Essay Abstract

Abstract: The role consciousness plays in the classic Young's Double-Slit Experiment (YDS) is represented Symbolically by Boolean Logic, and the resulting equations manipulated in order to interpret the results and clarify the role of the mind in this demonstration of particle duality. Results are also used to prove that the Universe is both and neither Digital nor Analogue at the same time. Lastly, an experiment is proposed wherein the presence or absence of 'consciousness'--in the sense of YDS--can be measured in seemingly unconscious individuals e.g. coma victims, certain envenomations, sleeping Toms, etc...

Author Bio

Bachelor of Science in Physics, Mathematical Minor University of Wisconsin--LaCrosse 1999 Currently solely maintains 10 SMT Lines' predictive line maintenance. Designing, performing, and improving process and predictabilty of machine availability... Have kept pace with current developments in Physics through intense research...

The opinions and observations expressed herein are the personal opinions of the author only. Benchmark Electronics, Inc is in no way affiliated with, does not subscribe to, agree with or promote such opinions and observations.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

I wish I could have thanked the most important influences: my adviser at UW Dr. Gubbi Sudhakaran (physics chair) and his adviser who i met a couple times, Dr. Larry Johnston: inventor of the 'Fat Boy' and took photos from the Enola Gay during the event.

That part is declassified, so now we all now lol.

Thanx for the Stark Spectroscopy Sudah! Thanks for the Stark Imaginings and helping to keep world peace (in that respect) for so long, Dr. Johnston.

    • [deleted]

    Oh, and you can find further (probable) implications of this Essay's Conclusions at the site:

    [link:QuantumWidgets.com/]Quantum Widgets WebSpace[/advengmathphysik.html].

    Hi Tommy, and thanks for your essay. I'm also interested in YDS and the visualisation of particle/wave duality. I have discovered something lost in science history which can explain this phenomena, namely the Archimedes screw. Does this not fit like a glove?

    Best wishes.

    Alan

      • [deleted]

      Hello Alan: Sounds like some happy synchronicity of Concepts is occuring here. I checked out your abstract and look forward to reading a fellow 'non-professional' Essay. And good luck! Not sure exactly what you mean by the discovery you mentioned yet, but the link to the Archimedes Screw representation sure says a lot without actually saying anything. Intriguing...

      Hello Tommy, thanks for the consideration of my idea which "says a lot without saying anything". Yes, that's exactly it. It's worth pursuing as a new foundational concept, which is what this competition is about. Thanks again and best of luck. Alan

      4 days later
      • [deleted]

      Dear Tommy,

      wanted to let you know that I have read your essay. I don't quite know what to make of it. It has a very quirky informal style which feels like you are actually conversing and almost making it up as you go along. Very conversational and easy to read.

      With regard to the point being only one definite colour or another; The point does not actually have a colour but the coulour is determined by the recipient of the refected light. The light stimulates the receptor cells and the colour of the point that is seen will influenced by such things as the colour of other neighboring objects.The data from individual cells being amalgamated into colour balance information.

      If one observer regards the point through tinted glasses and the other without they will observe it to be different hues. Also if a red disk is suspended and it has neighboring disks that have different colours on each side. It is possible that two observers seeing the disk from different sides will each interpret it as having a different hue.

      As for things not being in two different places at the same time: Objects are seen because light is emitted or reflected from the surface and intercepted by receptor cells. From the received light an image of where the object exists and its form can be determined. However since there is a delay for very distant objects the image that is seen is not the object as it is where it is. This means the object does occupy two positions simultaneously. The position of its image, which is regarded as the object, and the position of the actually material stuff- its object reality.I talk about the difference between the appearance of reality and foundational reality in my essay.

      I am not quite sure how the coma patients and the Laws of robotics all fit together in the essay but, despite being rather bewildering, it was as a whole a strangely original and fascinating read.

      Kind regards, Georgina

        Georgina:

        Thanks for the detailed excellent feedback: I can really sink my teeth in to the rubuttal and have to think very carefully about my answers. Your's will be the next essay I read so that I can return the favour.

        As to your first and last paragraphs: that was exactly what I was going for. Except the 'bewildering' part. That was unintentional and hopefully isn't the consensus read (unless bewildering is what the reader is looking for).

