Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

sridattadev kancharla: on 2/25/17 at 13:16pm UTC, wrote Dear Avtar Singh, I wish you all the best with your in depth analysis...

Peter Jackson: on 2/21/17 at 16:56pm UTC, wrote Avtar, A very interesting essay and enjoyable read. I also agree, as my...

Avtar Singh: on 2/17/17 at 19:45pm UTC, wrote Jim: Yes. Thanks Avtar

James Hoover: on 2/17/17 at 19:36pm UTC, wrote Avtar, Did you get a chance to rate mine? Jim

Avtar Singh: on 2/17/17 at 18:23pm UTC, wrote Jim: Thank you so much for your kind consideration and valuable feed back...

James Hoover: on 2/17/17 at 18:08pm UTC, wrote Avtar, I checked to make sure that I rated yours. Of those I have read so...

Anonymous: on 2/17/17 at 17:36pm UTC, wrote Hi Jim: Thanks for reading my essay and thoughtful comments.I would...

James Hoover: on 2/17/17 at 1:07am UTC, wrote Avtar, Essay is personal and well thought out. Your URM acts to connect...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jose Koshy: "James Putnam, What do you mean by the acceleration of light? Do you mean..." in Alternative Models of...

Jose Koshy: "Steven, Because we are not sitting face to face, I may not be replying..." in Alternative Models of...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at online resume..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...

Mohan rao: "Voot app free download Flash Recovery" in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Mohan rao: "My partner and I stumbled over here different website and thought I might..." in Time in Physics & Entropy...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, BTW, it is the community vote that matters ... not the public vote...." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Gary Simpson: "Ted, You statement regarding your score does not make any sense. You..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Algernon kk: "Steve Agnew is a legend for doing that. A lot of people at custom..." in Weinberg: Why quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.


FQXi FORUM
February 28, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE by Avtar Singh [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 5.3; Public = 1.0


Author Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 3, 2017 @ 21:12 GMT
Essay Abstract

This paper presents a scientific approach to address the following questions: Are mathematical laws mindless? How do goal-oriented systems arise, and how do they exist and function in a world that we can describe in terms of (apparently) goal-free mathematical evolution? It demonstrates the power of a wholesome consciousness-integrated science to reveal the physical basis for purpose, aims, and intentions in the universe and life in it. The approach of the scientific research is three-fold. First is to complete the picture of reality via integrating consciousness into a physical model and explain the observed universe behavior resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories. Second is to develop a framework for an integrated model of matter, mind, and consciousness founded on the wholesome reality. And lastly, demonstrate how the so-called mindless physical laws lead to the ultimate purpose, aims, and intentions. A successful agreement between the predictions and empirical observations of the universe demonstrates the validity and credibility of the proposed approach. The predictions are further testable and falsifiable via future observations. The goal-oriented behavior is shown to be an orderly physical/cosmic trend governed by the laws and not an accident or an imperative.

Author Bio

Dr. Avtar Singh is the author of the book - “The Hidden Factor: An Approach for Resolving Paradoxes of Science, Cosmology and Universal Reality”. He obtained his Doctor of Science and Master of Science degrees from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He has been involved in cutting edge research and development in science, engineering, and cosmology over the past 30 years. He has published more than fifty technical papers and two monographs. He received the ‘Best Paper Award’ of the American Nuclear Society, MIT research fellowship, and several technical excellence awards in nuclear, defense, and space industries.

Download Essay PDF File




Biswaranjan Dikshit wrote on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 18:09 GMT
You seem to trying to prove the existence of consciousness through your own Universal Relativity Model (URM) as against Einstein's theory of relativity. But, your Universal Relativity Model (URM) is not experimentally established yet. Hence, I think, while attempting to scientifically investigate topics like life, intelligence, growth, goal oriented behavior etc, you should use the already established and experimentally verified physical laws so that world can take your views seriously.

report post as inappropriate

Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 4, 2017 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear Prof. Dixit:

You are correct but I have only used only well-established relativity theory to formulate URE, which is only an application to the spontaneous particle decay. It is not a new theory and as shown in the paper it predicts a variety of the empirical universe observations including future predictions that are falsifiable.

The whole point of the paper is that the well-established theories need to integrate the missing physics of spontaneous decay to eliminate their current deficiencies and inconsistencies missing 96% of the universe including dark energy and dark matter.

