Physics and limits of Human Thought by Gagandeep Singh Bhatia

Hello dear Mr Gagandeep Singh Bhatia ,

Nice to know you.

Your essay was a pleasure to read .

You know ,I was always been fascinated by your country .I see in the sciences researchs ,a spirituality and an universality .It's important for the evolution of sciences in an universal point of vue where the unified correlations are a reality beween them .

Good luck for the contest.

Best Regards

Steve.

Dear gagandeep,

the simplicity of your arguments in the essay sre compelling me to wonder how you are an Engineer and not a fundamental philosopher. You have put things objectivity in the way that you remained attached to the subject but appeared detached from it personally. it is a quality that is much desired to be objective in one's appraoch. i also wonder why Physicists these days mainly go on harping on developments in purely mathematical form. Hardly any one tries to present the conceptualisation aspect and appraoch experimentalists posing a specific experiment to them. Mostly one is happy with the newere and newer mathemaitical treatment one is using to tackle a problem in Physics.

I saw the only other comment made on your forum by Steve, who clearly indicates that it has something to do with us being from India. It is a profund statement that we need to really look into deeply and objectively. The subjectivity needs to be tackled correctly.

gud to read but naive...

your friend

Anonymity is there if one has something to hide. friends do not need to hide as that reduces trust. Be frank and no right thinking person can mind the same.

Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I have read and enjoyed your essay. In this comment I will attempt 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.

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

Hello Gagandeep Singh Bhatia ,

Edwin Eugene Klingman ,Narendra Nath

I am very happy ,thanks a lot .Me too that motivates me ,the synergies are so important .

Dear Narendra ,of course .It will be a honor .The united is so essential in an universal love .

Best Regards

Steve

Gagandeep Singh Bhatia:

As many others above, I liked your essay a lot and also find it similar to some of the ideas I expose in my essay. -would be glad to have a comment from you since I also live from computer science-

I find it interesting many of the discussions circulate about the existence of a TOE . Positions varing from for example Mr Edwin Eugene Klingman who propouses one -very good one, by the way- and Giovanni Amelino-Camelia who basically argues there will not be a TOE. It's fun the way computers work today and an understandable human error brought the disscussion to your place.

I find possible for a TOE to exist, in the sence there could be a relativly small amount of basic components (axioms) and some rules of tranformation that produce everything. Nevertheless I do not think we -our brains- are capable of really UNDERSTAND all. How is it that we think? How does DNA produces what each of us is? Etc...

What do you think?

Best...

Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I applaud your first sentence of "All...physics is...human thought." I very much liked your essay because I have been thinking along those same lines for many years now.

In this regard, recently the greatest breakthrough of physics is the overwhelming evidence that proteins build and operate the human brain from egg and sperm to grave. (If you have a problem here please see section 2, paragraph 2, page 2, of my essay.) This is exceedingly important; reasons include. 1) As atomic systems, proteins follow the laws of quantum mechanics. That means we physicists and engineers are biologists by default. 2a) Protein behavior directly connects physics with "human thought." 2b) Thought can now be directly connected to the behaviors of the elements of the periodic table and their eigenstates. 3) Proteins of the brain's sensorium are the quantum observers in the sense of the Copenhagen interpretation. 4) This makes physics here and now, upfront and personal. 5) Proteins overcome chaos and entropy.

Did you know that the human body's proteins manufacture over 200 kilometers of DNA per second per person? The fact that protein organizations overcome entropy and chaos to that degree is significant. It begs the question, are organized systems a subset of entropic systems or are entropic systems a subset of organized systems? In other words, is the universe's fundamental operating system chaotic or is it fundamentally organized. Which does spectroscopy show atomic systems as? What do you think?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

George Schoenfelder

Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I have always thought that the chaos was a human invention ,like some other imaginaries or human extrapolations without limits and walls of perception.

I see the chaos like a simple very short moment ,due to the relativity .

We see the chaos only in an instant foto in fact.

But what I find relevant and fundamental is the process where the chaos is seen,analyzed and perceived ,this process ,it ,is in balance of evolution .

On Earth the chaos is a reality due to our young age and bad habits,all that due to a difficult and sad past .

All goes to a harmony ,furthermore the natural balance is easier to implant than implant a short chaotic moment .

In all case the universal harmony will take always the reason of our universality ,in a concept and process of pure improvement towards ultim harmony .Fortunally moreover.

Let's take some examples of chaos ,the guns ,the explosions ,the catastrophes,let's take too an explosion on sun ,it's always a short instant where the energy ,the mass is bad used by humans ,thus our rule of catalyzer of the truth isn't a global reality.

The short instant is really a parameter of the chaos ,there the consciouness and the universal love becomes the main piece of the reponsability ,evidently .

In all case the harmony is fundamenatl ,and the chaos is always dedicated to disappear ,furthermore this chaos will decrease more we shall evolve ,more the mass will increase ,more our bad habits shall disappear and more others variables of the harmony .

Some human inventions(borders ,differences ,unconsciousness,weaponsand guns,monney,....) thus are dedicated to disappear in time and space evolution ,on the other side ,our fundamental laws continue and evolve and them are harmonious and universals.

Always they shall take the reason of the building ,this ultim equation and its aim .

Just a thought about hamony or chaos .

Best Regards

Steve

Dear Gagandeep

Much underrated, I've tried to up it a bit to what it deserves.

I think my own offering here helps to prove you correct, and I think you're one of the few who may really understand it. If you have time check out; 'Perfect Symmetry'.

All it neeeds is some maths!

Best of luck

Peter Jackson

Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia ,

Thank you for your compliment, "I tried to keep my essay open-ended so as to foster linking of ideas such as yours (as in 'consciousness field'). It is a thought-provoking idea." I believe that your approach is well taken and is to be recommended.

You state that: "A very important point that is hidden in your comment above is the distinction between counting and measurement. Counting is a sub-set of measurement. Counting, being a discrete procedure, is based in natural numbers. It is the basis of quantization. Measurement, on the other hand, may be discrete or continuous, but usually made to be discrete by the limits of accuracy of our experimental systems."

I do not understand how measurement, a physical act, can be continuous. One can of course "abstract" an idea of continuous measurement, but I'm not sure why one would wish to do so, at least at the level of fundamental or foundational physics. All measurement is defacto discrete.

You say, "Hence measurement is based in the set of real numbers."

I can see how real numbers are useful, as when one wishes to move into statistical analysis of multiple measurements, but I do not believe that measurement, per se, is continuous. On the contrary, the most basic operator of our most basic theory, quantum field theory, is the Particle Number operator, that counts the number of particles by summing over the annihilation and creation of particles. Thus at the level of both real measurements and abstract measurements, we seem to be based on counting. Why would one insist that measurement is not based on integer multiples of the most smallest measurable unit?

Thank you for your consideration,

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

i liked your response when you said that chaos is only apparent , as underlying it may well br ordreed. hat goes well with the logic of evolution of the universe. The events happening may appear random but there is an order that follows a logical design.

i would like Gagandeep to provide what he thinks about the sequential emergence of the force fieds, viz. gravity, nuclear strong, e.m, and finally the nuclear weak. Some one said on the forum that may well be the reason why gravity has the lowest strength? May we think, that as new field emerged, part of the role of the previously existing field changed. It is still a mysterious subject to investigate if the Big bang was governed by the Unified potential field that always exist/existed representing pure energy. Only the birth of the first mass starts the physical universe. Then, we still have the distinction to worry about the nature of matter constituting the dominant dark matter and a miniscular visible matter. Why it is so?