What is Ultimately Possible in Physics, Completeness of Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Gravity, and Consciousness by Janko Kokosar

"With the above arguments we can prove a connection between QM and consciousness"

Insanity, retardation, autism, genius, prodigous ability. While each and all of these may be facile to model within your proosal , I challenge you to create any mathematical formalism that accurately models what goes through a woman's head.

Dear Janko Kokosar,

i like your essay for it does include consciousness into the realm of reality and not handle it as an "epiphenomenon".

Your essay fits well into my own considerations with the title "To be or not to be strictly deterministic?" in the current essay contest.

Feel free to check out my paper for additional thoughts on your results.

Best,

Stefan Weckbach

Uncle AI:

This sentence in quotation marks is really unprecisely written. It describes 2. and 4. sections, but there it is omitted any model for quantum consciousness. So it should be written something like: "these arguments show that quantum consciousness should be taken more seriously."

A mathematical formalism is really not ended, but it is close to formulas and it is concrete.

"Insanity, retardation..":

It is written something: about atomization, about memory and ego, about that logic is not the same as consciousness...

But this is dependent also from better researd of brain working. Research of brain is also possible by cheaper and mass analysis of DNA, by autopsy of brains of dead peoples... A possibilites are large.

"Prodigous ability"

it needs a better model for QG, so better model for nature of time.

FQXi is a good new approach to ineffectiveness of physical reviews to select an useful and correct QG and consciousness theory.

But it would be more fair that any given community score is grounded by enough comment and that scores are given as succesion of places of authors of essays.

The next proposion is that the rewarded essays will be published in one good physical review, for instance, "Foundations of Physics".

Quality of these rewarded easays is dependent of quality of community scores and in that case alternative theories will have greater impact one new physical theories.

Dear Janko

I see gravity and consciousness close together. Both are carried by cosmic space. I define consciousness as a basic frequency of quanta of space QS that build up cosmic space.

QS have a volume of Planck and they change electrical charge from positive to negative in a Plansk time. This is only math description of consciousness that one can fully experience by awakening the observer in himself.

yours amrit

Dear Janko Kokosar,

I agree with your 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."

But you also say:

"So we obtain a panpsychism, where consciousness is everywhere. If consciousness

is a quantum phenomenon, it should really exist everywhere."

This is the approach that I have 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 you say 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"

For an outline of a theory of a consciousness field, I invite you to read my essay and leave me any comment you might have.

Thanks for your insistence that consciousness must be part of physical reality. We agree there.

Also, I was very interested in your following statement:

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

As you will see in my essay, I separate logic (machinery) from conscious awareness and volition, for the very reason that you state. 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 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.

JK

Hi Janko:

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 hereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"!

These quotes are very relevant to an accurate and complete understanding of consciousness. Do you agree?

Can you rate and leave comments and questions under my essay? It is the fourth from the top. Thanks. Please read my posts under the essay as well.

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 hope my response has somewhat clarified things.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Edwin and Janko:

I will clarify the significance/meaning of the word "consciousness" in order to facilitate the advancement of understanding and discussion(s):

1) Consciousness and language involve the ability to represent, form, and experience comprehensive approximations of experience in general; and this includes art and music as well.

2) Consciousness involves the extent to which the experience and expressiveness of the self comprehensively approximate to reality.

In keeping with the above, the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. This relates to genius, memory, and dreams.

It is my pleasure to be of assistance. Frank

Dear Dr. Klingman

1. One difference between our theories is that I think that consciousness is QM and QM is everywhere. You defined special field for consciousness, so it is not everywhere.

2. Let us concentrate on your 3. and 4. equations (Lorentz force equation and

'GEM' force equation). For instance, symmetry between electrostatic and gravitational force. But, in quantum world, these two forces are not symmetric. Gravity describe space, electrostatic force is important at photon and charged particles (not absolutely true). Screening of charge is different than screening of gravitational mass.

It also seems to me that your theory does not describe how the space emerge from nothing.

Key for this description is hidden in (dimensionless) gravitational coupling constants.

About my point 5:

All physical quantities should be connected between themselves and explained. Even space, matter and consciusness. This I thought in point 5.

»Foundations of physics are close to our reach«

I thought that TOE should be short and clear. Every step to much is disturbing.

Your wrote:

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

F. Markopoulou has approach where space is emergent (fqxi contest from last year). I support it. Number of three dimensions is consequence of some logic, Brukner (my reference) wrote about this.

Space-time also do not exist without matter. This can be visible also in 0-dimensionality of gravitational coupling constants. If all particles would be twice heavier, but gravitational coupling constants stay the same, the physics would stay the same.

What is sense of space and time. Sense of time is consciousness, sense of distance is time used for it.

You wrote:

»I do not believe that you have understood the key points of my theory yet.«

I concentrated on equations 3 and 4, but we can go further.

So for now.

Regards Janko

Dear Janko,

You say: "1. One difference between our theories is that I think that consciousness is QM and QM is everywhere. You defined special field for consciousness, so it is not everywhere."

I don't understand your "consciousness is QM" or why you think that the gravitational field is not everywhere. The C-field is everywhere that there is moving mass (or changing gravity), and has little significance elsewhere. As I say in my essay, the C-field provides a "hidden variable"-like interpretation of QM based on the volition aspect of the C-field. So perhaps this is what you mean by "consciousness is QM".

and "2. Let us concentrate on your Lorentz force and 'GEM' force equations. For instance, symmetry between electrostatic and gravitational force. But, in quantum world, these two forces are not symmetric. Gravity describe space, electrostatic force is important at photon and charged particles (not absolutely true). Screening of charge is different than screening of gravitational mass."

