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 Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

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

Author Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 12/26/09 at 20:08pm UTC, wrote Hi Stefan. The following cuts to the core of reality, thought, and physics....

Stefan Weckbach: on 11/5/09 at 12:29pm UTC, wrote Dear Edwin Eugene, thank you for your notice about your comment - i will...

Edwin Klingman: on 11/4/09 at 23:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan Weckbach, I have responded on my page to a comment from...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 10/31/09 at 23:31pm UTC, wrote Hi Stefan: You said: "P.S. The "general law" of Darwin, i think,...

Narendra: on 10/31/09 at 12:39pm UTC, wrote Sometimes i feel overwhelmed with language and words. These burden my mind...

Frank DiMeglio: on 10/29/09 at 1:43am UTC, wrote Hi Stefan: Thank you for your reply. You are correct that: "...there could...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/28/09 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote Dear Stefan , Thank to you for these words .I am touched too.You know ,I...

Stefan Weckbach: on 10/28/09 at 9:26am UTC, wrote Dear Steve, thank you very much for your very emotional words that touched...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

John Cox: "Thanks Jonathan, and Georgi, Gary and Steve, good discussion going (pardon..." in What Is...

Gary Simpson: "All, I think I'm with Georgina on this one. Sharing ideas and having one..." in What Is...

Nishant Gaurav: "Want to get free playstation plus codes, Yes now these psn plus codes are..." in Jacob Bekenstein...

Nishant Gaurav: "The best to win among hustle for online live gaming platform, is online..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Nishant Gaurav: "When it come to paypal user look for various information and also look for..." in Retrocausality,...

Nishant Gaurav: "yes this is an appropriate blog. bingo bash nice information thanks for..." in Our Place in the...

Nishant Gaurav: "This is what I was looking for http://bingobashchips.online thanks a lot..." in Our Place in the...

thuy lien: "Good article, thanks for sharing. ..." in The Complexity Conundrum


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 13, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: To be or not to be strictly deterministic? by Stefan Weckbach [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 17, 2009 @ 08:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

The task of this essay is to examine the possible discrepancies between a strictly deterministic description of reality and quantum mechanics with no hidden variables in its interpretational framework. We start this paper by considering some general lines of reasoning about what can be known or not known in principle. Thereafter we analyze certain contradictions which we have obtained from our considerations about what can be known or not known in principle and examine their possible consequences for the framework of a strict determinism as well as for a framework with random events incorporated. We compare these findings with human experience as well as with the limits of logical consistent inferencing. Furthermore some consequences of multiple coexistent finite or even infinite universes are examined. Finally we arrive at the conclusion that for our hitherto most successful scientific theories to be true and consistent, it is necessary to assume the existence of consciousness to be at least as fundamentally necessary as these theories seem to be.

Author Bio

Stefan Weckbach works as a media engineer and administrator at Gustav-von-Schmoller College in Heilbronn, Germany. His main scientific interests are mathematical undecidability, algorithmic information theory, questions concerning consciousness, human free will and logics. Additionally he is interested in various interpretational questions of quantum mechanics.

Download Essay PDF File




Doug Huffman wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 11:42 GMT
Eng. Weckbach, How can your assertion be falsified? If it cannot be falsified then can it be 'scientific' (after Sir Karl Popper) and, if not, physics? Thank you.

report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 24, 2009 @ 17:09 GMT
Dear Dough Huffman,

thanks for your comment on my essay and your emphatic and necessary question about it. No question is senseless, but leads in most cases to a better understanding, not only of the questionable issue but also of the issue of the question itself. So i will communicate you my point of view on that.

You find the answer to your question at page 8 f. of my essay under my *summary*.

Clearly according to Popper theories have to be falsifiable. This follows directly from the obvious asymmetry between the knowable and the unknowable (see therefore page 2 of my essay). Whoever claims to have found a TOE - THE TOE - has - according to the previous lines above - to deliver the possibility for his/her theory to be falsifiable.

But in the lines of reasoning in the last break of this comment lies a subtle difficulty. A TOE - THE TOE (or whatever you will name it) cannot be falsified anymore (if it is indeed THE TOE). It can only be verified in an endless chain of experiments. So you will never know if the TOE you are examining is THE TOE, because you can't exclude a priori the possibility of an existing case in which your theory could be indeed - some day far away - be falsified, but you also cannot exclude the possibility that you have indeed found THE TOE and therefore the chain of the verifying results of your experiments will never end. That's a variation of Alan Turing's famous "halting problem" (as you surely heard of).

So you have asked not for the fasifiability of a TOE, but in general of a theory, you are absolutely right insofar as you are refering to human experience and not to a theory of falsifiability.

But: As far as i know, Popper never understood his demand for falsifiability as a theory out of itself but more as a logical inducing-sheme. Besides that, our human experience tells us that Popper must have been absolutely right. But the latter *induction* is only once more grounded on our human experience, especially our experience of the main issue of all science: reapeatability and the underlying rules of it. But as far as i know, nobody until now can expose in wich relationship all the possible rules and exceptions are and if every rule that exists can have and has an exception (and especially: If the latter would be the case, if this meta-rule itself could have an exception [maybe in form of THE TOE?]).

So, to make a short story out of it all, in my essay i tried to expose the limits of what can/cannot be known in principle. My personal conviction is, that the question for a detectable valid TOE belongs to the things that can't be answered finally by human beings as far as this TOE only refers to the physical realms of reality with its limited amount of accessible information. And it is exactly this reality which has something like *time* in its framework and therefore you'll never know - the future of it all and all its - possible - exceptions. Tbanks for your interest in my essay.

Sincerely

Stefan Weckbach




Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jul. 26, 2009 @ 16:54 GMT
Hi Stefan. I am glad that you seek to truly open your mind, as this is expressed by the bold scope of your essay. Too many physicists and mathematicians tend to approach things too narrowly (and inconsistently).

I will offer some helpful, basic, and accurate suggestions/ideas for your kind consideration.

1) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 27, 2009 @ 20:35 GMT
Hi Frank, thank you very much for your encouraging words.

I think the narrowly and sometimes inconsistently approaching of things which we yet don't know for sure is a natural feature of what you called the "integrated extensiveness" of human thought.

