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 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.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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


Thomas Ray: "(reposted in correct thread) Lorraine, Nah. That's nothing like my view...." in 2015 in Review: New...

Lorraine Ford: "Clearly “law-of-nature” relationships and associated numbers represent..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Information Channel. An example from Jon Barwise. At the workshop..." in Physics of the Observer -...

Lee Bloomquist: "Please clarify. I just tried to put a simple model of an observer in the..." in Alternative Models of...

Lee Bloomquist: "Footnote...for the above post, the one with the equation existence =..." in Alternative Models of...

Thomas Ray: "In fact, symmetry is the most pervasive physical principle that exists. ..." in “Spookiness”...

Thomas Ray: "It's easy to get wound around the axle with black hole thermodynamics,..." in “Spookiness”...

Joe Fisher: "It seems to have escaped Wolpert’s somewhat limited attention that no two..." in Inferring the Limits on...

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.

January 18, 2018

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Consciousness as a State of Matter--Max Tegmark's FQXi Talk [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Jan. 21, 2014 @ 20:05 GMT
Mind, Brain & Information panel
More audio from the FQXi meeting in Vieques, this time from cosmologist Max Tegmark. As Ian has already blogged, Max has been pondering what qualities conscious matter would have that differentiates it from non-conscious matter.

In his recent paper, available on the arXiv (, Max identified five properties: information, integration, independence, dynamics and utility principles. The first two properties had already been suggested by neuroscientist Giulio Tononi. In Max's talk, which you can download here, he discusses whether we can start with two barebones mathematical objects, the Hamiltonian and density matrix, and use them to understand why we perceive ourselves as living in a 3D space. It's an ambitious hope, but you can listen to see how far he gets with it.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 4, 2014 @ 01:17 GMT
I congratulate physicist Max Tegmark for daring to include consciousness in the realm of physics. ("Consciousness as a State of Matter"). But I disagree with his characterization of consciousness and his characterization of information. He has found no real use for consciousness, and his view of information is not supported by any evidence.

Tegmark mainly sees consciousness as a system...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 4, 2014 @ 18:37 GMT
"Tegmark mainly sees consciousness as a system that stores and processes information."

So does Gell-Mann (IGUS: information gathering and processing system)

So do I.

It's enough.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 02:19 GMT
Is there any chance that consciousness is the effect of a single wave-function that spans multiple parts of the brain at once? In other words, when several parts of the brain are communicating, a single Psi(x,y,z,t) emergences. The idea is that several parts of the brain are interconnected simultaneously, perhaps even quantumly entangled. Even a single thought or experience is the interconnection between several processes in the brain. Process 1 + process 2 + process 3 + ... results in Psi (consciousness) = psi_1 + psi_2 + psi_3 +... It's just a thought.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 02:20 GMT
The above comment was mine (Jason Wolfe).

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 4, 2014 @ 19:53 GMT
Thomas Howard Ray,

You mightn't have noticed, but Tegmark certainly has noticed that "perceptronium...feels subjectively self-aware" and "consciousness is the way information feels...". Further, Tegmark mentions "the internal reality of your mind", "subjectively distinguishable conscious states" and "the subjective emergence of time".

Surely even you would acknowledge that curious, unusual or anomalous things in nature are an invitation for science to investigate and find out their utility? Tegmark acknowledges feelings and subjective experience, but suggests no utility for them. Are you suggesting that Tegmark's paper, dated 8th January 2014, is the last word on the subject of feelings/subjective self-awareness for ever and all time?

Lorraine Ford

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 02:30 GMT
Maybe consciousness is the wave-function that appears during one of the biochemical process steps involved in creating memories. That way, if we happen to remember what we saw, it's because it was recorded in the brain.

The idea of consciousness as a wave-function has appeal because wave-functions are quantum objects that are inherently unpredictable (you never know which eigenstate comes up next, only the probabilities). In that mystery, if there is any kind of spirit or soul, it can exist within the hiddenness of the wave-function.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 03:02 GMT
Lorraine, Jason,

Another way to think of consciousness is to distinguish between the effect of being conscious and that which we are conscious of. The traditional theological assumption is of a universal intelligence, yet intelligence is a function of ordering. What we are conscious of naturally tends to be ordered, because it is the patterns by which we make sense of this kaleidoscope of energy pouring into our senses that have evolved to register it. Yet does this ordering create awareness, or does awareness simply tend to focus on that which is ordered?

