Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos

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

"Free will is not something we can ever prove exists."

Are you a robot or a human being?

James

The title 'The origin of Mind and Matter' is appropriate because it separates the two. Afterall, matter is a construct of mechanical theory. From that mechanical perspective, the source of electromagnetism, gravity, etc., has to be something inanimate, so, we are introduced to 'matter'. Well, mind cannot come from the 'matter' described by theoretical physics. So, it is something different, something extra, something added-on, because, 'matter' cannot gives us mind. Nature is not governed by ideology. The nature of the universe is still waiting to be discovered. There is only one source for both intelligent effects and mechanical effects. Getting this problem solved does matter.

James

Dear Edwin,

I think that all effects had to be provided for right from the beginning of the universe. Before realized effects occur there are potential effects. The potential is as full of meaning as are the realized effects. Perhaps there is even more potential that has not yet been realized.

So, when I speak of intelligence, I am thinking first of that which was present at the beginning of the universe in potential form. I do not accept the mechanical perspective in any way. I see it as being human made, an invention of the mind.

Speaking in terms of the realized effects, since I cannot show the existence of potential effects, I observe that the universe gave birth to intelligent life. Theoretical physics has nothing to do with explaining this non-mechanical effect. My work has been oriented toward removing the artificial properties of theoretical physics so that the study of the nature of the universe may advance.

The outstanding current intelligent effect is the existence of human free will. Free will involves consciousness. We receive all of our information in the form of photon data. That data carries no meaning with it other than multitudinous historical reports of particles of matter incrementally changing their velocities.

I see two steps of consciousness. All analysis of photon data occurs at the subconscious level. It has to be an amazing mix of foreknowledge, forsight, and immediate need. After the subconscious mind reaches a conclusion, it is communicated to the conscious mind as a single thought. One thought follows another. So, I see the conscious mind as a string of results. I see the subconscious mind as doing all of the work. That is where 'hardware' and 'software' and photon information meet. It is the combination of all that occurs at the subconscious level that I refer to as intelligence. From my perspective, intelligence is the fullness of meaning that can be attached to action in this universe.

I haven't begun to try to establish the hardware part. I say only that the hardware part is not represented by today's theoretical physics. You have pursued the hardware part. I can't professionally evaluate it. But, I am certainly appreciative to see that a theoretical physicist has done this.

If I were to choose a starting point, it would not be gravity except from the point of view that gravity is the result of a variable speed of light. So, I would pursue a path different from your choice. It does not matter. I am not an expert. While I am compelled to follow my own path, I have good reason to put trust in your path. Thank you for participation here, and, I am glad to see you arguing your own case.

James

James,

I've read enough of your thoughts to have a reasonable idea of what you mean by 'intelligence'. The problem is that, not having read enough of others thoughts, I often have no idea what they mean by 'intelligence', 'consciousness', 'free will', etc. For example, I don't speak of the 'subconscious'. To me the field wherein consciousness resides is all conscious, and only directs our 'focus' to whatever is most appropriate at any given time.

I see the brain as building 'models' (theories, ideas, what have you) in the fantastic neural net that can learn by adjusting it's connections. The photon data that couples us to the 'outside' world does so by either stimulating new connections or else simply 'maintaining' our internal model of the external.

Because at every moment while we live, neurons conduct ions flows along axons and vesical flows across synapses, there is always local momenta that induces circulation in the local consciousness field, thereby coupling the brain's operation to the local field from whence we derive awareness. Destroy the brain and the ideas are destroyed. The consciousness field that fills the universe is not destroyed, but the local structure determines the level of 'intelligence' that is associated with that brain. When the flows stop, (death), the local awareness is reduced to the background level, which, from our perspective is nil, although it may take a while for the cells of the body to lose awareness.

Because the brain is physical, and yet consciousness interacts with the physical body/brain, my focus has been on the interaction. While that does not solve the 'problem' of awareness, I view awareness as the ultimate mystery, and do not believe it 'solvable'. Yet it is coupled to the physical world, so that is where I focus.