Only by grasping some borders we are able to differenciate. The problem is, to come as a start to the point where borders can be recognized clearly. Logical thought is grounded at opposites, as you correctly mentioned in your comment and can be tackled by creativity. Creativity in my opinion is in turn characterized by temporarily relinquished borders - for whatever reasons.

As for the problem of randomness/determinism in quantum mechanics, it seems at first glance that these two opposites are mutually exclusive alternatives. In my paper i tried to expose that this mustn't be the case. In the thread "Is the world made of wave-vectors?" someone has mentioned that the question of this thread is indeed wether possibilities are ontological or epistemic. My answer to that is that the question could be wrong, because neither randomness nor determinism can explain sufficiently our human experience of making decisions and therefore guide our scientific understanding of the world by that in an asthonishing and verifiable way. So for me, there must be an exception of the tertium non datur in the whole question and i guess, for human beings and for the whole animated nature in the sense of animals etc., there could be a continuum from determinism to more and more freedom of individual decisions.

I have some questions about yours statements made above, but i will therefore firstly read your suggested articles, which i can't do the next days because i am in a time-intensive working-phase.

"What we are concerned with here could not be more important, especially in this day and age"

Be asure of the enormous importance of the issues you are concerned with, cause we are at a critical point of our whole evolution (as far as i can evaluate this objectively).

Thanks again for your helpfull comments and suggestions which i will check out next days.




Dr. E (The Real McCoy) wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 19:07 GMT
Hello! Your title brings to mind some sonnets I penned for the late John A. Wheeler.

For some reasons I wrote a lot of sonnets that first year in grad school--often during quantum mechanics. At the end of the semester, when the professor was passing out the exams, he looked at me and said, "You will do very well on this! You took many notes!" I guess he thought I was taking notes the whole...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jul. 28, 2009 @ 20:48 GMT
Dear Dr. E (The Real McCoy),

thanks for your pretty good, refreshing and humorous sonnets about the big question (to be or not to be... :-) I like it cause it reflects my own surprise about QM, its efficiency and its mystery.

I think i took the title for my essay out of my unconsciousness from some variation of another title about a puzzle with the three doors for which two of them have behind them each a goat but only one door has behind it the first price - a car. It was a puzzle that was presented by Marilyn vos Savant in a magazine called "Parade Magazine". That title was something like "to switch or not to switch" and surely can be still be googled.

In conjunction with my essay (or just only in conjunction with the title of my essay) it is a great honor for me to have someone here who worked with John Wheeler. I know not much about him historically, but only that he was an ingenious thinker who liked to take "Gedankenexperimente" to the extreme to see where they can lead.

His "idea of an idea"-Idea i noticed as well as some other aphorisms of him to think about.

In my essay i tried to come up with another idea to take to the extreme, my "consciousness"-approach. Like Steven Weinberg once wrote (i think it was in the american scientific magazine at the end of 2002 or at the beginning of 2003) "...to construct a unified theory of all fundamental forces, physicists need radical new ideas".

Well, i didn't tried exactly this cause i haven't developed a new deterministic theory of all forces, but only took his statement about a radical new idea seriously. I really don't think that he could be very much thrilled about what i wrote if he would take a look, but that's my contribution to the contest and the very pulsating subject of it.

I am not sure by reading your comment if John Wheeler liked your sonnets at the end of your grad school, but i assume he could very much.

Best,

Stefan Weckbach




Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 1, 2009 @ 20:20 GMT
Hi Stefan.

1) You said:

I think the narrowly and sometimes inconsistently approaching of things which we yet don't know for sure is a natural feature of what you called the "integrated extensiveness" of human thought.

Nice job. You clearly see how "narrow and inconsistent" go against "integrated and extensive". There is no better way to understand or phrase it when it is said...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Aug. 2, 2009 @ 06:49 GMT
Dear Frank,

for your assumptions there maybe would hold the same critics as for my own "consciousness"-approach. The main problem i see within our considerations is that they are - at least at first sight - obviously "anthropic" (in the meaning of self-referential conclusions based only on our limited and tiny human experience). But we surely bear in mind that the appearance of...

view entire post





Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 4, 2009 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Stefan,

I have a question: so do you ultimately think we should have hidden variables or not? Is Gerald 't Hooft's approach of recovering quantum mechanics as an emergent theory from determinism a valid program, or is decoherence the correct approach? In other words, should we obtain quant mechanics from classical mechanics or the other way around?

report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Aug. 4, 2009 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Florin,

thanks for your questions.

I am not versant with 't Hooft's theory, so i can give no comment on that.

Your last question is mind-boggling and i have no definite answer to it in terms of already established theories. Maybe QM can finally be obtained through both directions in a way that is yet hard to imagine for us (me). But anyway, i think both or one of the two approaches need - to be successfull in a strictly mathematical sense - to be deterministic in the old classical meaning of a "clockwork-universe". My conviction is that the Newtonian paradigm of this Clockwork-universe is a relict of the beginnings of systematic science and that there exists something that is in conflict with this framework, namely QM.

But this must not be the last word in searching for a derivation of QM from other strictly mechanistic systems. Maybe one of the approaches you mentioned will be successfull. But i am not sure if in that case they also could explain the questions of free will too (and its related problems).

The question for me is, exists there a set in ultimate reality (ultimate reality itself) wherein all possible distinctions (be them mathematical or physical) are already drawn. I don't belive in such a scenario but on the other hand i cannot exclude it by exposing a rigorous deterministic and hence mathematical disproof of determinism other than i did with logics in my essay. I think we have to wait until all deterministic theories that want to explain Bell's results in a local and realistic way are found to be invalid by experiment. Until that happens, i never would say that for example 't Hooft's or yours approach isn't a valid program.

I think we need a deeper explanation of QM, be it with hidden variables (in the sense of hidden deterministic, hence fixed properties of mere physical entities) or without them.

Thanks for your questions and your comment.

Stefan Weckbach




Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 04:44 GMT
Dear Stefan,

I have another question for your essay. You talk about consciousness and you also cite Chaitin’s algorithmic information theory. There is some tension about the two when you consider the problem of creativity. How is creativity possible for people and not for computers? (we know that computers are not creative precisely because of the algorithmic information theory). Is this related to QM in any way for example? I am very interested to find out what are your thoughts in this area.

report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Aug. 6, 2009 @ 06:52 GMT
Dear Florin,

Thanks for your questions. I will try to answer them as good as i can.

creativity for me is possible due to an in-built ability of conscious observers to choose between some alternatives. That's a way to define the somewhat misleading term of "free will". The more alternatives a conscious observer has in its internal rooms, the more freedom he has.

