have to say about special relativity. I generally accept it "as is" and depend upon the E=mc^2 relation for my theory. As for length contraction and time dilation, most of the problems I have solved do not require these concepts, but I have not rejected them, I have rather ignored them.

I have not had the time or reason to investigate special relativity in the way that I believe you are asking. I do however, have a friend, Steven Bryant, who is re-examining special relativity from the ground up. His web site is http://www.relativitychallenge.com and I believe that you might find it very interesting.

Your superseded question asks about exotic ideas such as extra dimensions and hyperspace.

I do not require, nor do I favor, such exotic solutions. The 3 dimensions that our consciousness is aware of seem very real to me, and no one has ever demonstrated the existence of or the need for more spatial dimensions. Nor does 'hyperspace' have any meaning for me.

A comment I made above ("to All") recalls that Kaluza-Klein proposed a fifth dimension of spacetime with a "little circle" as an explanation for electric charge, but my theory derives electric charge in the limit of spacetime curvature reached by the self-interacting vortex in the C-field. The radius of curvature in my case is analogous to the radius of the Kaluza-Klein "little circle" in 5D spacetime. My theory derives the fine structure constant which is not derived by any other theory in physics.

Another advantage of my approach is that chiral symmetry is broken, as required, whereas it is not in the Kaluza-Klein approach. So 3 space plus time seems to work better than 4 space plus time.

James, if I understand your last comment above, I am not replacing the electromagnetic Lorentz force. It still correctly describes the force on a charged particle in an electromagnetic field.

But I am adding the C-field terms to the gravity force, mG, and claiming that the C-field exerts a force on mass that is analogous to the force of the magnetic field on charge. The net result is that, if you have the four fields, G, C, E,and B, and you have a particle with mass and charge, then the total force is that described by both equations, E and B on charge and C and G on mass.

Historically, the C-field was believed to be so weak that the force was simply ignored, but my theory and Martin Tajmar's experimental measurements of the C-field indicate that the force is strong enough (in many realms) to have real physical significance.

A key point of my theory is that mass is basic and charge is a derived quantity, whereas modern quantum field theory treats charge as basic and must then explain mass. The explanation of mass, since 1964, has been the Higgs boson, but this has never been seen and I predict it won't be seen. The Large Hadron Collider should answer this question within a year or two. At that point modern theory will have no explanation for mass, which means it is effectively nonsense.

Finally, I'd like to point out that my equations do not describe awareness or volition, per se, but describe the interaction of the consciousness field with mass (a description that is missing in all other theories of consciousness.) By definition, "free will" cannot be described by a deterministic equation, but this leaves the door open to a probabilistic equation, such as Schrodinger's, which might describe the "free will" action of the C-field at the particle level as a function of available energy.

I hope this answers some of your questions, and I thank you for the gracious references to my work that you have placed on your page.

Sincerely,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Janko Kokosar,

You state "Your theory begins in macro-physics and go something also toward quantum physics. I more like Feynman's approach in QED: the strange theory of matter and light, where he starts at micro-physics and number of assumptions is small."

Janko, I'm not sure how you can have fewer assumptions than my Master equation, whose solution immediately leads to the quantum flow condition (generalized Heisenberg principle). Beginning with gravity, we immediately get a quantum condition on observables. I believe that Einstein wished to begin with the field and proceed to the quantum, but I may be mistaken.

You note that I assume background space, but "space is a consequence of matter."

And you say that "For explanation of fundamental physics it is necessary to explain, how space arises."

I am not sure that this is true. I am conscious of space, and I'm not convinced that there is any more basic approach to spacetime than that.

You also state: "Gravity, masses of particles and dimensionless coupling constants are necessary for origination of space, not only fields."

I disagree with this. There is no need for particles. In my theory we begin with the gravity field. First, this *implies* space, since a field distributes energy over points in space. And second, the energy of the field itself has equivalent mass, and does not require particles. In my theory the field vortex 'condenses' into particles, but they are not there initially.

Because my theory describes mass and charge without the Higgs, I predict that the Higgs does not exist (nor does SUSY, right-handed neutrinos, axions, etc). We will know whether this is true within a year or two.

As for Occam's razor, further study of my essay might change your mind, but I realize that time is precious, and it's hard to comprehend a theory based on a ten page essay. Nevertheless, I do not believe that you have understood the key points of my theory yet.

I'm not sure that I understand your 5th point, but I do agree with you that "consciousness is in foundations of physics and the only sense of matter (and space-time) is consciousness". I am pleased that you are one who insists that physics must address consciousness, and hope that you find the opportunity to review my essay again. I believe that you will find some of your concerns vanish with better understanding.

Thanks for your response, and please let me know of any other comments you might have. I hope my response has somewhat clarified things.

Edwin Eugene Klingman