I attach herewith a paper that includes a complete derivation of URE based on relativity theory.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

attachments: FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf



Joe Fisher replied on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 16:12 GMT
Dear Dr. Avtar Singh,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible “wholesome consciousness-integrated science to reveal the physical basis for purpose, aims, and intentions in the universe and life in it.”

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear Joe:

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

Agree with your comment -"One real visible Universe must have only one reality. "

However, this ONE reality is seen as many relative realities by less than fully conscious (V




Anonymous wrote on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 01:41 GMT
You gave a very nice approach sir… in your own words…. “integrating consciousness into a physical model..... and ....

You have very nicely pointed out problems of expanding universe models based on GR like … “the observed universe behaviour resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories” in the abstract.

For your information…..

1. Dark matter was not detected experimentally.

2. Regarding Dark energy(You mentioned in Page 2 second paragraph end), if you see the Galaxies in the universe as rotating about Dynamically, then all the Blue shifted, Red shifted, Acceleratingly moving Galaxies both Blue and red side are explained…..

3. You mentioned in Page 5 second paragraph beginning….. about Homogeneity and Isotropy in the universe. That is wrong observationally, Large voids to the tune of 1/3 of observable universe, large scale Galactic structures were observed.

4. You are considering only 40 percent Galaxies (which are red shifted) in the Universe. You should consider the other 60 percent also before finalizing.

And you proposed URM based on General relativity as you mentioned in Prof Dixit’s reply above. Penrose-Hawkins theorem says that there will be a singularity in any expanding universe model based on General Relativity. So your URM is not free of singularities.

Hope you will consider these points and explain

report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 01:45 GMT
You gave a very nice approach sir… in your own words…. “integrating consciousness into a physical model..... and ....

You have very nicely pointed out problems of expanding universe models based on GR like … “the observed universe behaviour resolving the current paradoxes, singularities, and inconsistencies of the mainstream scientific theories” in the abstract.

For your information…..

1. Dark matter was not detected experimentally.

2. Regarding Dark energy(You mentioned in Page 2 second paragraph end), if you see the Galaxies in the universe as rotating about Dynamically, then all the Blue shifted, Red shifted, Acceleratingly moving Galaxies both Blue and red side are explained…..

3. You mentioned in Page 5 second paragraph beginning….. about Homogeneity and Isotropy in the universe. That is wrong observationally, Large voids to the tune of 1/3 of observable universe, large scale Galactic structures were observed.

4. You are considering only 40 percent Galaxies (which are red shifted) in the Universe. You should consider the other 60 percent also before finalizing.

And you proposed URM based on General relativity as you mentioned in Prof Dixit’s reply above. Penrose-Hawkins theorem says that there will be a singularity in any expanding universe model based on General Relativity. So your URM is not free of singularities.

Hope you will consider these points and explain

I am sorry I was logged out in my earlier post, I dont know i was logged out automatically during the middle....

report post as inappropriate

Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Mr. Gupta Ji:

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

Correct - "Dark matter was not detected experimentally.: Dark means unseen and immeasurable.

There is no singularity in the model as I derive a simplified GR model based on spontaneous decay and not use the mainstream GR theory that has singularity.There are no singularities in my model as shown in figure 8 of the attached paper showing details calculations of the model for R ranging from -infinity to +infinity.

Further total mass of the universe in the URM contains all galaxies, no galaxies are neglected.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

attachments: 1_FOP_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Mass-Energy_Equivalence.pdf




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 13:48 GMT
Dear Mr. Avtar Singh

In the spatially finite, but time eternal universe (in past and future) there are Galaxies (10^ Sun masses), 8.745 * 10^12 at each time point. This is based on my Theory. To what extent this result meets your findings? Nature does not care how much we are away from each galaxy and red shift dependent on the distance.

BTW, where are from equations (1), and (2).

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Mr. Branko L. Zivlak:

Thanks for reading my paper and asking great questions.

Please see Figure 5 in my contest paper that gives the number of galaxies vs. redshift Z. The maximum number of galaxies are about 3.5 x 10E12 at lower redshifts and deceasing to about 6 x 10E11 at redshift of 20.

Equations (1) and (2) are derived in the attached paper.

I would appreciate it greatly if you could please rate my paper.

Thanks

Avtar Singh

attachments: OPJ_Manuscript-Universal_Relativity_based_on_Spontaneous_Decay.pdf




Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 07:25 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,

i read your essay and i feel that you thought hardly about the question your son asked you in the first place. I think you derived at the right answer, namely that consciousness should be considered as a fundamental ingredient – one way or the other – in the universe. I especially like your lines of reasoning that self-induced motion (e.g. of photons), birth/decay of...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Avtar Singh wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach

Thank you very much for reading my paper as well as your kind comments.