Additionally,...

view entire post





Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Aug. 9, 2009 @ 22:49 GMT
Hi Stefan and Florin. IN GENERAL, the greater the integrated extensiveness of being and experience (including thought), then the greater is one's autonomy. Now also consider: The dream and genius demonstrate that more must be forgotten in order for new experiences to obtain; but a superior integration and familiarity of experience serves as the basis (or substituted requirement) for this...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 06:45 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach

I think the theory of evolution describes evolution more in locality rather than in universality on considering the coherency of events of an object with the events of Universe. In this perspective I have great appreciation on this article that describes the probability of ‘integrated extensiveness’ of borders of all theories that explains the phenomenology of nature for proceeding towards TOE in neutrality along with quantum mechanics.



With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 6, 2009 @ 11:46 GMT
Dear Jayakar Johnson Joseph,

thank you for your encouraging words which pleased me very much!

As i tried to express in my essay, i think that we arrived at the utmost limit of the applicability of the old paradigm of exclusive determinism in nature.

If one presupposes such a strict determinism of nature and at the same time believes in the ability of mankind to discover the...

view entire post





Casey Blood wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 16:53 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thanks for your note on my essay.

I'm afraid I don't understand your main point.

Are you saying it is not possible to prove there are no hidden variables?

IF so, I don't agree.

I agree that consciousness is as basic as "matter." But the trick is to prove it from the mathematics of quantum mechanics plus observations.

Casey Blood

report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Sep. 17, 2009 @ 19:11 GMT
Dear Casey,

thanks for evaluating my essay.

The main point of my essay is that an exclusively deterministic-based proof (like a mathematical proof) cannot prove the exclusiveness of determinism nor can it prove the exclusiveness of non-determinism (or at least the existence of a partially non-determinism).

One cannot conclude out of this that therefore the world is necessarily *not* strictly deterministic. But when looking at multiverse-theories with their somewhat absurd consequences for human reasoning (coming to the "real" description of the world as a multiverse via the lack of free will? - in this case the initial conditions of our universe had to be very very special i guess and the whole quantum mechanical probability-concept would be absurd, because we cannot conclude out of the mere consistence of the multiverse-approach that a multiverse is necessary or even "true"), i came to the conclusion that thinking of a strictly deterministic system reflects rather the one-dimensional idea of the determinism-program of the thinker's mind than it does reflect the structural conditions of reality.

One structural condition of reality is surely that it can comprehend itself - at least to a certain level - via observer-like properties. Otherwise we wouldn't and couldn't speak of structural conditions of reality at all and couldn't predict physical events by mere deductions (for example via Einsteins equivalence principle). I guess that every substructure of reality can also at least perceive to a certain level its structural environment from what it emerges.

One can comprehend emergence in such a way that it not only generates observers which are the more conscious the more complex their "environments" ("brains") are (that is the usual scientific explanation for consciousness), - but also the other way round:

Out of the basic level of reality (transcendend consciousness) there can emerge logical dependencies, physical laws, matter, energy and more and more complex "material" interactions that lead to complex physical behaviour that seems to be in contrast with consicousness.

"I agree that consciousness is as basic as "matter." But the trick is to prove it from the mathematics of quantum mechanics plus observations."

I am not firm enough with physics and especially quantum physically behaviour in all its details to go this way, but i think i understood where you want to go. There aren't much alternatives left to consider to be "rational" and in accordance with human experience as well as with experimental results. My main point was to abandon the claim that we live in a world that is strictly deterministic right from the very start of all and to examinate an alternative that could preserve free will (to a certain degree).




Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

I've read your essay. The subject of consciousness and its contradiction with mathematically formulated physical laws is a difficult one. Si I admire those who try to tackle it. I've never tried for myself because I couldn't relate it to the "hard experimental facts". So I was very curious at page 6 when you write: "So at that point of this paper it is inevitably necessary to link our coarse-grained results to the subtle hard facts of quantum mechanics". I must admit that I was a bit left on my hunger, because I couldn't see which experimental facts you invoked in the last pages. Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend aren't exactly what I call experimental facts, but illustrations for interpretations. Could you be more precise?

By the way, I gather FQXi essay quotes and publish them on my blog and twitter profile in order to promote the contest. Do you mind if I publish some of yours, linking of course to your essay? For example: "there is no direct path from our abstract knowledge to ultimate reality".

Best regards,

Arjen Dijksman

report post as inappropriate


Author Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 10:11 GMT
Dear Arjen Dijksman,

thanks for checking out my essay.

Yes, you can set quotes from my essay on your blog and twitter profile and link them to my essay here.

"I must admit that I was a bit left on my hunger, because I couldn't see which experimental facts you invoked in the last pages. Schrödinger's cat and Wigner's friend aren't exactly what I call experimental facts, but illustrations for interpretations. Could you be more precise?"

First, if one takes for granted that decoherence and non-local entanglement are facts, then at least Schrödinger's cat can be explained via decoherence. The cat's state is always measured automatically via it's environment, there is no conscious *human* observer necessary to decide between the two possible mutually exclusive states of the cat. There may be exceptions from the decoherence-mechanisms and the discovery of such exceptions may be a question of time. Maybe.

The problem that is left is, what causes a single quantum outcome to take exactly the observed value and no other value? There are two possibilities. Firstly, one can assume that there are hidden variables that govern the quantum behaviour in detail and therefore the quantum mechanical, probabilistic description is incomplete and has to be altered to a strictly deterministic mathematical formulation (if possible). Secondly, one can assume that the single quantum mechanical events are in most cases without any cause, means *irreducibly random*. Both alternatives have serious problems. The first case does conflict with human self-impression of free will and nonetheless has to be figured out yet, because such a strictly deterministic formulation that is consistent with locality and reality doesn't exist yet. The second case leaves us with a fundamental lack of reason in physics/reality (the first case does so too, because though a strictly deteministic description could be possible, it doesn't explain why it's possible and why a strict determinism leads to the right human conclusions about it).