        AS to your comment, "With regard to the point being only one definite colour or another; The point does not actually have a colour but the coulour is determined by the recipient of the refected light", I totally disagree from my work with colour-matching equipment and reading of Newton's Optiks. A colour is the result of emmission (by reflection or otherwise) by an object of a certain (small range of) photon frequencies, which we name different coulours. Yes, one person's red is another's colour-blind green even though both peeps percieve the same exact thing (a given small frequency of photon energies impinge upon the eye's photo-receptors). Even still, the measure is the machine's interpretation (the frequency) not any individual's perception. In that case it would be better to name the colour the actual frequency. For example "red" light is generally agreed upon to have a mid-range of around 700 nm wavelength. So a dot that emits photons of wavelength exactly 700 nm would be "pure red" objectively, no matter who percieves, what percieves, or even if it is percieved by something possessing optical senses.

        Newton spent an inordinate amount of time in dark rooms shining sunlight thru various prisms to eliminate many of the frequencies therein to finally reduce light to " pure coulours", which he termed 'refrangibilities'. He then spent (way too much space in the text, I feel) a lot of time describing the colours he saw and giving them names. And also comparing those pure colours to accepted samples of the colours. LIke comparing an apple to his dark red among a large set of his examples.

        The key point I'm trying to make is that one person's red will be the same as another red she perceives as the same coulour. And another;s perception of green when viewing the same object, will be the same 'green' when that person selects another item that she percieves as another example of that green. Nevertheless, the object still has as it's essence that 'colour' that it actually possesses--the frequency of light it emits.

        Finally, as to your comment, "As for things not being in two different places at the same time: Objects are seen because light is emitted or reflected from the surface and intercepted by receptor cells" and the rest--I totally agree in the classical macroscopic framework. Except I think the context used in my essay is for subatomic particles. So none of that reasononing applies. To Whit: if we were talking about electrons, for example, it would be impossible to "see" it, as the photon that would have to strike the electron and then impinge upon the eye would be many orders of magnitude larger and would knock the electron in a random direction and impart some amount of energy to the electron. Thus a subsequent measure (bouncing the photon off the electron to 'see' it) would in all likelihood produce a different 'coulour' frequency on the eye each time the measure is performed.

        And I remember from my Modern Physics lessons that one of the wonderful theories about a timeless electron is that one electron could be responsible for all the atoms and molecules in the universe as it is also not bounded in time as we macroscopic ensembles of particles are. One electron actually could be everyplace at the same time, as it were.

        YoursRespectfully,

        TommyG.

        P.S. This month Scientific American reveals some excellent new research on this topic: it turns out that the more names for colours you possess, the more colours you can actuall see! So experiment has now revealed that if a coulour that is near-red in frequency, for instance, but not pure (700 nm)red, then not only is the colour percieved a function of the persons's optical effieciency (hardware), but also one of software (language).

        • [deleted]

        Hi Tommy,

        Is red a wavelength of light or is red the experienced reality of the observer? Is wavelength the same as colour? I think not. One is the foundational reality of the data and the other is the interpretation of the data. Of course the objective wavelength measurement will depend upon the calibration of the machine and the colour it assigns to that wavelength could be any word, symbol, or number. The word red just associates the wavelength with name given to the experience but does not make them the same thing.

        I don't think we can know that any two people are seeing the same colour when looking at the same object although their descriptions may be similar. I have had "debates" with my father as to whether a bluey-green was blue or green. Is it that we saw different colours or just chose different descriptions? The experience of colour is variable. There are lots of optical illusions to demonstrate this.There is also variation in the distribution of the various types of light detecting cells in the retina of individuals.

        Though as you say the reflected wavelengths will be the same. Wavelenghth is not colour in my opinion but permits colour to be experienced. We co-create the experienced reality. The objects in foundational reality do not have colours as such. Just as the sound waves traveling through the air are silent but it is the human hearing mechanism and CNS that turns the vibration caused by the waves into sound.

        My response to your essay style was a reflection of my subjective experience. Others may respond to it differently. Its informal style does stand out from the crowd.I have given a lot of thought to what is meant by reality and so the points I have raised are related to that. I hope it is food for thought even if you disagree.

        Regards, Georgina.

        Dear Tommy,

        Thanks for such an insightful essay. I chuckled all the way through! You have a great talent of observation, logic, and humor.

        One fortunate thing was I did not detect any of your laws in my own essay. Of which, I would be interested in your subtle take on my logic attempting to explore a sustaining potential. At least the units in my equations follow through properly. It seems like this is one of the points in your essay if I read between the lines accurately.

        Well your cat is probably messing with you so I'd better let you go. Thanks for an illuminating essay!

