CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
From mindless mathematics to thinking meat? by Matt Visser
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Matt Visser wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 16:02 GMT
Essay AbstractDeconstruction of the theme of this essay contest is already an interesting exercise in its own right: Teleology is rarely useful in physics --- the only known mainstream physics example (black hole event horizons) has a very mixed score-card --- so the "goals" and "aims and intentions'" alluded to in the theme of this essay contest are already somewhat pushing the limits. Furthermore, "aims and intentions" certainly carries the implication of consciousness, and opens up a whole can of worms related to the mind-body problem. As for "mindless mathematical laws", that allusion is certainly in tension with at least some versions of the "mathematical universe hypothesis". Finally "wandering towards a goal" again carries the implication of consciousness, with all its attendant problems. In this essay I will argue, simply because we do not yet have any really good mathematical or physical theory of consciousness, that the theme of this essay contest is premature, and unlikely to lead to any resolution that would be widely accepted in the mathematics or physics communities.
Author BioMatt Visser is mathematical physicist based at the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand. He is known for his work on Lorentzian wormholes, and analogue spacetimes, and more generally his work on black holes and cosmology, with some QFT thrown in for good measure.
Download Essay PDF File
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 19:39 GMT
Your paper has an interesting take on the relationship between event horizons and apparent horizons. Of course we know that event horizons are congruencies of null geodesics while apparent horizons are observer or frame dependent. An event horizon can only be detected, or inferred from the detection of things around it, for a completely stationary situation. The trapping surface is local to a coordinate frame and may be inferred completely. What about the transition between the two?
If you fall towards a black hole the black surface you witness splaying out below you is the event horizon. This is until you cross r = 2GM/rc^2. Then suddenly the event horizon becomes an apparent horizon. The question is how would you know the exact time you cross the event horizon? The infalling observer would need to know within a Planck time unit when they cross the horizon. The energy of the black hole E = Mc^2 which has black hole temperature T = ħg/2πck. This acceleration on the clock of mass m is then F = ma and the energy E = 1/2NkT gives E = GMm/r^2*L_p. Putting this together the estimated mass of the clock necessary to measure this fine scale would be m ~ GM^2\sqrt{c^3/Għ}. This is a colossal figure. So how does one know for certain whether a horizon is absolute or a relative trapping surface?
This does prevent an observer from cloning states. It prevents Bob from performing a swap out of a quantum states, which can teleport a state to Alice in the black hole, but where Bob can precisely time his entry into the black hole to find Alice before she is shredded by the singularity and produce cloned quantum states.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Daniel de França Diniz Rocha wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 01:01 GMT
Dear Matt Visser,
The brain is, due its dense connections, a strongly coupled euclidean 3 dimensional system, with low entropy. Computers, are, ideally, weakly 2 dimensional surface with high entropy. A brain is operates in low frequency, a computer, in high frequency. So, what could help in simulating the brain is taking advantage of some sort of holographic relation. Figuring out the operators in this case is perhaps the key.
Off topic: Verlinde updated its theory https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269 . Some discussion followed it, it seems in better shape now: https://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?gws_rd=cr&um=1&ie=UTF-
8&lr&cites=13085847397060900930
report post as inappropriate
Author Matt Visser replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 22:54 GMT
Dear Daniel:
1) Current computers are more-or-less 2 dimensional, (or more precisely weakly-coupled 2-dimesional sheets), only because of the relative simplicity of building and linking circuit boards --- but if we had appropriate technology, we could build a fully 3-d computer by building circuit-blocks instead of circuit-boards; this is a technological limitation, not a fundamental one... (which means the appeal to holography may not be all that appropriate...)
2) Verlinde-style entropic gravity still has a lot of problems...
Regards
Matt
Georgina Woodward wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 03:07 GMT
Hi Matt, the message coming through load and clear is that you didn't like the essay question. Nevertheless you put together an interesting read. I wouldn't have thought about black holes and teleology but you did.
Re. thinking meat; You do not consider the complexity of organisation, which includes branching fractal like growth of nerve fibers, vast numbers of connections, and structural organisation of functions of different regions; Allowing emergent characteristics. The brain certainly isn't just more meat. I like that you do acknowledge that there is a material component though.
