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