Schrodinger one gave a talk, 'Do electrons think?' In my theory structure is required for thinking, which is the act of awareness coupling to the hardware model, so electrons don't think, although they do, by virtue of their momentum, induce a local circulation that essential 'strengthens' the local consciousness field. This is meaningless, but when we consider the structure of the living cell, it suddenly becomes not so meaningless. If you ever watched movies of cells, you would be hard pressed to deny some level of awareness (unless, of course, you are a reductionist who believes 'all is chemistry'.) All ain't chemistry.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear James,

I did not start with gravity. I started trying to write down a force equation that would make sense for a consciousness field interacting with our body/brain. And it did not take long to realize that 'gravito-magnetism' fit the bill almost perfectly. And because my belief is that consciousness does not arise from physical structure, but has been here all along, and I find it most likely that the gravitational field was the only thing here at the 'beginning', it just worked out that way. After a while I stopped resisting the idea because everything fit together so well. In my theory the known particles are derived from the non-linear [Yang-Mills] C-field and then the structure begins to evolve.

If you stop and think about it, "Whatever else life accomplishes, it does so only after it willfully defies gravity." Since the gravito-magnetic field easily produces an 'anti-gravity' effect [as in 'dark energy'] this too fits the picture.

In another blog an fqxi participant said "I like fields, but they cannot be perceived directly."

Forgive me for quoting my earlier fqxi essay, but I can't discuss direct perception any better than I did in Fundamental Physics of Consciousness

.

"Upon what must a fundamental theory of physics be based? ...it should be formulated in terms of human reality, not abstract formulations. Either it is based on directly and immediately sensed reality or it is based on some abstraction that is claimed to represent reality. Current theories are based on physics abstractions such as:

Gravity, String theories, Electromagnetics, Quantum field theories, Strong and weak forces, Dark matter and energy, Extra dimensions, Extra universes, Consciousness

Of these, only two, gravity and consciousness, are immediately sensible and directly experienced by humans. I am directly aware of gravity and I am directly aware that I am conscious. I have no direct, immediate, awareness of any other physics on the list (with the exception of a small range of electromagnetic radiation). All other entities, if they exist, are sensed through the medium of some measurement apparatus (as complex as the Large Hadron Collider or as simple as iron filings in a magnetic field)-yet none is directly sensed. Even muscular detection of a magnetic field is possible only through the medium of a held magnet. Gravity and consciousness are directly sensible, requiring no external apparatus, and hence are deemed suitable for the basis of a physical theory that does not depend upon belief in either equipment or logical argument. We *know* these two entities exist. All else should depend on these."

.

Of course, not everyone thinks that way. Some believe that they can imagine 10^500 universes, and somehow 'create consciousness' from 'big numbers'.

I have written well over a thousand pages tying it all together. Unfortunately this does not all tie together in a few comments. Too bad.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ed,

I think that you ("Consciousness"), James ("Intelligence") and Frank ("Dreams") are all looking for approximately the same thing. The difference is that you are the best at explaining your position, Frank is the worst, and James is somewhere in between.

I am not a proponant of the Chance paradigm. I am a Christian, and believe in Design - not Chance. I think that a larger Multiverse exists, but not for the sake of different fundamental parameters (different Fine-Structure Constants, different Dirac's Large Numbers, etc. as many proponants of Chance believe), but for the sake of giving a logical explanation for these ridiculusly fine-tuned parameters like 10^41 in terms of the complexity and energy content of the Multiverse, and its multiple smaller self-similar copies.

Your idea cuts straight to the point by connecting consciousness with a fundamental force field. But I fully expect new fields to also imply new particles.

My models also have a new type of Gravity - WIMP-Gravity with massive gravitons, and tachyons (the "scalar fermions" in my 2009-2010 papers) that travel faster than the speed of light.