Given we have yet to explain how ordering can create consciousness, wouldn't it be logical to try looking at it from the other direction, that consciousness is distinct from order, but attracted to it?

We might have to go back and start with a fairly fresh slate, but if it yields some useful insights, such as explaining the motivating influence apparent in all of biology and why such disparate organisms seem to manifest such varieties of perception, or even on the most basic terms, how a singular sense of being could simultaneously manifest such varieties of forms and willingly create and destroy them in such vast numbers, given the likelihood of truly distinct consciousnesses simultaneously emerging seems far less probable, it might be useful to consider.


John M

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 04:16 GMT
Hi John,

I think consciousness might be like the two slit experiment. When both slits are open and you don't look to see which slit the particles go through, then the particle in effect goes through both. As it relates to consciousness, there are several parts of the brain that have to talk to each other simultaneously. If you're not looking to see where the communication is coming from, then maybe you get a quantum wave that actually spans all the communicating parts of the brain. Then through this, consciousness emerges and memory processes are activated.

I think we can treat consciousness like a wave-function "flame" that flickers and observes whatever input is coming in. If so, then why wouldn't consciousness consider itself anything other than something mystical and mysterious? Afterall, it's very existence is made possible only by quantum uncertainty itself.

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 05:37 GMT
Jason, John M,

Most people think of consciousness as subjective experience or qualia. But why do we have it?

Looking at the subjective experience/qualia that is occurring this moment:

It consists of e.g. a very complex visual field with colours and shapes; sounds; smells; objects that have been identified ("that's a tiger over there"); situations that have been identified ("I am in danger") etc. This is all information about self and the surrounding reality.

An organism must handle large amounts of simultaneous information. I contend that it is efficient for different categories of information to feel or present differently to an organism. That is, feeling/subjective experience/qualia makes it easy for an organism to differentiate large (and small) amounts of simultaneous information.

For living things, this "executive-level" information would presumably not be the same as the "raw" fundamental information that would be available at the particle level (where presumably only things like mass or momentum information would be available).

I contend that consciousness/subjective experience/qualia IS this information. They are not 2 different things. Consciousness is not ABOUT information: that would presumably require some process to convert information to consciousness, which would be inefficient.



report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 06:12 GMT

People in the scientific community regard psychics with extreme animosity. Yet, I think you will find that psychics are very close to the basic set of symbols that consciousness can understand quickly. Even the tarot cards problably represent the basic symbols that the human mind can evaluate quickly. For example: Destruction, Death, cards that represent powerful people, the World, Lovers, etc...

The only difference between you & I and a tarot card reader is that you and I have a more complex system of experience for dealing with these same basic issues. I bet there are areas of the brain that will light up in recognition of each of the tarot cards (set of basic symbols). All I am really adding to the conversation is that I think consciousness requires a synthesis of all of these areas of the brain that light up. Just because neurons light up doesn't mean anything. But when they are connected in such a way that makes them similar to the wave in the particle-wave 2 slit experiment, I think that consciousness will arise.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 06:16 GMT
To further my argument, I think that the Tarot deck represents a good selection of symbols that, in the form of basic wiring in the human brain, allow a human being to readily navigate an environment in which there are powerful people around who can easily kill you, deal with money, and deal with the unpredictabily of the environment.

report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman replied on Feb. 6, 2014 @ 01:14 GMT

Consider for a moment the levels between the executive and raw;

"it is efficient for different categories of information to feel or present differently to an organism."

Consider how that information first needs to be collected into different categories. How does this sorting and funneling work at the mechanical level? For one thing, that basic raw energy carrying the information will present characteristics, such as heat/cold, high/low frequency, subtle/obvious. That will start to trip various subconscious reactions. Then there is the attraction/repulsion, hope/fear and all the various sub-categories. Now what is going on by this level is a combination of both distinguishing details and making connections. Sort of like once you get past the primary and secondary colors, then it gets to all the complex shades, with precise levels of the various basic colors mixed around.

"I contend that consciousness/subjective experience/qualia IS this information. They are not 2 different things."

So the difference as I would describe it, is that the raw awareness is like the white light, while the levels of subjective experience are the various shadings of that light and the information is the distinctions and connections that we consciously recognize, between these shades. The basis of the intellect is this emotion and its subjective interactions with the physical environment. People tend to be much more rational and cooperative when they are physically secure. All those primal senses provide a volatile foundation.


John M


report post as inappropriate

John Brodix Merryman wrote on Feb. 5, 2014 @ 17:58 GMT

"I think consciousness requires a synthesis of all of these areas of the brain that light up."