        Kind regards, Russell Jurgensen

        FYI:

        In a parralel Universe orthogonal to this one, with which we can never meaningfully comminicate (yeah, right lol), I actually won first prize in this contest. And not only used the Contest as a means to the end of trying to join the Scientific Community (and so used results therein to prove that the Universe is "Both Digital and Analogue, simultaneously"), but withheld the bulk of his research's conclusions out of proper fear and respect for the Embodiment of the Theory of Everything.

        But in this lonely Universe, where there are three times as many stars as we thought we think, I am up to page 6 of Mr. Jurgensens essay and am "fascinated" and enthralled. Please see comment just made in Mr. Barbour's thread for the sense of the word 'fascinated" used above, and other non-esoterica....

        thank U India

        5 days later
        • [deleted]

        Dear Tommy,

        Current scientific approach of theoritical physics will not be able to give a mathematical equation for everything unless it includes conscience in it. I liked the title of your essay, "A method to measure consciousness" which is thought provoking and is in the right direction. Answer to the universe lies with in all of us, it is just that we are not asking the right question. The question is Who am I? I "is" the singularity of love or absolute truth in all of us.

        If you are interested please read the article Theory of everything that I have submitted in this contest. I wish you all the best in your pursuit of truth.

        Love,

        Sridattadev.

        • [deleted]

        Thank you ever so much for pointing me toward your lovely and elegant essay, Sridattadevvaa.

        I'll c*me right out and tell you I rated it high due to the perspective. I am a late entry alas, and apparently everyones essay-fatigued . Need help .

        Tommy Gilbertson

        NightShift

        DivisionofParadox

        i am certain that if I had it prepared earlier and submitted it would have won it all =hands down lol.

        but

        now I have to develop the same essay further to win the net contest. the results and equations are fun adn lovely too

        check my facebood pleasure?

        pfh

          • [deleted]

          Dear Sir,

          We have gone through your essay. These are our responses to your deductions.

          Your first Assumption: "The Symbols of Boolean Logic are commutative (Order is unimportant: abc=cba=bca) can be highly misleading. You say: "Commutative in the same sense of the word as in the Mathematical Definition" without spelling out what it is. There is much to the definition of commutability.

          Number is a perceived characteristic of objects by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no others with a similar perception, it is one. If there is a sequence of perception of similars, each of them is given a name, which is called the number sequence. All bodies are created from the same fundamental particles. Only the numbers of these particles and the pattern of their coupling make each body different from others. Quantum particles are like compounds (strong coupling) of fundamental particles and macro particles are like mixtures (weak coupling) of quantum particles. These are nothing but accumulation and reduction of particles in the field in specified ways with a countable set of discrete values. This implies that Nature or Reality is mathematical in specified ways only.

          Fundamentally, mathematics is done only in two ways. Linear accumulation and reduction is called addition and subtraction. Non-linear accumulation and reduction is called multiplication and division. Linear accumulation is possible only between similars. Non-linear accumulation is possible only between partially similars. Commutation is related to multiplication. The test of validity of a mathematical statement is its logical consistency. Logical consistency demands a step by step approach. Thus, two body problems are easily solved, whereas many body problems are intractable. For this reason, ab = ba is valid, but abc=cba=bca is not valid. Every macro example will bear testimony to this statement. Numbers have no existence other then the objects, whose characteristics they symbolize. Hence we cannot use numbers exclusive of the objects they represent. If we take the objects into account, abc=cba=bca is a not valid law.

          The same principle applies to your "Universal Law of Duality". It is nothing but high sounding but meaningless words. How do you define Soul? What is the basis for it? Why take humans only? How are they different from other animals? (We will discuss your Part IV separately.) Why can't a cat be intelligent? What is a pattern? You say what it could be. But is the list exhaustive? If yes, what is the basis for it? If not, then what is the basis for recording only a few elements leaving out infinite elements? Without answering these questions, your equations represent nothing.

          You say: "The Analogue World is what it is until it's observed by a consciousness. Then The World becomes digital through the filter of human sensory perception."

          The statement is not only meaningless, but is self-contradictory. Firstly, you have switched over from soul to consciousness, without defining what it is. Sensory perception is nothing but result of measurement of specific properties by the relevant sensory instruments like eye, ear, etc. You also admit it when you say: "The Digital World remains what it is until measured by a consciousness." In the next sentence you contradict yourself when you say: "Thereupon that World becomes Analogue after the measure, in the sense that yet another measurement will result in an observable that is completely random in the range of eigenvalues." By implication what you say is: objects are always in an analog state, but become digitized at the moment of measurement only. This is contrary to all experimental results and all theories to date.