My approach was to find another explanation that does not contradict the hitherto most improved scientific theories, namely quantum mechanics and evolutionary theory - without giving up the free-will postulate made by everyone of us via our daily experiences.

Alan Aspects experiments with bi-particles has shown, that bell's inequalities are violated up to an amount of about 33%. I tried to deduce in my essay at page 8 that this amount coincidences with every bi-structured conditional statement and it's *possible* exceptions. Unfortunately i am also left on my hunger by trying to elaborate my approach and generalize it to three-particle cases or higher cases, because i am not firm enough with the mathematics needed and also not with the experimental results and their logical conclusions. Analyzing a more-particle system is a very difficult task, but there is some success by Zeilinger and others to do it. I hope and surely wish, that those expertes could prove my surely vague intuitions by examining the logical relations of such experimental setups.

My approach is to assume that every elementary particle has a certain "awareness" - surely totally different from ours, but a vital impuls in itself to decide in *some* situations how to behave. This is a somewhat panpsychism approach and i do not claim that it turns out to be the ultimate reality. But i strongly believe that we have to consider all *possible* cases to come closer to our question from what stuff ultimate reality is really made of - for the case that ultimate reality is really a unity and not only a random aggreation of mutually exclusive rules that emerged out of nothing and randomly fit in our universe in a way that camouflages consistency.

Thank you again very much for your interest in my essay.

Best,

Stefan Weckbach




Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 20:33 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thank you for your precision. At first reading, I missed that connection between your 1/3 and the ratio of violation of Bell's inequality in Alain Aspect's experiment. Do you have a reference for that amount? I thought it was square root of two. But I could look up in Aspect's thesis.

I published one of your quotes on my twitter profile, which you may find by googling my name. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 16:21 GMT
Dear Stefan

I read your essay. I see that our theories are very compatibile. So it is easier to search differences.

1. One difference is that at you common QM gives consciousness by iteration. I give that every collapse of wave function is decision. In independent micro-world this gives the same mathematical formalism that is known. In macro world there are some correlations between these decisions, so QM need correction. (I have also one article, which is in references)

2. I also give, that, probably, very light particles are a necessary cause for biological world.

3. About Gödel it seems to me, that it is not necessary. But I am not sure. I read about Gödel in Penrose's book.

4. About TOE: I think that QG theory and consciousness theory are very close to us. Those two theories are almost TOE, with some unimportant corrections.

Regards Janko

About Tegmark's articles: He shows how absurd conclusions are given by the mainstream thinking of physicsts: "Mathematics is everything".

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 16:32 GMT
Greetings Stefan,

I just read and then expanded on some of the comments you just left on Stephen Wolfram's essay forum. I like what you said there a lot, and your abstract sounds interesting, so I guess your essay is one I'll need to read today. I'll report back with questions or comments, once that's accomplished.

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 06:52 GMT
Hi Jonathan,

thanks for your interest in my essay and my lines of reasoning!

I am looking forward to your questions and comments!

Best,

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate


Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 01:37 GMT
Dear Stephan, Georgina, Tejinder, Cristi, and Amrit,

I would like to draw your attention to the summary of comments between myself and Jonathan in regard to the observer-participant MC-QED formalism", which are presented below. Since many of you have been skeptical about the ideas

present in my essay it would be helpful to me if we could we have critical group discussion on these...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 15:40 GMT
Greetings Stefan,

Thanks for a thoughtful and intriguing essay. I think perhaps your writing style could use some work, but the ideas you explore are well thought out and clearly explained. There were several good points which, for me, are especially relevant. I like your statement that our ability to discover a TOE hinges both on such a theory being possible to reasonably encode and for our brains to offer enough computational space to encompass that coding. My own contest essay also takes up the question of what is knowable, but I speak of the generalities where you spell out specific limits.

I had heard the one oft-quoted phrase stated as "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" which seems more precise. But it's certainly appropriate to point out given that you are connecting what is un-knowable with what is mathematically or logically undecidable. You seem to be hinting at mathematical constructivism, in a few places, so I was wondering if you are aware of the connection. You might like these lecture notes from Jeremy Avigad, contrasting classical and constructive logic.

I think you may be on to something, in suggesting that Math can arise from the arena of conscious observation and participation in a creative process. I see that there is an observer effect even in pure Mathematics, as powerful as that in Physics, because the elaboration of any mathematical field or system is necessarily dependent on the evolution of levels of abstraction sufficient to contain the concepts generated thereby. To elaborate this; I see the rudiments of geometry to be a necessary step in evolving topology, from which we get distinctions. Combining this lets us develop set theory, and from the basis of these three number theory emerges. I am only trying to point out here that the hierarchy of dependencies and pre-requisites defines some aspects of the structure that emerges.

On the other hand; I feel strongly that mathematical objects like the Mandelbrot Set or the Monster Group have an existence independent of our discovering or elucidating them. The fact that we can plumb their depths arises from the fact that they exist, not the other way around. I deal with some of this in a paper in Quantum Biosystems Journal.

I have more to say, but must get back to other work.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 07:31 GMT
Greetings Jonathan,

thank you very much for studying my essay and for your encouragement.

I will read yours and Jeremy Avigad's work as soon as i have the time and will give you my feedback on your essay on yours page here.

In my essay, i tried to grasp some fundamentals of existence/ultimate reality. My assumption was (and is), that firstly, every creature or entity, be it a flower, an animal, a human being or a subatomic particle, can only arise/exist with the help of the essential process of distinction. For us humans, it isn't imaginable that there could exist a realm - maybe more "real" as our realm here in the physical universe - where there aren't distinctions but nonetheless there is perception and creativity. The first step of this creative "entity" to step out of its very own essence - namely the "void", the "nothing", the "undistinguishable" - is, to make a distinction. This "initial" step of creation is an *unconditional* act of creation. "After" this initial step, every distinction is contextual, creating its own context and therefore creating a part of reality. One could replace the term "contextuality" by the well-known term "polarity". Polarity in my opinion flows out of the ability of *infinity* (or *eternity*) to make a distinction. So the very fact that every act of knowledge, every act of the (human) mind, every act of physical action and higher creativity needs distinctions, reveals that there has to be another side of the polarity, the undistinguishable, the "oneness".