Taking this to a very speculative extreme, I think that the "Soul" is a tachyonic (imaginary mass) Kramers-Kronig-like relation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers%E2%80%93Kronig_relation

transform of the real mass of our physical bodies.

"Intelligence" is based on information content at the Scale level - dependant on the complexity (N ln(N)) and energy of the scale. The Multiverse Scale (Heaven?) has the greatest "Intelligence" (say 10^500 or infinity?), but even the Quantum Scale has a minimal quanta of "Intelligence" (say 496). 10^500 does not explain Chance - it explains (near?) perfection. This allows us to simultaneously "rise" from the base Quantum Scale and "fall" from the (near?) perfect Multiverse Scale.

The "Dream" is our Soul's vehicle for communication with the other self-similar me-Souls throughout the Multiverse. These self-similar mes are greater than 13.7 billion light years from me, but it doesn't matter because tachyonic Souls can travel faster than the speed of light.

"Consciousness" is the combined feedback effect from all of the self-similar mes throughout the Multiverse. Consciousness is not a local effect, but rather a spread-out non-local collective effect.

In my own crazy way, I think that all of these ideas are different, but related. Your ideas are similar to mine, but your ideas may be more conservative. Lawrence probably thinks I'm talking crazy...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Ray,

Let me hit you with a far-out proposition (not so to me, but to current physicists).

The C-field is a Yang-Mills Calabi-Yau solution to Einstein's equations, and, as I repeat, ad nauseam, is capable of producing all known particles, sans Higgs and sans SUSY. It is capable of explaining the weak force interactions between particles and also of explaining quark confinement and asymptotic symmetry and three generations. It also explains the mass-ordering of all charged particles. No other theory does that. It explains why the 6-quarks in deuterium don't collapse to a 'spherical' distribution. In fact, it explains a dozen or so anomalies that are simply not explained by QCD.

Ray, if this is true, then there is no need for 'QCD color'. The C-field supplies the 'gluons' that hold the quarks together, and provide the dynamics. By the way, you do realize that 'QCD color' has never been seen, don't you. It's an article of faith in the community. In 1929 Rutherford suggested that the strong force was 'magnetic' in nature, but it was too soon. When, about 5 years later Yukawa proposed a radial force and the 'pion', the 'muon' showed up instead, but everyone mistook it for the pion. Anyway, 70 years or so later, and 40 years after QCD, we still can't calculate QCD problems or explain generations, and most of what goes on at LHC seems to be running Monte Carlo codes (PYTHIA and others). The Lattice-QCD models look pretty absurd to me, and Frank Wilczek says that Yukawa doesn't work at hard core distances. And nothing predicted by anyone has been found for decades.

So, faithful QCD-physikers keep on keepin' on, but some day it may become clear that this is getting nowhere. (By the way my model predicted the 'perfect fluids' that have shown up at RHIC and LHC, while QCD predicted a 'quark gas'.

And, in addition, the initial reason (Pauli exclusion) for even proposing color is easily met by the anti-symmetric wave function for the C-field proton and neutron, under exchange of quarks, AND, my proton-proton collisions predict the same 'string-like' function that initially gave rise to strings.

What does this mean? It means that IF my theory were correct, it meets Rutherford's proposal, while satisfying every problem that brought QCD and string theory into existence.

And what would that mean? It would mean that the 'extra particles' you expect for a new field are already here. You just have to subtract the 'old fields' of QCD and electro-weak. And I've already shown that the strengths work out. So you aren't counting your particles right in this case, you're double counting.

Also, note that the "reason" that the Calabi-Yau manifold has 11 (or so) dimensions, is that [and I quote] "they can't get the QCD and Weak forces into only 4-space-time dimension." But ALL Calabi-Yau manifolds can be factored into a torus plus higher dimensions, and my model for particles is the torus. Don't need the higher dimensions.

So the justification for 11-dimension just disappears. Evaporates. Vanishes.

