Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos

Of course it can! One simply converts the units to a common base measurement standard.

Tom

Tom,

Units have to match.

James

Not only are you wrong, but I don't think you even know what you mean by that statement.

Do you think 3/16 differs from 6/32?

Tom

Tom,

Ok. You choose to create some fog. Back to the fine structure constant question. It is defined using h, k and c. It equals the speed of the hydrogen electron divided by the speed of light: is this a coincidence?

James

You haven't lost your capacity to shock me, I see. Apparently, you do think that 3/16 and 6/32 are different. No wonder that you see only fog.

Calculation of the fine structure constant is outside my field of knowledge. However, you (and to be sure, others here) could benefit from some basic understanding of mathematics and its applications to physical phenomena. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that the speed of an electron is very nearly the value of the speed of light. Hardly a "coincidence," for whatever you mean by that, since this lightest of particles is almost massless (so much so that electron behavior duplicates that of photon behavior in 2-slit experiments).

In reconciling units, physicists often set values of constants that don't affect physical results, to 0 or 1. This doesn't mean that the equation doesn't make sense. It means that the sense is contained in the physical result, not in the writing of the equation. For a quantum mechanical calculation, c is always 1 because time plays no role in a (nonrelativistic) quantum transaction.

Tom

Hi Ray,

I don't know theory anywhere close to your level. That being said, I do have thoughts. I use mechanical ideas like energy in my own work. However, I think that all of the mechanical properties used in theoretical physics are not real. I think the effects that they are based upon are real. I just think that mechanical ideas are not representative of the true nature of the universe. So, I don't believe in a property of energy. I do accept complexity and think that it is far more extensive than what mechanical theory can represent.

I don't know whether or not there are other properties outside of our universe. I don't know if there is an outside of our universe. However, I am willing to go along with considering such possibilities. So long as they are mechanically interpreted, I have a problem with them. However, the subject is theoretical physics, so I follow along with discussions about the mechanical properties of the multiverse.

When I consider the multiverse, I see some of the same perplexing problems remaining. For example, I wonder what is the origin of the properties of life and intelligence in our universe. The number of universes can be increased without limit, but, for me the problem of the origin of the properties of intelligence and life remain. I do not go along with supposing that the solution to this problem exists in theoretical physics, but, is sort of buried in complexity whether here in our universe or in any number of universes.

I think that free will is fully a product of the potential that existed at the beginning of our universe. Perhaps this is too limiting and some potential for it exists outside of our universe. However, if free will, whether in this universe or as a property of a multiverse, is considered to result from uncertainty or probability theory, then I can't go along with that. I see human free will as a meaningful, orderly process. I do not see it being patched together by the chance joining together of otherwise disorganized pieces.

Everywhere I look I see control. Control reveals itself in both predictability and meaning. While I do not think that free will is inherently predictable or preset and, therefore, not free will, I see it and every other effect in this universe or even outside it as part of a fully controlled process. I think that we have free will because the universe was formed to give it to us. What I found interesting to consider and pursue was: How does this fully controlled universe, or perhaps multiverse, give us the property of free will? I now see it as a logical consequence of the combination of the properties given to us by means of the particles from which we are formed and the way in which we interact with the universe.

That is what I think. I recognize that you can support your ideas better than can I in terms of higher level theoretical physics. I read what you write and I try to follow it. For the reasons given above, I have a reluctance and uneasiness about many of the ideas put forward by today's theoretical physicists. Still, I appreciate learning what you and other qualified people think. I am on a learning curve, and, for better or for worse my learning curve bent in a very different direction from others.

James

Hi James,

Complexity is related to scales. If Shannon's Information Theory says that Information (and thus Complexity) scales as N ln(N), then larger values of N admit greater levels of complexity.

If N~10^41 = Dirac's Large Number in our scale, but N~10^100 in a scale of greater complexergy (complexity-energy) such as the Multiverse, then complexity emerges at this Multiverse scale. Of course, our Observable Universe is a self-similar scaled copy of the Multiverse, and even the quantum scale is a self-similar copy of all of the greater scales (with N~496). So at some level, it is appropriate to talk about the information (complexity? intelligence?) content of an individual electron. We are simultaneously fallen from the (near?) perfection of the Multiverse scale, and emergent from lowly Quantum scale.

Can we measure the Multiverse? I wonder if the information content of Black Holes: ~10^123 or the Cosmological Constant ~10^(-123) is related to a geometrical power of Dirac's Large Number ~10^123~(10^41)^3 or if it is leakage from (and therefore experimental evidence for) a scale of greater complexergy such as the Multiverse.