Mathematics only works, if there are distinctions; that's the ground for every countable operation in maths. Maths deals with counting, so maths emerged out of the process of the initital distinction. BUT: We should not try to imagine this initial distinction as a mere quantitative operation. In my opinion it must be more an act of a qualitative meaning, qualitative in the sense of meaning and - deeper sense of gratification of values. In the latter sense, such things like the mandelbrot set or the monster group are not constructed by a single mathematician nor by 1000 mathematicians, but these phenomenons are expressions of a deeper reality, are symbols of a deeper meaning. In my opinion they aren't just quantitative phenomenons, evaluated by the number of their iterations or the number of their dimensions. They are facets of the potential/actual properties of the "oneness" from wich all reality flows.

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 07:52 GMT
additional thoughts on my previous post:

The fact of distinctions is only a fact in our contextual world.

The (initial) idea of actual distinctions, in my opinion isn't a fixed property of the oneness from wich all reality flows. It is more a *concept*, figured out by the oneness to bring its (infinitely?) many ideas into *actual* reality by quasi-dividing itself into a part that seems to be external (actual) and a part that remains internal (potential).

Nonetheless this oneness can't really divide itself in the sense that after this there are two absolutely disconnected entities. At the deepest level this oneness stays always the same, - namely oneness.

All the Best,

Stefan

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 07:59 GMT
Another remark on my previous post (i should not send my posts so fast...):

If it is true that there's a oneness and that oneness can camouflage itself by making a quasi-distinction between itself and *not-itself*, without loosing the interconnectness of these both parts, because the "void" is always and forever all there is and can be - then we have found an ultimate impossibility in ultimate reality and at the same time we have found the reason why we can conclude out of one thing to the properties of a seemingly disconnected other thing. Say, we have found the possibility to discover the main structures of ultimate reality, because ultimate reality exists in every part of its components.

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 16:17 GMT
Greetings,

As per your request, I am attaching my paper from the journal Quantum Biosystems to this post. I hope you find "How Can Complexity Arise from Minimal Spaces and Systems?" interesting and helpful.

I must find a few minutes to comment about your lucid account of decoherence. But I need to elaborate somewhat, to say what I want, and I'll probably have to re-read portions of your essay to convey my meaning effectively.

More later,

Jonathan

attachments: 1_QBS11pg3143.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 16:39 GMT
Wow!

I just saw your answer to my earlier e-mail, and I have to agree whole-heartedly right away. Taoist scholars called the unformed essence Wu-Ji - neither light nor dark, not hot nor cold, and neither large nor small. It is regarded as pure process without form, or as the forming essence which remains itself formless. It is sometimes identified with the ineffable nature of the Tao. In some respects; this has an analog in Noncommutative geometry.

I view distinction-making as the Observer effect of the process of abstraction itself, but it's obvious that it has a connection with how the universe arises, as well. Making distinctions in the indistinguishable creates levels of abstraction, and before long a hierarchy emerges - all from the process of observation/measurement, which is also a creative process. We can't be an observer without being a participant.

Too much to say for now, but I will re-visit this thread.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 18:43 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

thanks for your remarks to my considerations.

I would like to make some additional remarks to the Tao.

The Tao is always a oneness, interconnected. There are some (interconnected) impossibilities within the Tao. Firstly, it cannot destroy itself. Secondly it cannot diminish itself. Thirdly, it indeed can heighten itself. Means, it can manage to transform itself to be more than it was before - in a qualitative and hierarchical way, not in a quantitative way. The "quantitative" is one side of a polarity and within the Tao, there are no such distinctions. But there's quality within it, because the Tao managed to heighten itself from a non-dualism, from the formless, via dualism back to non-dualism. What was gained is the very one side of the polarities that is considered by human beings as the "bright side" of the polarities. Namely light, love, the good, leight etc. These aspect of the Tao are heighten by its operations of making a distinction and returning back to the oneness, the non-dualism.

Time is a consequence of the Tao to not being able to diminish itself or even destroy itself but able to heighten itself. That's a one-way-process.

I my discussions with Florin Moldoveanu i declared that i think the very concept of infinity could be more a qualitative property of the Tao instead of a mere quantitative concept. The concept of infinity is for me the same as the concept of non-definiteness, means infinity = undefined. In this sense even Bertrand Russells famous antinomy can be understood and resolved. Because the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as elements must have the same *qualitative* properties of all the other sets. This property is for me, that all these sets don't contain themselves infinitely many times. That's the *qualitative* distinction that gives new meaning and achives a new level of structure and oneness at the same time.

I now read your paper attached above.

"So; more is not necessarily better, for adding content, or building complexity". Yes! It is all a question of quality. In this sense, fractal structures have an additional quality beyond their scale-invariance, beyond their infiniteness. This additional quality is in my opinion intimately linked with meaning, perception and the ecoding of deep emotional ideas into a symbol like fractals or monster groups. The paper from yours from which i cited from is very well written, contains good and well examined ideas and is elegant because it tries to look at old things from a new perspective. That's similar to the process of heightening the Tao, in the sense that the Tao does the same to heighten its perspectives and to gain a sharper and sharper picture of the whole potentiality of itself.

Very good work of yours!

All the best,

Stefan

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 00:36 GMT
Hello,

Thank you, Stefan, for your thoughtful comments. I still lack sufficient time to offer remarks on decoherence, right now, but I see you've left a bunch of thoughts on the earlier commentary worthy of note. They are noted, and will be reviewed in more detail later. You raise some really interesting points, and I will enjoy expounding - asking questions - and comparing notes further.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 01:07 GMT
Hi Stefan:

Your essay is very good. I have read some very fine posts from you as well.

You said:

"Finally we arrive at the conclusion that for our hitherto most successful scientific theories to be true and consistent, it is necessary to assume the existence of consciousness to be at least as fundamentally necessary as these theories seem to be."

Consider that in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 22:51 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

I was drawn by your comments on the Platonic world of math (on another essay). I have now read your essay several times, and would like to offer the following.

But first I would like to "assume" that my theory is correct. so I can address the consequences without being distracted by having to justify each point.

Your insightful and well organized...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 22:53 GMT
Stefan,

continued from prior comment:

This brings us to your question 5:

"Linking quantum mechanics with consciousness."