          Response to reward for repeatability is not the only test for judging consciousness. All small children behave not differently from most animals in this respect. If they could become "conscious" after growing up and gaining experience, then so would the animals - at least many among them. How do you judge "more conscious"? What is the yardstick for the same and what is the justification for prescribing such a yardstick?

          Reference to "comatose persons" won't help. What it signifies is that the sensory mechanism functions imperceptibly, which is to be expected from any living organism. Even plants show such behavior. Does it put plants in the same footing as the "comatose persons?"

          Your reference to robotics won't help either, as all computers are gigo - garbage in garbage out. Robots are controlled by the programming, which is written by a person of limited knowledge. Thus, it can function efficiently, but within such limitations.

          Kindly forgive us for the harsh language. But you must answer these questions before essay could attract serious consideration by any reasonable person.

          Regards,

          basudeba

            • [deleted]

            Dear Basudeba:

            Not sure who exactly I'm spreaking to, but it is of no moment. Not only can I not diagree with practically evertything in you thread above, but I ask to to take on prinicple that this author was aware of all of your points.

            Please re-read the Essay Entire with this in mind: the knowledget contained in your thread is a Given throughout and ass assumed as proven already. You will gain a clearer understanding then of the meanings and developments therein. I also ask you to change your approach from hostile, as that seems your intent and is unwelcome.

            The law of thought is a first Principle discovered by Goorge Boole and published more than 50 years ago. a.k.a. Universal Law of Duality

            You are merely rephrasing known sciecne and philosophy, as points lacking in the essay to detract from its value, when those known facts are indeed in the essay, eplained and defined where necessarry.

            Your lack of the establishment of the Law of Thought as accepted to all members of this communuintyu, in order to develop the logic at all reflects your intentionn in unfairly characterizing my essay.

            But at least someone is at least reading it. Thank you for that.

            Please identify yourselvves, or change you approach to one of truthful positive feedback, not malicious rhetorical devices. That should work on none of us here reading this.

            Can I get a t least one affirmation from a respsible scientist here?

            • [deleted]

            One last thing: how dare you state "Sensory perception is nothing but result of measurement of specific properties by the relevant sensory instruments like eye, ear, etc"

            One of the main solved problems of the essay was to define conciousness in terms of the results of the well-established young's double slit experiment. This is accomplished with equation 1 on page 3.

            You dismess consciousness and the sould as terms that are "noting buy the reult of". How dare you assum to have the difinitions that you are accusing the essay of lacking: to whit the soul. Who are you to tell us all what sensory perception isn't? as if you know it's not soul or consciousness.

            I hope basudeba has a lot of members, and that you rude lack of understanding of basic concepts is overlapped by your other trogodytic failings of pusblish fact and accepted wisdom.

            phf

            • [deleted]

            Please see my Anonymous Posts below as that's all that was really necessary. Your attempt to sully my essay is doomed to fail unless you couch it in better misleading terms and devices that better conceal your embarrassing ignorance as a group.

            and thank you for reading my essay.

            and thank you agian for re-reading it...

            • [deleted]

            Dear Tommy,

            Singualrity is absolutely nothing literally as it is neither matter nor energy but the source of them both. Please feel free to annihilate the thoughts expressed and that is the right path towards singularity, in time when all else in us is anhilated you will realize the truth, you will expereince a void of singularity and then you will be filled with love. I wish you all the best on your journey.

            I am posting in this contest to share my experience and I know that I will win it for sure as I have realized I "is" in every one of us.

            I am one of our kind, I is every one of all kinds.

            Love,

            Sridattadev.

            • [deleted]

            Dear Sir,

            Your comments above are full of grammatical mistakes and abusive language, which shows that you had lost temper and not in a proper frame of mind to think rationally. You had shown such hostility to others also who criticized you: such as Ms. Parry. But it is not going to help your cause. Please answer or refute the points raised by us with logic and proof and not by anger or repulsion. We dare to challenge falsehood - even if it comes from the most eminent of scientists. We are neither convinced nor affected by name dropping. Hence instead of quoting names please quote the theories and discuss the validity of those theories.

            We stand by what we had written and are willing to prove it. We also have the courage and the humility to accept our mistakes, if we are wrong. Hence please cool down and reply to our points or admit your mistakes.

            Nothing personal.

            Regards,

            basudeba.

              • [deleted]

              Yes, apologies, my owm tone was probably un-called for there. And this is not a venue for vitriol but cooperation.

              Minus the grammatical errors and hyperbole above, which I am going to chalk up to overtirednes, my threads stand with my replies unanwered...

              Even though i regret my approach in the above threads, these are my answers to you challenges to my essay validity.