But Wait! It's those silly 'string windings' on the higher dimensional Calabi-Yau that give rise to the 10^500 vacua, and are the basis of the silly multi-verse.

So if my theory is correct, ALL that crap goes away. Think about it.

And if your theories are correct, I'm sure the Higgs and SUSY will be showing up "real soon now".

I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we.

It's a fun game. But please do me a favor. Look over the above comments a few times and try to grasp what I'm saying, because I have to keep making these points again and again, as if they are dismissed without being read. They are important points, Ray, and the facts are on my side. The faith is on the QCD'ers side. I can explain the 4% anomaly for muonic-hydrogen, QED can't.

This is significant, but those who even admit that it's a problem deny that it's serious. When a theory that claims dozen place accuracy is reduced to 1 place accuracy in the simplest possible atom, it's a problem!

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Ed,

Please don't think that I am dismissing your ideas and writings. Normally, I'm trying to put it into a perspective that makes sense to me. There are several things I need to respond to:

1) I agree that QCD is somewhat questionable. The errors are of order 5% and greater. If you read my recent paper on "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales", you will see that the behavior of the Strong coupling forced me to make an outrageous assumption - that "fundamental" quantum scaled gluons might be comprised of sub-quantum scaled fermions. I think that your triality explains 3 generations of fermions, and an S-duality of your triality explains "color". What you claim is possible, but we need to better understand the details and dynamics.

2) I think that SUSY is fundamental - sorry but we will continue to disagree on that point. SUSY helps unify bosons and fermions. Without SUSY, there cannot be a true TOE. IMHO, the ONLY question about SUSY is whether or not it is Weak-Scale SUSY.

3) I have my own questions about Higgs - I think that extra tachyons exist, and these will potentially affect the so-called Higgs Mechanism.

4) Personally, I think I can include color, electromagnetism, and the weak force in 4-D. The problem is that doesn't leave any room for gravity, and gravity seems to be every bit as (if not moreso?) fundamental...

5) I'm playing with more than 11-D. I'm not sure where that is going...

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

a little of quiet dear scientists, hihih a little of quiet.

Master Yoda and Master "Tom Tom Maths", be quiet , be professional, be cool hihihi they are crazzy these FQXithinkers they are crazzy.

Dear Master Yoda, it's true? you think it's different 1.5/8 with the others hihihi

Dear Master Tomathtom, do you think a string is divisible and has an equation or several.??

Be quiet dear dudes hhhihihi

Steve

Dear Steve,

My work is different from yours and everyone else's. I am not well versed in everyone else's. I do like my own very much. I think I should continue following the path that I have chosen. Perhaps you are correct or perhaps someone else is correct. My opinion is that truth is the goal. Whover has the trutyh in the end will receive my congratulations. However, the end does appear to have arrived.

"...you think it's different 1.5/8 with the others hihihi..."

I presume this refers to Tom's pointless point. No I didn't make a mistake. I stopped responding because Tom's answers are more trouble than they are worth. He is not the help that he could be. He continually attempts to distract or change the subject. Its like going in circles or jumping from lilly pad to lilly pad on some foggy creek. The point that I was making about the necessity for units to match is correct. The equation I presented deserves to receive some attention. I received none.

I know this because anyone checking it out would have found that it does not hold for systems of units in which electric charge is defined using Coulomb's equation. The reason that occurs derserves attention. The answer would make clear why it is inferior practice to set proportionality constants to unity. The same holds true for the speed of light.

I attempted to carry on a discussion about these things with Tom, but it really is not worth the effort. He is not interested. That is all right with me. But, he is the one who began to challenge me again. He challenges, dodges, declares victory, and thinks that he has accomplished something worthwhile. The exchanges with Edwin and Ray are worth the time spent. I don't want to even try to find a finish for that discussion with Tom. I need to finish my essay.

James

Roy,

A remark on the assumptions in Verlinde's theory:

1. introduces an 'effective' force, the entropic force [conservative macroscopically]

2. assume space is...literally just a storage space for information.