Let's reverse the order and try to link consciousness with quantum mechanics. The consciousness field exerts a Lorentz-like force on moving mass (see essay) and this force implicitly includes the "awareness" of the moving particle and the "free will" of the consciousness field. This free will, however weak at the local level, *must* exhibit an unpredictability, which is almost indistinguishable from randomness. But random means "for no reason at all" (if there is a reason, it's not random.)

You see that I am proposing a "generalized" hidden variable interpretation of quantum mechanics wit the distinction that Bohm's hidden variable was assumed to be deterministic, whereas the free will aspect of the consciousness field is indeterminate, but *not* random. Hence quantum mechanics is probabilistic at root, due to the inherent unpredictability of free will. That, I believe, is compatible with your summary statement that "we assume that microcosmic entities can exhibit a tiny bit of self-government."

You further "contemplate the explanation of consciousness by evolutionary theory." If we distinguish between consciousness and intelligence, we see instead that intelligence is driven by evolution; it is the consciousness field that is the driving force. This scheme agrees with you that "there is no path from abstraction to ultimate reality". I've tried to show a path from reality to abstraction.

The above outline is highly compressed; my essay and scattered comments will fill in some of the blanks. I hope you read my essay and welcome any response.

I believe that you will find your final conclusion and mine to be identical.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 08:12 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

thank you very much for your very detailed and interesting comments.

I am happy to see that there are several authors here who consider consciousness not as an epiphenomenon, but as a key feature of ultimate reality.

I will read your essay carefully at the beginning of next week and will give you my feedback on it, though i am not a trained physicist and...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 08:34 GMT
Just an additional thought to clarify my above lines of reasonings...

Imagine a physicist who himself develops deep thoughts about the nature of ultimate reality. He has a mathematical or another systematized tool to come to a somewhat deep conclusion. There are two cases, in which ultimate reality could reflect his findings.

The first case is, his findings are truths about ultimate reality.

But the second case is, his findings are false but only seem to be true. How can he decide between these two possibilities? Indeed, he can make an experiment to confirm his assumptions. But that wouldn't mean that his conclusions about ultimate reality are true. Because ultimate reality could be of such a kind that it camouflages true insights via - unbeknown and *truly random* - events in the physicists brain. It could even be possible that an accident, a random coincidence lead to the verification of his experiment. All this would be surely possible in an arena which is only driven by randomness without causes. The main point here is, that in such an arena we aren't able to estimate the possibility of such coincidental events, because this arena hasn't a probability-weight at all. So all conclusions about TOE's could indeed be senseless. It also could be the case, that we are in a part of the random arena, in which there emerged mechanisms that have randomly build a rule to camouflage *almost all* our deductions of ultimate reality to be wrong - with the exception of the deduction that ultimate reality is indeed no more than a senseless and random arena of events without causes. All this is possible if one asumes ultimate reality to be of ultimate randomness.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 13:16 GMT
Hi Stefan and Edwin:

You both agree/say:

"there is no path from abstraction to ultimate reality" -- (by Stefan). Now consider these three ideas in relation to this statement:

1) "The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience."

This is a FACT, and it is perfectly written....

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 23:45 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Like you, I doubt that truly random events "can" exist. A universe in which things happen for "no reason at all" begs all sorts of questions and seems to engender severe paradoxes. As you point out, randomness obeys the one-and-only rule of unconditional happening, so how do "probability rules" get a grasp on such an ultimate reality? And, since randomness seems to imply meaningless, then how does an ultimately meaningless universe discover meaning?

These and other issues seem not to have been thought through by most physicists, who classically understood "randomness" as a "noise" issue in the sense of unrecoverable signals. But the randomness of quantum field theory is a different beast -- the one we've been discussing. It's the real thing, and it needs to be analyzed.

You present an alternative in which randomness is not the ultimate reality, but just an important part of it. You analyze it well, but I have difficulty grasping how this could really be.

J Haldane said "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true, and hence I have no reason to believe that my brain is composed of atoms."

None of these ideas of randomness make sense to me as explaining the reality we share. But a physically real consciousness field, with the innate aspect of free will, seems to inherently imply unpredictability without implying meaninglessness.

I hope you enjoy my essay and look forward to any comments you might make.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 00:04 GMT
Dear Frank,

You ask us to consider the following:

1) "The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience."

Briefly, the key words: "thought", "reconfigure sense", and "sensory experience" as far as I know, have no universal interpretation. My idea of thought is based on "models" of reality that the brain forms in response to sensory input, because the brain evolved to do just this. After reaching the ability to compose such models, the brain, interacting with the consciousness field, has the ability to "play with" the models, in a "what if" sense, and this allows for reasoned behavior (in most cases). As long as one is awake, one tends to anchor these models in "what's happening now", due to sensory inputs refreshing the system, whereas when one sleeps, this aspect goes offline, and dreams are not as anchored in physical reality, so the "play" is freer in nature.

I've read many of your comments, yet I'm not sure that I understand your model, but this is how I would interpret the line above. In my model it is the consciousness field, interacting as described in my essay with brain matter, that is actually "aware" of wake or dream.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 03:34 GMT
Hi Edwin. Yes, you will have to read my essay (and my posts under it) to properly/fully understand my position. It will be of interest to you. We are both concerned with several important and fundamental topics. My essay is the fourth from the top. If you could rate the essay and leave comments under it, I would appreciate it.

I was considering/reading your essay earlier today. I will let you know my thoughts on it as well. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 03:51 GMT
Checking in,

I have enjoyed reading the commentary above. Following the discussion of essential concepts sometimes helps me more than reading the exposition in the essay itself, or provides a good adjunct to aid understanding. This is a very intriguing discussion, I will have to stop in on this thread again.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 15:16 GMT
Hello again Stefan,

Now a few words on decoherence, entanglement, and so on. It seems you have gotten a bunch of things right that are widely misunderstood. There was a typo, as they are Wigner's friends, and an omission as the founder of decoherence theory is H. Dieter Zeh, but the points made are valid. I especially liked the segment of your essay that goes...

"So entanglement and superpositions could be explainable firstly due to the fact that some antecedents and consequences of logical propositions could be distributed over distinct physical entities - and therefore places - without loosing their "oneness" and secondly due to set theoretic considerations of the essential logical distinction between merely necessary and already sufficient causes and effects."