Thought is a function of making distinctions, but awareness is making the connections.

Consider math and language and all the other aspects of human intellectual advancement, especially he fields of science; So much of it is being able to break down and analyze all the discrete parts of the systems and how they might fit together and every last possible detail. Yet these entities and processes, etc. function wholistically. All the parts only make sense contextually, even if we can only understand them reductionistically. Even the platonic mathematical models to which some are enthralled, only emerge as a distillation of the whole. Simply another 'part' extracted to study.

Consider a couple of basic mathematical points. For one thing, anything with any of its three dimensions as zero, doesn't exist, because anything multiplied by zero is zero. Yet much of geometry would become far more complex if we insisted points, lines and planes had incremental dimensionality. Then what is allowed as a useful conceptual shorthand, is totally turned into some form of religious iconography by the platonists.

When we add, we are adding sets and coming up wit a larger set. 2+2=4 isn't adding the contents of the sets, but the sets of 2 and getting a set of four. This is an example of how we focus on the details and not the larger context. Just as all the parts of our bodies add up to a whole body, not just the sum of the parts. Or all the aspects of our lives add up to a whole life, even if most of us live very compartmentalized lives.

The problem isn't with the math, but with the very human tendency to think our beliefs are more objective than others. How does multiverses really differ from theology? Both are speculative projections into the unknown. One of consciousness and one of discrete structures.

Need to run,


John M

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Feb. 7, 2014 @ 15:39 GMT
Any "material" form is as we aware of made of atoms, subatomic particles , quarks, and so on, and in the end all is just an excitation of a FIELD. (Sean Carroll). These excitations are "caused" by consciousness....

So what are we talking about ?


report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 7, 2014 @ 21:30 GMT

Re your reply of Feb. 6, 2014 @ 13:04 GMT, we seem to disagree about all of these things:

- Contrary to what you say, there is no "system feedback", and contrary to what you say, subjective experience is fundamental:

I contend that information is a fundamental aspect of reality, and that information is subjective experience/qualia. The universe is made up of subjects,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 8, 2014 @ 13:48 GMT
"Clearly, we both have very different views about the nature of reality."

Yes, Lorraine. However, our premise the same:

"I contend that information is a fundamental aspect of reality, and that information is subjective experience/qualia."

If information is physical, as you agree it is, it is not subjective. There's a huge gap between your premise and your conclusion.



report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 8, 2014 @ 14:50 GMT

"Information is physical" because "the physical" is subjective information. I mean that oneself and the rest of physical reality are only known as information i.e. as subjective experience. All information has a law-of-nature lawful structure which interconnects it to other information, and every event has physical/information consequences: if you stub your toe on a rock, it's going to hurt, and you might even break a bone.

Re "There's a huge gap between your premise and your conclusion."

How do you see this purportedly "huge gap"?



report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Feb. 8, 2014 @ 22:29 GMT
"All information has a law-of-nature lawful structure which interconnects it to other information, and every event has physical/information consequences: if you stub your toe on a rock, it's going to hurt, and you might even break a bone."

Understood. How does the rock feel about it?


report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 11, 2014 @ 00:15 GMT
I still have hope that there exist planes of consciouness. A plane of consciousness would be akin to the astral plane described and experienced by practioners of metaphysics. I'm extrapolating from the idea that quantum mechanics tells us that particles are not distinct objects or hard spheres. Quantum mechanics tells us that position and momentum can be smeared out over many eigenstates. Using my imagination, I am exploring ideas that there are dark matter particles whose positions are not localized at all and are smeared out all over the entire earth. If so, could such particles still bond with other particles of similar kind, even if the bonds themselves are not localized. What if there are bonds that do not obey the 1/R^2 strength term? What if this kind of dark matter is tranmits its effects on a macroscale. For example, to borrow from metaphysics, what if there are dark matter molecules that have a very tiny mass-energy content, that behave like a "thought". What if the brain is an emitter and detector of these special kinds of particles.

By the way, on another subject, if there are Higgs particles that make the Higgs field operate (and give particles properties of inertia and tie those particles to the space-time continuum), could there be anti-Higgs particles or an anti-Higgs field that, if used as a field generator, could remove an object (like a spacecraft) and disconnect it from the Higgs field or the space-time continuum?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 11, 2014 @ 02:23 GMT
Well, apparently only fermions can have particle-anti-particle relationships that result in creation/annihilation.

