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


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/discusswinners

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 Fund.
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

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 17:54pm UTC, wrote Wes - anyone who talks about consciousness in a physics forum has to be a...

Peter Jackson: on 7/20/13 at 18:59pm UTC, wrote Wes, Really enjoyable and fascinating essay with some important points.I...

James Hoover: on 7/3/13 at 19:24pm UTC, wrote Wesley, If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries,...

Antony Ryan: on 7/1/13 at 14:10pm UTC, wrote Hello Wesley, Nice to see an approach from consciousness, of course we are...

Hoang Hai: on 6/27/13 at 3:46am UTC, wrote Send to all of you THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL...

Hoang Hai: on 6/17/13 at 1:21am UTC, wrote Dear Wesley Wayne Hansen Your essay is very interesting and unique,only...

Helmut Hansen: on 6/11/13 at 13:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Wes, I was surprised to meet an author whose thinking is so deeply...

Paul Reed: on 5/11/13 at 6:01am UTC, wrote Wes I do not think your car example was a point about timing. But here is...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jorma Seppaenen: "Hi Georgina, Yes, CMB map is an observation product, it's very essential..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "Of course, the stars would, very slowly, move across the sky as the Earth..." in The Nature of Time

Georgina Woodward: ""The motion of the solar system, and the orientation of the plane of the..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Jim Snowdon: "On the permanently dark side of the Earth, the stars would appear to stay..." in The Nature of Time

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi FORUM
May 27, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: The Emergent It: A Collective Awareness by Wesley Wayne Hansen [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Wesley Wayne Hansen wrote on Apr. 26, 2013 @ 18:25 GMT
Essay Abstract

We explore the inferential implications of the correspondence principle. According to the correspondence principle macroscopic entities, its, are distinguished by their emergent properties. By definition, emergent properties are those properties which exist in the collective, the macroscopic entity, but not in the constitutional parts, the qubits; the whole is more than the sum of its parts. As such, although macroscopic entities would appear to be the result of quantum interactions, it would seem logically inconsistent to reduce said entities to qubits. To do so is to miss the subtleties of emergence; emergence requires more than quantum interactions, it requires a collective awareness – consciousness.

Author Bio

Wes Hansen is an artist and inventor who also dabbles in mathematics, philosophy, and science (he closed the binary Goldbach Conjecture using strong induction with multiple base cases; ). His defining emergent property is a decades old yoga and meditation practice he calls The Journey. The Journey has no destination; this is the wisdom contained in the word “Bodhisattva,” infinite compassion tempered by infinite wisdom.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Apr. 27, 2013 @ 16:00 GMT
Wes, it is goof to see you have arrived in the contest. I am glad someone has brought up the relationship between consciousness and information. It is a very interesting idea. I am not going to pretend that I accept the stuff about the powers of meditation and yoga but let me ask you a question to try and get another angle on it.

You say that consciousness depends on the brain for its existence. Does that brain have to be biological or could an electronic brain support consciousness?

Thanks for citing my earlier essay :-)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
Phil,

If you don't accept the causal efficacy of meditation and yoga how do you explain the empirical observations of Harvard's Herbert Benson and Sara Lazar and the experimental results of Stanford's William Tiller and Walter Dibble? I have a simple suggestion for you: start your own yoga and meditation practice and maintain it consistently (daily practice) for 12 months [CB]. You can...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Philip Gibbs replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 16:55 GMT
Wes, I agree with your answer that consciousness can be transferred to inorganic machines. I think we also have a shared interest in the mathematical aspects of physics and possibly some philosophical issues. I am quite comfortable with Ellis's essay on top down causality which makes perfect sense to me. I am not so keen on his ideas about temporal causality and the flow of time which he wrote about in another essay contest

However, our views diverge very sharply when it comes to these ideas about what consciousness can do via deltron moeity etc. I think this is one of those areas where we need to just politely agree to disagree, because it is unlikely that either of us could convince the other to change their mind.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on May. 2, 2013 @ 05:00 GMT
The subsequent processing of physical input received can have no affect on the physical circumstance, because:

1 That process is not physical, it does not involve a change in physical form, but the conversion of physical input into a perception thereof.

2 The sequence order means that is impossible, ie what existed did so before the processing, by definition, because something has to be received in order that this processing can then be initiated.

3 What was received was not the existential sequence anyway, but an existent representation of it, in the case of sight, this is known as light.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Reed wrote on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 07:55 GMT
Wes

How can physical existence occur in two ‘different ways’?

This is a function of our misconceptualisation. We refer to things as if they are physically existent. But what we are doing is conceiving of existence at a higher level than what occurs. That is, the thing is defined by virtue of certain superficial physical attributes. Indeed, we even continue to assert the continued existence of the thing when it manifests change. Which is contradictory, because if there is any form of alteration then it is different. In other words, what we are doing is rationalising difference in order to maintain continuity and live a ‘normal’ life. What we should be doing is differentiating any manifestation to its constituent parts at any given time. (at any given time, because until proven otherwise it must be assumed that alteration has occurred, ie there is something different, during any duration). But in order to get to St Paul’s I just need to know where it is and what it looks like, not that in reality it is a sequence of physical states. However, if one considers any manifestation of physical reality properly, then the false differentiation between macro and micro disappears.