Linde suggests that time doesn't exist in the Multiverse as a whole, but when we separate one part (say our Observable Universe) from the whole (the Multiverse), then time emerges. There seem to be branching ratios that allow a certain amount of free will in each respective Observable Universe, but the "whole me" (the soul-like collection of self-similar mes throughout the Multiverse) will not likely all jump off of a tall building today. Does free will admit all possibilities? Or just a (scaled?) large number of possibilities?

I'm out of town three days this week, so I'm trying to tie up loose ends today.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Consciousness constitutes those annoying periods between sleep.

Free will is not something we can ever prove exists. A proof of such would require a universal Turning machine, which does not exist.

Cheers LC

Roy,

For what little it's worth, I am 100% in agreement with: "I am a bit concerned at the seemingly very wide *total acceptance* by the physics/cosmology community of the "multiverse" inflationary model."

I have very unflattering opinions about why this is true, and no idea how to stop the stampede. I believe physics may be in process of doing itself great harm. Appeals to non-testable phenomena is essentially religious in nature. In fact, as I understand it, the 10^500 universes were essentially invented to get around the implications of fine-tuning (Susskind, p.273: "...the heart of the matter... [t]he unreasonable apparent design of the universe..."). So, fleeing from contemplation of one 'non-physical' explanation of fine tuning, physicists fled right into another 'non-physical' (in any realistic sense of prediction, testing, etc) explanation. This won't end well.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

The above refers to Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape".

Anyone who needs a proof that they have free will, may not have it, who knows? It's not for me to say.

I have free will, despite, as James puts it, anyone's "mechanical" explanations for "mechanical" actions that others ascribe meaning to. That I can't 'prove it' is not a problem for me. No one else can prove it or disprove it, so what?

Pinch your self. Did that hurt? Can you prove it?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear All,

I have continually been frustrated by the fqxi blogs and comments on consciousness carried on with everyone's choice of language, Babel style.

James often uses 'intelligence' when I think he means 'consciousness' in my terminology. Half the time I don't know what anyone else means by these terms.

My essay (http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561) and my many writing on consciousness use the following terminology:

.

Consciousness = awareness plus volition (free will)

Intelligence = consciousness plus logic (hardware)

.

These terms are simple enough and specific enough to explain many relevant things about this topic. Of course my explanations are based on my belief (and theory) that consciousness is inherent to the universe, not an artifact that came into existence when enough Lego blocks were put together in the right order.

It's not mandatory that everyone adopt my terminology, but until fqxi participants agree on some meaning for these terms, there will continue to be a lot of nonsense occurring here, and comments where the commenter and the respondent aren't speaking the same language.

Thanks for your consideration of this issue.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

1bubble+1bubble=1sphere+1sphere.....the theory of bubblelization a Gut or rotating bubbles hihihihi

and the spheres vs multispheres

the spheres vs strings

the bubble vs the multibubbles

spherically yours or bubbly yours.....

Steve bubblelicentrist=sphericentrist hihihi

I question whether intelligence is just a matter of logic. Clearly the ability to perform logical operations in a way where we are consciously aware of them is important. Yet I think a big component is our ability to project ourselves in space and time. We can imagine ourselves in the future and we can project ourselves onto imaginary characters. I suspect a part of this is our evolutionary selection for language which permitted Homo sapiens to engage in narratives and stories about their natural world. This permitted the communication about the local environment down the generations. Further, these stories involved a projection of human consciousness onto the natural world in the form of spirits, totems and gods. So the structure and behavior of the world is cast in a story format which engages the listener and those skilled at telling stories became bards.

Other animals engage in problem solving abilities. Even some birds are known to be able to count and perform basic addition and subtraction. Prairie dogs are capable of very complex communications through variations in harmonics in their chirps, which to our ear appear monotonic. These types of animals are not what we normally consider as intelligent and semi-intelligent, such as apes, cetaceans and elephants. Obviously the complexity with human logical processing surpasses other creatures, but this might just be a matter of degree and not of some qualitative distinction.