Bosons are their own anti-particles in such a way that you cannot annihilate or create bosons. Therefore, annihilating Higgs particles with anti-Higgs particles will not work. As it relates to consciousness, I don't think it makes sense to abandon hopes of an afterlife when the very creation of the universe cannot be shown to obey any kind of creation-annihilation dynamics. In other words, if fermions create/annihilate, but bosons do not, then why would we assume that the universe was created by a quantum fluctuation which resulted in a +E (big bang) + -E (gravity) = 0 event?

We're back to not understanding why the laws of physics are what they are; we don't know what causes the laws of physics to be what they are. We're back to "maybe God created the universe, particularly, its laws". Or at the very least, the universe is a lot more misunderstood by physicists and theologians then we thought.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 11, 2014 @ 11:14 GMT

An afterlife is inevitable at infinite re-ionization. Gamow and Peebles used a 'big squeeze' and cyclic approach in BB development for a pre BB state but it somehow got 'hijacked' by the misguided to an 'instantaneous' event.

Just like in an AGN, the best match is that the old ('disc') matter is accreted back to the spinning toroid helicoil (tokamak) and accellerated to a z-pinch 'cusp' or the de-ionized protons 'sqeezed' out at fantastic energies, the jet collimation shear surfaces re-propagating fresh fermion pairs (ionization or 'pair production') which mainly annihilate after their job is done (modulating c) leaving a tiny surfeit of electrons. Some of these bind, and off goes the evolution to heavy ions etc again > ending up in stars and people.

If it's eternal then one day we'll come back as intelligent conscious beings. 'Bout time I'd say!

The pieces of the mechanisms above are all documented. A nice bunch of cutting edge IOP Focus papers is here; Origin of Matter, QG, Jets etc.

Best wishes


report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 11, 2014 @ 19:03 GMT
Hi Peter,

I have to say thank you for trying to cheer me up. I am certainly content that there are more physically testable approaches to this question (infinite reionization, etc...). There is still a significant amount of dark matter that may interact with regular matter in ways not accounted for by chemistry or biology. I hate to propose mechanisms because they seem to run contrary to the beauty and magnificence of a mystical world view. I think there is still quite a bit of unknown science to allow some strange phenomena to exist in the universe. In a universe filled with dark matter, maybe their can exist spirits, angels, grey aliens who occasionally abduct people, and other bizarre phenomena too peculiar for physics laws.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 15, 2014 @ 07:19 GMT
What are the vibrational states of a dark matter field (quantum field theory)? Could such a field exist around the earth without our ability to detect it (because it's dark matter)? What would be the information capacity of this dark matter field? What if there are dark matter lifeforms that experience consciousness? What if during the evolution of life on this planet, that brains evolved in such a way that they could trap these lifeforms. The lifeform might feel trapped and caged, yet it brings a missing element -- consciousness.

These dark matter consciousnesses exist as a quantum wave-function field. The way a brain can trap one of these dark matter lifeforms is by creating a potential energy box that exactly (or very nearly) fits the dark matter lifeform. Just like a particle in an infinite potential energy well is trapped, so to is the dark matter lifeform. In this way, a soul and an afterlife are plausible.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 15, 2014 @ 21:24 GMT
If we use quantum field theory as a model for reality, then there is a spectrum between two extremes. On the one hand, there is a very physical reality made of electrons, protons, neutrons (atoms), photons, gluons, etc. The existence of these particles is pretty obvious.

At the other extreme, there is a Higgs field that is so mysterious it is practically an aether of some kind. It's own Higgs particle is incredibly rare and difficult to measure.

Next, you throw in the existence of dark matter and then ask what kind of quantum field does it have? Then you ask if such a dark matter field can give rise to any form of life? Any kind of sentient life?

From this point of view, the naturalist, the skeptic and the atheist see reality only through the dim glow of a flash-lite called science.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 05:24 GMT
There has got to be a more coherent analysis about consciousness out there...or is there?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 03:32 GMT
This has been a tough nut to crack, but the paper and especially Tononi’s paper were a big help. First Tegmark cites Tononi’s paper that concludes that a conscious system must have two separate traits:

"1. Information: It has to have a large repertoire of accessible states, i.e., the ability to store a large amount of information." {This seems like static...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Leo Vuyk wrote on Feb. 17, 2014 @ 18:02 GMT
Perhaps we should consider full entangled symmetry starting with the Big Bang and leading to democratic copy free will.:

Democratic Free Will in the Instant Entangled Multiverse.