This explains nicely the way that non-local information gets spread around to a number of entities, who are entangled by the relatedness of their knowledge of it. The information remains unified or coherent, but the description or expression of it is spread around among the various entities which are entangled by their mutual measurement of each other. As Darryl Leiter points out (but doesn't quite make clear), we have the observer acting as participant in all of these microscale interactions, and this is unavoidable.

So you have gotten this particularly elusive part of decoherence theory right. It answers the question "what happens when interactions extract only partial determinations that allow for the quantum indeterminacy to be preserved?" When we don't extract Classical information (which would cause an entity to 'freeze' into a particle-like state), partial decoherence results - and we have a web of entangled entities which share non-local information.

If we have a half-silvered mirror and a feeble light source, a photon may reach detector A or B with equal probability. But if we put two half-silvered mirrors in opposite corners, and two regular mirrors at the remaining corners we have a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. So long as the light paths are kept equal (preserving the wave-like aspect), all of the photons will end up at one detector. But if we cover either light path, we're back to a 50/50 deal again.

Cool huh?

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 21:19 GMT
Jonathan and Stefan,

Communicating with you two has been a most enjoyable experience. You have clarified certain things for me, and I hope I have done so for you. James Putnam has also been a delight to talk with.

Stefan,

of my conclusion, that "(self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious." you state:

"I would make here a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 11:32 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

it's an honor as well as a joy to read your comments!

The whole forum is, in my opinion, a very good institution for different people to discuss their concepts and thoughts.

I find your theory very compatible with my own assumptions, altough i haven't much physical mechanisms to explain consciousness in a more scientific way. But i think that's not the main point at this stage of evaluating consciousness as fundamental. The main point for me is to accentuate the possibility that consciousness could be a main ingredient of ultimate reality. One has to calculate with this case and if this case would be "the case", it surely would have profound consequences for the whole human race (if one could indeed prove that our assumptions are true).

As said elsewhere, there are serious cases (near-death-experiencers), who can witness some kind of independence of awareness from the body. That should be of interest for every scientist.

I will read Terry Padden's essay next days and also leave a comment on his page.

All the best

Stefan

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 14:12 GMT
Hello Stefan,

I just wanted to let you know that I found your comments on superposition and entanglement insightful enough to include in an e-mail I just sent. H.D. Zeh had asked to be kept informed of my progress, when I told him that I'd be presenting a decoherence related topic at FFP10. So I took an excerpt from my recent forum comment to you, and pasted that below the closing. I will post any comments he may make in response here.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 14:16 GMT
P.S. - the excerpt includes the quote from your essay.

JJD

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 17:40 GMT
Chiming in,

I find several of Edwin Eugene's comments on this forum page to be quite insightful. He poses some good questions and has interesting perspectives to offer regarding Frank's remarks. I would have to give Frank kudos too, as he makes good points and this conversation has been enlightening. Thanks Stefan, for an essay that got this conversation started. I shall re-visit this thread!

Kind Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

yes, that's o.k. and i am looking forward to possible comments from Dieter Zeh.

Although i doubt that he considers my approach as insightfull or even usefull,

(not at least because it's not an elaborated theory, doesn't make predictions and is in contradiction with quantum mechanics insofar as it assumes a ratio of entanglement for the Aspects experiment that is above the QM-threshold of 2,828427 [namely ~ 1/3]),

i appreciate critics or suggestions from an excellent expert and also useful tips for possible further formalization of my ideas.

My lines of reasoning in my essay are rather like the possibilistic theory presented in this contest by Tobias Fritz, but i am not a mathematician and have less training in physics to elaborate a formalization of my ideas. Maybe, an expert could come up with creative connections/ideas from already elaborated and similar results.

P.S. I can highly recommend reading Tobias Fritz's essay, it's a very interesting work in my opinion.

All the best,

Stefan

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

thank you also for discussing with me (us) and also for your own work.

It's wonderfull to read so much creative and inspiring work here and also very good comments and interconnections!!

Thanks again for reading and discussing here!

All the best,

Stefan

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 19:06 GMT
Hi Mr Stefan Weckbach ,

Nice to know you ,

It's indeed likeable to see so much consciousness in fact .I think we must act in fact ,if we resume the consciousness ,it is what all is the same with its specificty ,thus all is linked and must be respected .How can we be in harmony if the balance on this earth isn't made between creations .Even for the universal memmory ,we can't sleep quietly if only one child still cries .The potentyial of humans is incredible ,only our bad habits divide the thruth but we evole fortunaly .It's the reason why I try to create this humanistic sciences center focus on priorities .We must act in fact and utilise sciences for our fellow man .It's possible to implant a kind of prosperity in some chaotics places .It's very simple in fact ,unite people ,faithpeople,humanist scientists ,balanced humanistic systems and act together with adapted solutions ,locally .The soil is the key .

Thanks to all for your discussions about the consciouss.We must act ,intelligently and pragmatically with reason ,love and universality .Somethings aren't acceptables,the solutions exist .Unity and adapted sciences.

Take care

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 23:38 GMT
Hi Stefan:

What do you make of the following in relation to determinism, consciousness, and life?

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 thereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"!

Thanks.

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Frank,

Paul Davies is one of the few physicists who take the questions and problems of determinism, life and consciousness very seriously. He has many good ideas and is open to the idea that there could be a deeper meaning of life and the orderedness of the universe. I like his writings very much.

As i tried to expose in my essay and also in my comments here and elsewhere on this forum, all attempts to explain consciousness within a framework of a strict determinism lead to serious paradoxes. Especially to the paradox of scientific learning and information-processing. If all there is would be indeed strictly determined by its previous events, all our knowledge could be a meaningless, random thing. In this case, all that would really count would be events without causes. That would be the only reliable insight, that would be true and would not lead to false conclusions. All other conclusions would have the veil of correlation about them and couldn't tell us other things than the only reliable thing - namely fundamental randomness - we already knew (or at least believe to know!).