3. assume that information is stored on surfaces.

4. imagine that info about particle location is stored in discrete bits on screen.

5. dynamics on each screen given by unknown rules.

6. [info processing] doesn't have to be by local field theory or anything familiar.

7. assume [like AdS/CFT] one special direction for course graining variables.

8. assume well defined notion of time [microscopic].

9. assume Bekenstein's argument [about] Compton wavelength.

10. postulate change of energy associated with info on boundary.

11. assume entropy proportialnal to mass [and additive]

12. use osmosis to analogize an effective force of entropy.

13. assume Unruh's temperature proportional to acceleration.

14. forget Unruh for Newton, don't need.

15 Think of boundary as storage for info, assume holographic principle.

16. assume number of bits proportional to area.

17. introduce new constant, G.

18. assume energy divided evenly over N-bits.

19. assume [invisible] mass is noticed through its energy.

20 Voila -- Newton's law, "practically from first principles".

.

Contrast with my assumptions:

1. Assume only one field, G, that can interact only with itself: del dot G = G dot G.

2. apply Maxwell: E=G^2 & Einstein: E=mc^2 --yielding Newton's law: del dot G = -m.

.

And compare the things that fall out of the Master equation here.

Verlinde of course says that he has just 'reversed' the logic that led from Newton's law to black hole thermodynamics in order to instead go from black hole thermodynamics to Newton's law.

But is this the equivalent of "drawing a map from territory" [Korzybski] and then trying to derive territory from a map? Do all reversals make physical sense?

Finally, I believe that the 'energy/area' relations for the black hole can be derived *exactly* without ever invoking the concept of information. So why, if the relation is simply dependent on energy, would one insist that information be brought into the picture in such an artificial fashion dependent on so many assumptions, some quite questionable?

I don't believe information is a 'thing'. It is 'about' things, and thus dependent on a representation. 'Things' do not depend on representations, they are real.

This is, I believe, related to the excursion of physics from reality that I see in full swing.

Thanks for your consideration,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear James,

I considered pointing out that your equation would appear to be units dependent, but I felt that Tom was giving you a very rough time, and I ended up answering something else instead. In general I agree with you that suppressing units by letting them equal '1' can lead to trouble. It's probably normally done by those working in a specialized field, merely as convenience, but it then makes it that much harder for non-specialists to understand things, because explicit units do actually convey information. I sometimes do it so that the essence of an equation can be understood without distraction over symbols that essentially only scale things in certain dimensions, but I try to point out that that's what I've done.

I also recall that in working problems, particularly electro-magnetics problems, translating between different conventions was often the worst part of the problem. Understanding is one thing, and is somewhat independent of the units, but actually getting the right answer requires getting the units right. It's not even fun.

By the way, for an example of a physics equation that should be independent of the system of units employed, see equation 6 in my essay.

I'm looking forward to your essay. I also notice that it seems people are granting higher scores than in past contests, or else Facebook is showing up at fqxi in the public scoring, big time.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Edwin,

Thank you for your message. You are the only other person that I know of that recognizes one or more of the problems that have been forced upon theoretical physics by theoretical physicists. They have messed things up but good. That is what I think. Since I am not a physicist, my voice is almost muted. I say almost because I have a website that is highly ranked by search engines. Also, fqxi.org has been tolerant toward me. I can't correct it all because I don't know enough. But, I can help to fix the fundamentals.

It is important to science for you to speak out. I don't think others will take your theory seriously on its face. That is because there are practices still going on in theoretical physics that cause it to diverge, for no good reason, into unempirical speculation. It has to be demonstrated that persistent errors have become embedded in theoretical physics. I don't know what comes afterwards. I have high hopes that it is your work. I am limited to exposing bad practices that have been passed along as part of the fundamentals.

James

a little beer from belgium together and hop you are friends....vanity of vanities, all is vanity......

Good luck dear thinkers

Steve spherically yours