Benjamin Libet measured the so called electric Readiness Potential (RP) time to perform a volitional act, in the brains of his students and the time of conscious awareness (TCA) of that act, which appeared to come 500 m.sec behind the RP. The “volitional act” was in principle based on the free choice to press an electric bell button. The results of this experiment gives still an ongoing debate in the broad layers of the scientific community, because the results are still (also in recent experiments) in firm contrast with the expected idea of Free Will and causality. However in this essay I propose the absurd but constructive possibility that we are not alone for decision making in a multiverse as an individual person, but we seem to be entangled resulting in the possibility to initiate but also Veto an act which is even a base for Considering, Revolve, Meditate, or Ponder. Even Max Tegmark suggested already about the multiverse: “Is there a copy of you reading this article?” We could be instant entangled with at least one instant entangled anti-copy person living inside a Charge and Parity symmetric copy Universe. In that case we could construct a causal explanation for Libet’s strange results. New statistical difference research on RPI and RPII of repeated Libet experiments described here could support these ideas. Wikipedia says: “Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally”. Free will in a multiverse seems to be based on: all entangled copy persons living in all CP symmetric copy universes, have the same possibility to Veto an act and participate equally.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 00:16 GMT
Hi Leo,

What does a quantum model look like if every eigenstates has a particle mass in it from one of many contributing universes in a multiverse? I think that is what the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics means. In the case of the two slit experiment, the particle goes through slit 1 in one universe, slit 2 in the other universe, but the effect of not knowing with universe you're in causes an interference pattern. Personally, I have trouble with this interpretation because entire universes seem to pop into and out of existence whimsically.

I prefer an interpretation that says that particles have a wave-function such that the wave-function itself has an aetherial/spiritual/mysterious quasi existence. I am keenly aware that this is a very irritating idea to scientists; but I sincerely believe it is a true quality of reality. I am presently entertaining the idea that a dark matter quantum field might be indistinguishable from what mystics call a spirit world. I think that the carbon molecule is the doorway into our standard model physical universe through which a spirit universe flows.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 02:28 GMT
I am exploring the idea that dark matter exists as quantum fields. Whatever particles dark matter particles exist, they are not "chunky" like quarks and gluons; instead, they are more like frequencies. Within these quantum fields, dark matter lifeforms exist. They exist as groups of frequencies, like bandwidths of frequencies. Carbon molecules, which are so versatile and allow organic life to exist. I am entertaining the idea that a natural process evolved that traps these dark matter lifeforms in a brain/nervous system during the developmental stage of the baby (whatever species). In effect, developmental biology would release hormones that have an effect on the dark matter (through the carbon molecule) and essentially entrap a dark matter lifeform. The result is that the dark matter lifeform is trapped in the biology of the organism until the organism dies, at which time the dark matter lifeform is freed.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 09:12 GMT
The existence of a Higgs field makes an afterlife inevitable. Since most physicists don't care about the afterlife or how quantum field theory of dark matter makes it likely, I'll just answer questions if there are any.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 18, 2014 @ 20:48 GMT
Quantum Field Theory should tell us that every particle has a wave-function and every wave-function has a particle (no matter how difficult to detect). In the case of gravity fields and Higgs fields, particles of matter interact with the gravity field and the Higgs field, not the gravity particle and not the Higgs particle. So why is it so impossible that a dark matter field might interact with the neurotransmitter particles in such a way as to result an an interface between a brain and a soul?

Or is quantum field theory a problem for atheists?

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 19, 2014 @ 04:04 GMT
Was dark matter created during the inflationary epoch of the big bang? If so, then dark matter would have very very high mass-energy.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 04:21 GMT
It is my opinion that all you need to have ghosts is available in the laws of physics. Cosmology gives us dark matter (invisible matter). Quantum entanglement creates correlations between quantum systems; neural networks of the brain are the extreme in biologically driven quantum entanglement. I also have to suspect there was a signficiant amount of quantum entanglement that occured during the big bang. In my view, these ingredients (quantum entnaglement and darkmatter) should provide plenty of ingredients for their to be dark matter lifeforms. One of the major characteristics of dark matter lifeforms should be "relationships", things like love, friendship and emotions.

In my opinion, evolution of biological species gained a significant survivial advantage by trapping dark matter lifeforms. Inside of the biology is a dark matter life form, a soul, that feels the pleasure, the pain and the experiences of the physical body. The entrapped lifeform has a reason to take life seriously, because if feels the pain. When the body dies, the dark matter lifeform is released.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 06:05 GMT
The preoccupation with "information" as a pre-requisite to consciousness is, in my view, a preference that physicists have. All information can be modelled as one's and zero's. Ones and zeroes can easily be decomposed into waves using a Fourier series.