Consciousness has nothing to do with the physical circumstance, other than it is part of the process which enables awareness of it. The physical circumstance is independent of it. Processing received physical input in order to produce a perception thereof is not a physical process.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Paul,

My essay rests on the assumption of the correspondence principle; if one denies the validity of the correspondence principle, as you would seem to, then one needn't bother themselves with any more than the abstract of my essay. The idea that physical existence occurs in two different ways is rather mind-boggling but there is a plethora of scientific evidence that supports a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Paul Reed replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 15:55 GMT
Wes

Thanks, I don't want to get into a repeat of the on-going exchange with Jochen, So I will say no more.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on May. 3, 2013 @ 17:28 GMT
Paul,

I guess I'll have to read the on-going exchange with Mr. Szangolies; you've aroused my curiosity. Feel free to say whatever you like, provided it's cordial I'll try to respond in kind.

With regards,

Wes Hansen

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 09:44 GMT
Hi Wes,

As I am not competent in Eastern traditions, yoga, religions and so on, I would like to address only the issue of emergency.

You are as much a great fun of Dawkins as me. He gave me a lot of inspiration in physics. Thanks to him I have framed a concept that the matter and energy have evolved from a primordial, conformally flat spacetime (starting before the Planck Era). So I apply the theory of Darwinism beyond its original sphere of organic evolution on Earth.

Your question “what gives form to emergent phenomena and how is stability of form maintained over time?” is very interesting. My own view is that the Universe is a so called dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. The structured criticality is a property of complex systems where small events may trigger larger events. This is a kind of chaos where the general behavior of the system can be modeled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable. The simple example of that phenomenon is a pile of sand.

Read more if you want: http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0026

You ask “the apparently intractable question: if emergent form depends on consciousness and consciousness depends on brains, themselves an emergent form, how did the Universe evolve prior to the emergence of brains?”

You can find an answer in my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609

I am looking forward to hearing from you Wes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Wesley Wayne Hansen replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 15:35 GMT
Jacek,

Yes, I too believe a refined Darwinism is useful as a general theory. As to self-organized criticality, I would direct your attention to the past winning FQXi essay of George Ellis, Recognising Top-down Causation, in which he demonstrates that self-organized criticality is not a sufficient explanation for truly complex systems (this is like the fourth time I've referenced that essay so obviously I find it interesting!).

I've read your essay and my intractable question remains intractable. Your essay is brief to the extreme so I'll have to read your Spacetime Deformation Evolution references to get a better handle on things. At such a time I will see about leaving a comment on your own forum section.

I really like the Einstein quote in your essay and I'll conclude this comment with something similar from a favored mathematician, Louis Kauffman:

"The Universe is what would be if anything could be at all, the Flower of Nothing in the Void of Perception."

With regards,

Wes Hansen

Bookmark and Share


Jacek Safuta replied on Apr. 30, 2013 @ 21:16 GMT
Thank you for the link. I will check it out soon because the subject is really important for me.

And the sentence of Kauffman is great...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 28, 2013 @ 09:46 GMT
That Anonymous above is Jacek Safuta. I am sorry something wrong with logging in.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Jun. 11, 2013 @ 13:08 GMT
Dear Wes,

I was surprised to meet an author whose thinking is so deeply rooted in Buddhist philosophy and meditation practice. I agree with many of your intellectual and spiritual positions including those published in VIXRA (i.e. Postmodern Mysticism).

I've studied the relationship between Buddhism and modern physics since more than thirty years. Meanwhile I've found some...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 17, 2013 @ 01:21 GMT
Dear Wesley Wayne Hansen

Your essay is very interesting and unique,only regret is the lack of specific on the conclusions.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jun. 27, 2013 @ 03:46 GMT
Send to all of you

THE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES AND A SMALL TEST FOR MUTUAL BENEFIT

To change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition and to demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after receiving the opinion of you , I will add a reply to you :

1 . THE...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 1, 2013 @ 14:10 GMT
Hello Wesley,

Nice to see an approach from consciousness, of course we are all observers of information and empirically real ourselves, so why shouldn't this approach be used.

I wonder where consciousness is? The mind's eye infinite regression always stumps me. Perhaps a termination point is akin to 0 in the Fibonacci sequence (0-dimensionality in my essay).

Anyway - nice to read something so refreshing.

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 3, 2013 @ 19:24 GMT
Wesley,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 18:59 GMT
Wes,

Really enjoyable and fascinating essay with some important points.I agree that correspondence is central.

I'm also very interested in eastern traditions, meditation, contemplation and the concept of free will. I stayed very empirical with my own essay this time as it was already crammed full of ontology, but did just touch on it in the extended version I linked. I'll be very interested in your comments.

I most certainly agree your conjecture, and that there is an awful lot more to conciousness and the universe than we may perhaps ever know.

Congratulations, thank you, and I hope you make the final cut.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 17:54 GMT
Wes - anyone who talks about consciousness in a physics forum has to be a daring individual. My hat is off to you.

It is true, the next major frontier is understanding emergence, and although we can absolutely be sure that consciousness emerges, how would you react if I told that time emerged from information also?

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

I would be honored to hear your opinion of it.

Bodhisattva, Paul

Bookmark and Share
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.