That's the problem of all attempts to explain life and consciousness via either a strict deteminism or via strict randomness. It seems for me, that there could be a third alternative, somewhat a "mixture" of both frameworks. But to believe this, one has to assume a realm of fundamental creativity and consciousness-based causes within the whole reality. If this would be true, de Duve could be right by assuming life and mind as natural manifestations of matter. But life and mind wouldn't be in my opinion a consequence of matter, but the cause of it. One has - in my opinion - to assume seriously that physical processes, events and motion are a manifestation of consciousness-gifted dynamics. So, in this sense, issues like will and intention would be the real cause of all motion, also e-motion. No physical motions without a higher emotion to cause all this. This shouldn't automatically mean that every subatomic particle has emotions like ours, we don't know how the motions of this entities are linked to a higher emotion of a provoking conscious intention. But if reality is a coherent "oneness" - like many scientists believe via their search for a TOE - then intention and will should be present to different degrees in every part of it.

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 08:40 GMT
P.S. The "general law" of Darwin, i think, references to the evolution of life-forms. In this sense, his general law is the law of adaption, replication and mutation. But thinking not of the form of life, but of the essence of it in comparison to "dead" matter, there has to exist a threshold of complexity where free will emerges for the first time. Such a threshold would be similar to the threshold between quantum mechanics and classical mechanics and we do know today that in the latter case such a threshold is a somewhat illusional concept because of decoherence and entanglement. In this sense i strongly asssume that also there is no threshold between animated and inanimated natural processes. The only difference would be the amount, to which an intention-gifted entity could internalize it's own environment. We humans have internalized our whole history in our genes. This gives us the opportunity to recognize more details of our environments than other life-forms that haven't internalized so much information. Altough the chimpanzee has internalized the same amount of information in his genes, this information is decoded and compressed, and like a compressed picture in informatics, a change of a subtle piece of compressed information leads to a huge change of form in the uncompressed data (the chimpanzee itself).

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear Steve,

thank you very much for your very emotional words that touched me. I have the greatest *respect* for your project and your social engagement! You're an important person for the development of all.

My own *small* contribution to a possible shift in awareness and conscioussness of meaning, values and purpose is my writing here and my proposals.

I am happy to see so much people here who consider a deeper meaning in all. That's not a scientific declaration, but a very personal declaration, because i could indeed be fooled by my assumptions about the very nature of consciousness/reality. But i consider it as important to not forget/abandon the possiblity of such a nature of reality. To have so much people here who consider this also as a possiblity makes me happy. Who knows - perhaps there are indeed ways to discover that matter and mere physical interactions are not all that is in our reality? Happy, that so much people take this possibility serious!

Thanks to all

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear Stefan ,

Thank to you for these words .I am touched too.You know ,I am vanitious like all ,due probably to my hormons ,but I am not very important because alone we are nothing in fact ,only the complemenatrity can change some chaotic systems.

In fact we are all important .

What I know is what never I will stop ,it's my only reason of life .

My theory is important but less than this sciences center focus on priorities for our fellow man .We can produce in fact and implant some harmonious systems .

In all case ,thanks dear Stefan for your universality .We must act in fact ,the faith is nothing if we don't act .It's possible in all case if we want really .

The scientists must utilize their skills for solve ,the solutions are simples in fact with the soil like base of the solution .Our ecosystems are the key .

Happy too to see this consciouss ,like I said to Narendra Nath ,I was desesperated to find these kind of thought but fortunaly ,FQXi ,Xing or Ecademy permit me to motivate my objectifs .We must pass above the individualism and our bad habits .

It's difficult to turn off a big fire with one water drop ,nevertheless a whole of drops makes Ocean .....united indeed .

Take care dear Stefan

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 01:43 GMT
Hi Stefan:

Thank you for your reply. You are correct that: "...there could be a deeper meaning of life and the orderedness of the universe." I think that you will love what follows. The interactive nature of being, experience, space, and thought is undeniable. I will clearly demonstrate this in this post.

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe..." --...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Narendra wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 12:39 GMT
Sometimes i feel overwhelmed with language and words. These burden my mind and brain thought processes, i feel. the truth does lie beyond, may well be in total silence and quiet. It does not have to appear all the time when we desire it to appear! Consciousness to me is a deep subject of meditative contemplation. Einstein was such a person when he admitted that the thought processes in his brain were working on problems in the early periods of 1900 but the solutions to the problems were not forthcoming in spite of best efforts. Then suddenly , out of the blue, ideas came. What he did was to comprehend and hold on to those ideas and then quickly applied the tools available with him to implement the solutions and there these were for all to appreciate and admire. Now where is the role of the brain of Einstein. The role was in fact of his consciousness that overallaped with cosmic consciousness which provided the 'hidden' ideas to him that he needed to grasp quickly and apply the tools to complete the job.

It also involves the difference between the two terms we use, brain and mind. Brain is an organ of the body but the mind is the centre of awareness in the body full of various sensers known and unknown. It is this that can interact with the universal consciousness that contains total knowledge, born with the universe itself. Thus, we do not do re-search but we isolate that 'hidden' knowledge and consciousness is at the centre of it all.

Cociousness can only be experienced and it is beyond physdical sciences to prove. May be one day when Physics starts subserving life sciences, as i suggest in my essay on this forum, we may know more facts than we know presently about such a life force as called 'consciouness/ awreness'. Iy has then various levels/degrees/strengths.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 23:31 GMT
Hi Stefan:

You said:

"P.S. The "general law" of Darwin, i think, references to the evolution of life-forms. In this sense, his general law is the law of adaption, replication and mutation. But thinking not of the form of life, but of the essence of it in comparison to "dead" matter, there has to exist a threshold of complexity where free will emerges for the first time."

Compared with the Common Chimpanzee, we are more animate in conjunction with experience that is (on balance) more inanimate -- in dreams and when waking. Dreams point to the theoretic nature of experience, to what can be.

Dreams involve change, our becoming other than we are, and adjustment or growth to/with sensory experience in general.

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,

I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 12:29 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

thank you for your notice about your comment - i will read it in the next minutes. I also enjoyed your contributions and exchanges very much and thank you for your open-mindedness.

Stefan Weckbach

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 26, 2009 @ 20:08 GMT
Hi Stefan. The following cuts to the core of reality, thought, and physics. You should really like this. What do you think of this? I would appreciate your thoughts. Frank

The great revelation of art (including music) is that the world requires and involves man; although science has been slow to recognize this; for the danger of technology is that it is creating a world of experience that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.