All consciousness can exist in nature as waves in a sufficiently elaborate quantum entanglement system. Logic and information theory are just a subset of all that consciousness is capable of. For a majority of time that consciousness has existed, it has expressed itself as simpler, more biologically real emotions, both good and bad.

There are plenty of websites, podcasts and networks about spirits and ghosts. It could be that spirits/ghosts exist by different rules than the mathematical rules that physicists are accustomed to. It is good that science has isolated and detected all of the easy to detect standard model particles. But dark matter and quantum entanglement give nature options far beyond what a scientist can describe with a mathematical model; such as carbon molecules.

Consciousness should be defined as anything that can experience pain and pleasure (which goes far beyond mere information theory).

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 08:34 GMT
It has been suggested that 0 and 1 can be used to construct consciousness and freewill, but I have not read the books by Daniel Dennet referenced. This fits into my thinking that reality is digital. I am however skeptical about spirits, afterlife and ghosts, both holy and unholy. There are however things best left for religion, biologists and politicians.

"Ever since its publication, Conway's Game of Life (CGL) has attracted much interest, because of the surprising ways in which the patterns can evolve. CGL provides an example of emergence and self-organization. It is interesting for computer scientists, physicists, biologists, biochemists, economists, mathematicians, philosophers, generative scientists and others to observe the way that complex patterns can emerge from the implementation of very simple rules. The game can also serve as a didactic analogy, used to convey the somewhat counter-intuitive notion that "design" and "organization" can spontaneously emerge in the absence of a designer. For example, philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett has used the analogue of CGL... extensively to illustrate the possible evolution of complex philosophical constructs, such as consciousness and free will, from the relatively simple set of deterministic physical laws governing our own universe.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 10:01 GMT
I see consciousness as the ability to feel pain and pleasure. I think pain and pleasure can impose restrictions and motives on our freewill; along with our belief systems and our sense of self-hood.

I know that the scientific community scoffs at the idea that spirits exist, and I can certainly understand your skepticism. But I think there are a lot of people who are either unaware of the 2 slit experiment, or if they know about it, they don't understand what it means. I think I know what the 2-slit experiment means. For every particle that exists, there is a mysterious wave associated with it; that wave is calculated and is called a wave-function. Wave-functions interfere with each other, with the geometry of the physical apparatus, and are extremely complicated to calculate. For something as complicated as an organic molecule, a cell or a living organism, the degree of complexity is incalculable. If quantum particles had turned out to be hard spheres, then occultists, psychics and spiritualists would have been proven to be fools. Instead, we got quantum entanglement, probability amplitudes, dark (invisible) matter, and a field of mystery around every quantum particle.

Currently, I am trying to figure out how it might be possible for quantum entanglements to have been created, perhaps by the big bang itself, in such a way as to create invisible planes of consciousness. I want lifeforms to emerge that are made of vibrational states on branes made of quantum entanglements. There are ghosthunters on TV that seem to find evidence of spirit interactions of various kinds. Some of my ideas are influenced by that. While I wish there was a smoking gun as hard evidence for spirits and ghosts, I will only argue that reality is bigger than anything that physicists can scientifically test and prove. We live in that kind of universe.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 10:18 GMT
The rules of CGI are statistical, inescapable realities that organisms eventually have to face. A lot of people would probably prefer to do other things than go to their job 8 hours a day, but they do it anyway because the alternatives are less desirable (like being homeless). But that doesn't mean that the totality of human existence is about working. Humans engage in lots of other activities that contribute nothing to survival (day dream, worship, play games, read books, etc...)

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 17:09 GMT
What happens to the assumption that physics is reality if nature is dominated by phenomena that involves quantum entanglement and dark matter? It could mean that there really is a soul and an afterlife. It would mean that the neuroscience of consciousness becomes subject to quantum noise. It would mean that nature can express itself with paranormal phenomena, even if we don't think it should.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 17:35 GMT
If part of reality can manifest quantum entanglement and dark matter phenomena, then it probably means that spooky things are allowed to happen, even if they're scary. Some sleep paralysis encounters might be with real entities, some ghost encounters might really happen, and even some alien abductions might be dark matter entities. Just because it's scary doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 20:45 GMT
I came across a video of a ghost attack. I think it looks good.

This next video of a ghost attack is better.

this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

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.