Again, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying. The equations are 'formally' symmetric and therefore 'beautiful', but I am not a worshiper of symmetry, and would not want a pure symmetric universe, as I believe symmetry is a limiting factor. In fact, QED and QCD do *not* have symmetry, but only "approximate" symmetry in *all* cases. For full symmetry to hold, the particles must have the same mass, and this is not the case. And the Higgs that is needed for mass and to 'break symmetry' is unneeded since the G/C-field explains mass and breaks chiral symmetry, as required.

And the 'screening' you mention depends upon pos and neg charge. There can be no screening with single-valued mass. So what? There are other questions about screening that go beyond the scope of a comment.

"It also seems to me that your theory does not describe how the space emerge from nothing."

That is correct, and I do not believe that any theory really describes how space emerges from nothing, nor ever will -- perhaps poetically, but not physically. A field implies space, (and you state above that gravity describes space) but how fields or space arise from nothing is unanswerable, and possibly not even a meaningful question.

You say: "Markopoulou has approach where space is emergent (fqxi contest from last year). I support it. Number of three dimensions is consequence of some logic,"

I have been surprised at the number of Platonists who have argued in this forum, but I do not believe that physics comes from math or from logic (a subset of math). This is a religious belief that I do not subscribe to. Arguing about God preceding the universe or about math preceding the universe is the same metaphysical exercise. I've addressed this extensively elsewhere in these comments. And my essay begins by explaining how the 'laws of physics' are not 'outside of physics', something that Platonists apparently do not believe.

You say "Space-time also do not exist without matter."

Another belief that seems to make sense, but cannot be proved. My theory assumes that the G/C-field exists at the big bang, and the field energy has mass equivalence, so I guess this satisfies your statement.

and "All physical quantities should be connected between themselves and explained. Even space, matter and consciousness." I believe that my theory is the only one that connects all of the physical quantities, to such an extent that it predicts no new particles will be found at the Large Hadron Collider. What does your theory predict?

Thanks for the above arguments. I hope I've addressed some of them.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I too enjoy a discussion on the relation between counting and measurement.

You assume that "there is one physical property that cannot be quantized. Now say the property takes all values within a finite real range [a,b] for a system. Irrespective of the scale or unit of measurement, or the size of the range, there will be uncountable values of the property, containing both rational and irrational(subset of real) number multiples of the chosen unit. These irrational values (or real) will always remain independent of the choices."

I accept the premise, but you are describing the physical property only. There must also be a measurement apparatus. And such measurement apparatus must, in the final analysis, be constructed/composed of some physical entity. If you can use a single electron or even a neutrino as the measuring device, this is still a discrete phenomenon. And to actually meaningfully count events will take more than one. Even if the count is based on 'exposed' atoms of film, there is a minimum discrete unit of exposure, ie, one atom. In most cases, there is a threshold event which 'triggers' a counter, and the counts are discrete, leading to the question, "Why would one insist that measurement is not based on integer multiples of the most smallest measurable unit?"

You say because -

"Measurement is discrete if a single value is concerned as we can always define a new scale to avoid irrational values. If we consider an entire continuous range above, we are bound to encounter irrational values, that cannot be expressed discretely as they have uncountable non-cyclic digits. This is where approximation/extrapolation play the practical role and equations/symbolism play the theoretical role."

I believe that this too ignores the discreteness imposed by the measurement apparatus. The postulated existence of the continuous physical property does not imply the ability to measure such using real physical apparatus. Until one begins to mathematically manipulate multiple measurements, I do not believe that one can encounter real/irrational numbers. Thus I continue to believe that physics is based on counting, and 'counter logic' produces integers and, per Kronecker, past this point, math comes from man. This is not an argument about whether actual continuous physical entities/properties exist, so much as an argument about the origin of mathematics and its relation to physics.

I hope this clarifies my position somewhat,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Dr. Kokosar,

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

You have asked two important key questions, namely:

(1) How is MC-QED different from Wheeler-Feynman Theory and

(2) How does MC-QED relate to Cramer's Tranactional Interpretation of QM

The answers to these questions are as follows:

ANSWER TO QUESTION (1) Even though "self-measurement" is operationally prohibited by the Measurement Color symmetry when it is applied to both the

electron-positron operator fields and the electromagnetic operator fields in MC-QED, the resultant theory is not equivalent to the Wheeler-Feynman theory since the electromagnetic field operators are still dynamic variables and have not been eliminated from the formalism.

ANSWER TO QUESTION (2) Since Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM involves a generalization of the Wheeler-Feynman formalism it is not equivalent to MC-QED by virtue of the answe to question (1). However since

MC-QED is a non-local quantum field theory there may be some nonlocal-in-time phenomena predicted by MC-QED which are similar in nature to those predicted by Cramer's version of QM theory.

Finaly note that a generalization of MC-QED into the a Measurement Color version of the Standard Model is possible. In this more general spontaneous CPT violating formalism, the arrow of time would be carried by a) the massless photon, b) all of the massive vector bosons, and c) the Higgs particle, since they would all have a negative parity under Wigner Time Reversal in this formalism.

Dr. Darryl LeiterAttachment #1: 2_LeiterFQXi_ESSAY.pdf