Cheers LC

Lawrence,

If you look at the definition, I don't say intelligence is just a matter of logic. I say that intelligence is consciousness PLUS logic. Consciousness, as I say in my essay, is and always will be a mystery. I think the most primitive self-awareness is implied by any field or phenomenon that interacts with itself (since I don't believe that reality is looking up the 'laws of physics' somehow and computing the 'next step'.) And as I propose just such a primordial field as being present at the creation, I assume that consciousness (incredibly primitive, but essentially complete and all encompassing) is here from the beginning. But how do we get beyond the awareness of self to awareness of other. Simplistically speaking, how do we go from 'one' to 'two'?

My current essay discusses how the field 'condenses' to particles (there's no really good word to summarize this process, but the known particles are produced from the process) and my original essay describes a theory of how the consciousness field couples to particles and particular systems.

But, aside from this essential awareness, how do things get more specific? I think that Marcel's introduction to logic in his 'Ultimate Physics' essay is very reasonable, and I see logic as the basis of what's 'real'. Reality is free of logical contradictions. And logic as hardware appears at the DNA level, the bacterial level, the level of the brain, and everywhere in between, and extends into the non-biological universe through computers, etc. Once awareness and volition exist, the question is how do they 'couple' to the physical world in a meaningful way (that is, beyond the level of a self-interacting field). My theory proposes a coupling mechanism, that does not 'explain' awareness, but takes it as a 'given' and asks how it couples to physical systems.

One doesn't have to go to birds and apes. Cells make 'logical' decisions as to whether or not to produce a specific protein (which requires energy) based on the presence of other proteins attaching themselves (or not) to DNA sequences. These are essentially AND/OR type logical operations, and therefore, by my definition, the cell is making 'intelligent' decisions. Go from there.

Once you have awareness, I believe that logic provides the rest. You speak of 'projecting' ourselves in time and space. This doesn't happen without a brain that uses logical mechanisms to 'store' memories of events, times, places, etc that can be combined in logical networks to produce 'models' or 'ideas' that we are aware of. Learning can be modeled by (re-)connecting networks, and these can be described by logic.

What do you think is needed beside awareness and sufficient logical machinery?

Edwin Eugene Klingman

"Linde usually responds to such criticisms by quoting Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." In particular, he argues, the multiverse provides the only logical answer to the question of why the constants of nature seem to be finely-tuned in such a way that they allow life to exist. "If there is an infinite number of universes with different physical laws, it makes sense that we happen to live in a universe that allows life," Linde explains."

Well this says nothing. It is just another one of those answers from the fog.

James

Today's theoretical physics spouts off grandiose answers without empirical support. Smear the chalkboard, but, leave your own equation there. The result: See my answer is the only answer so it must be the real answer. One question: Where were you looking? If you are pushing an agenda, then, your answer is a pillar in your own temple. If you are looking for real answers, then leave the fog and look around even where you are uncomfortable. The fog does not hold answers. It holds beliefs. Consciousness does not come out of a fog. It demands far more sense than does its very distant mechanic cousin 'theoretical physics'.

James

I know! Maybe if we disregard the real world with its complex lifeforms and varieties of intelligence, and, repeat our beliefs enough, especially with backing from complex mathematics, then, maybe those who cannot follow the math will be pushed out of the way and mathematical speculations will become free to reign as real knowledge. I mean real knowledge can't exist without mathematics, right! And, real knowledge shouldn't need proof, right! I mean mathematics is pure in its logic, right!

There is a host of problems with this perspective. Mathematics is not pure logic. It is pure in its own rules governing its own numerical domain, but, those numbers are inconveniently dependent upon ideas. Those ideas have names as 'properties', and, those properties are forced onto the numbers by those who believe in those 'properties'. False ideas are part of the problem, but, even more important is the move by theoretical physics into the unempirical domain. A move reminiscient of descriptions of 'heaven', but, more 'practical' in that this new heaven is imagined to be a heaven for mechanics.

My position is clear, the 'practicalness' of theoretical physics is impracticalness with regard to life and intelligence. Life and intelligence exist here inside our universe. How do they exist in this universe? This universe provides empirical evidence. What is the empirical evidence in theoretical physics for intelligence and life? What is the theoretical basis in theoretical physics for intelligence and life? What do physicists have to say about life and intelligence based upon empirical evidence inside this universe?

James

Ok, there are multiverses. Ok, there are solutions approaching or perhaps reaching an infinite amount. Ok, there heavens beyond heavens. Ok, maybe the answers do not exist in our universe. Ok, maybe we are just a chance formed bubble in a vast foam. Ok, maybe this nonscience is the real science. Ok, maybe Jack was a theoretical physicist and really did climb up the beanstalk.

James