I would appreciate it very much if you could please rate my paper.

Best Regards

Avtar



Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 15, 2017 @ 05:45 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,

your essay is clearly written, not obfuscating. You lay out properly what you mean. I gave you my rating also for the content of your essay, for you came up with an interesting new approach (ZPF) and cited the relevant reference. Thanks for your participation!

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 05:55 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I have now read your essay and agree that we see consciousness as inherent in the physical universe rather than an artifact, almost an afterthought, that emerged in unplanned fashion. If this were the case, it could just as easily have been that consciousness never arises at all.

I agree with you that "a common set of physical laws govern the functioning and behavior of matter, mind, consciousness, intentions, aims, and purpose at all scales in the universe." and that "laws are not mindless but the very mind of the universe and goal-oriented behavior is not an accident..."

Your focus is heavily on the cosmological problems of dark matter and dark energy. I have not quantitatively pursued my theory in this direction, so I cannot compare our results. My focus has been on the physical interaction of the field with neural networks of the brain, and of the field with itself.

As Harry Ricker points out elsewhere, physics suffers from "underdetermination", in which case two or more theories fully comply with all the verification evidence. This is exacerbated when the theories do not fully overlap in their applications. The significant thing is that we draw the same conclusion that consciousness is inherent in the universe, not an 'after-the-fact' artifact, nor anything that arose from 'mindless math'.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 01:07 GMT
Avtar,

Essay is personal and well thought out. Your URM acts to connect the human / conscious and the inanimate, along with the whole of the universe into a functioning whole with meaning and goals.

I believe I make the same connections but perhaps with less skill as stated by you: "URM demonstrates that a common set of physical laws govern the functioning and behavior of matter, mind, consciousness, intentions, aims, and purpose at all scales in the universe."

Well done, Avtar.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 17:36 GMT
Hi Jim:

Thanks for reading my essay and thoughtful comments.I would greatly appreciate it if you could please provide your valuable rating to my essay.

I very much enjoyed reading your paper as well. Your paper addresses all the key goals, purposes of human life beyond the ere mere survival of species on this planet earth. The mainstream science has to go a long way to see beyond the inanimate matter and biological-only evolution to recognize deeper cosmic and universal realities. I am particularly impressed by your expressed thoughts in your paper -

"So we use these piecemeal guides of mathematical laws, hoping, like a piece of life’s puzzle, we can put them all together into a universal whole. We wonder about ourselves, a living, breathing scalar example of universal things that live and die, achieving this cycle on a much smaller and less cosmic scale than a galaxy, composed of stars, planets, black holes, and gases, or the entire universe."

The key theme of my paper is to provide a quantitative scientific model to address the above with empirical evidence and test-ability in future.

Best Regards

Avtar

report post as inappropriate

James Lee Hoover replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 18:08 GMT
Avtar,

I checked to make sure that I rated yours. Of those I have read so far, I have only rated those I'm sure of the high quality, and yours was one of two. The other was Mr. Klingman.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Avtar Singh replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 18:23 GMT
Jim:

Thank you so much for your kind consideration and valuable feed back on my essay. I appreciate it deeply.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh




Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 21, 2017 @ 16:56 GMT
Avtar,

A very interesting essay and enjoyable read. I also agree, as my essay agrees, with much of the considerable content though not immediately all the new ideas (but that should & will have no effect on scoring).

I di have comments and questions but suspect we may have a far more productive discussion once you've read my essay, which I confess you may find even more packed with important derivations and linked concepts than your own!

Very well done. I normally try to reserve scoring until later but yours deserves a major boost so I'll score it now.

You may also be interested in my published paper on a cyclic sequence for galaxies and the universe which seems in accord with your thoughts - but perhaps to discuss after the contest.

Best regards

Peter

report post as inappropriate


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 13:16 GMT
Dear Avtar Singh,

I wish you all the best with your in depth analysis of how intentions govern reality. I welcome you to read there are no goals as such in which I propose that consciousness is the fundamental basis of existence and that intent is the only true content of reality. Also that we can quantify consciousness using Riemann sphere and achieve artificial consciousness as per the article Representation of qdits on Riemann Sphere. I see that you are also arriving at study of consciousness in physical systems in your essay. Also please see all the diagrams I have attached in my essay.

Love,

I.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'T' and 'V':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.