I've recently watched two interesting lectures by Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky that you might find interesting too
Chaos and reductionism and
Emergence and complexity that contain some ideas relevant to what you have written, I think. kind regards Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:51 GMT
Hi GW,
Yes, I do agree with your spirit of observation that complexity could allow emergence of certain characteristics, but the mechanism and phenomenon of emergence must have a description and existence of its own. I mean, it must be seen even at the elemental level, it may not require vast numbers of agents, connections, or structural detail to exhibit the phenomenon. Furthermore, brain cells are attributed with the evidence of representing simple or complex information. Again, information must have a reality of its own even at the most fundamental level. I hope, I have enticed you to critique mine.
Rajiv
report post as inappropriate
Author Matt Visser replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 23:04 GMT
Dear Georgina, Rajiv:
1) Regarding the essay question: I feel it is maybe phrased too broadly; a more narrowly focussed question on a more limited topic might have been useful...
2) Regarding teleology: I feel it is important to take a careful look at how teleology has been applied in mainstream physics, and as far as I know black hole event horizons are the best (only) example...
3) Regarding thinking meat: Whether or not consciousness is "emergent" is perhaps one of the main implied themes of this FQXi essay contest; and again, it is best to condition one's expectations by checking out those physical theories for which emergence really has worked, (eg: molecular dynamics -> fluid mechanics), to get a realistic feel for what can and cannot be achieved...
Regards
Matt
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 08:10 GMT
matt, hi,
okay. deep breath. i'm glad to see that you have taken the question raised by this essay seriously, and endeavour to question its validity - or at least, conclude that, with no definition of consciousness mind existing, it is impossible to really answer the question. i note, sadly, that i have not yet found another essay other than my own which *actually* answers the question.
with some trepidation i would like to refer you to dr alex hankey's work on the foundations of consciousness. dr alex hankey has indeed provided a formal mathematical framework in which consciousness may be explored objectively. the foundation is in an entirely new form of self-referral quantum mechanics ("QM with a twist") which he utilises to describe "Critical Instability Points" within biological and other systems.
i say trepidation because it is most unfortunate in that simply mentioning the existence of his work - and that of others who also explore this topic - it undermines the premise of your essay. i can only deeply apologise for that, and would be interested to hear your thoughts given that it *is* in fact possible to formally and mathematically describe consciousness.
report post as inappropriate
James Arnold wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 16:34 GMT
Matt, when you write “the mathematics and physics communities… do not (yet) have any suitable and appropriate well-agreed-upon mathematical/physical framework to address” the issues questioned in the essay contest, you are quite right. Thought and feeling are not reducible to physics, and not attributable to mathematics. Some physicists deal with this barrier to their expertise by denying that thought and feeling even exist. But of course it takes feeling to want to concoct such a belief and thought to give it formulation.
report post as inappropriate
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 05:59 GMT
indeed - reducto ad absurdum, logically it is clearly not the case that thoughts and feelings cannot exist, thus we may infer that any physicist which attempts to deny that fact is... well... put simply and plainly: in a pathological psychological state. there's really not much point in beating about the bush and trying to say otherwise.
james i am most reluctant to say it but i do have to protest your assertion that thought and feeling may not be described formally in mathematical notation, or that they may not be "reduced" to physics. clearly we live in a physical world therefore there *has* to be some basis and link to cognition. otherwise, why do these people keep meeting every year to discuss that and other related subjects? http://www.foundationsofmind.org/
the 2017jan27 conference in san fransisco had 17 confirmed speakers. one of the papers presented summarises the results of meetings of over *forty* physicists and biologists who discuss the application of quantum mechanics to consciousness...
why, then - or how - is it possible to conclude that the question raised by this essay is not valid or legitimate, and on what basis can the peer-reviewed work of so many notable scientists be denied? sorry to have to be the one to ask these questions.
report post as inappropriate
James Arnold replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 09:42 GMT
Luke, no problem. We can disagree, right?
I have no problem with appreciating that consciousness is descended from "the physical." I'd actually say it is most expressive of something latent in "the physical."
I didn't say your paper was "invalid" or "illegitimate." I just disagree. Maybe I shouldn't be commenting until someone (you) have the opportunity to counter-critique. It feels like I'm sniping.
In any case, I suggest it's not a good idea to rest one's beliefs on counting the heads that agree.
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:05 GMT
Dear Matt,
> "I will argue, simply because we do not yet have any really good mathematical or physical theory of consciousness, that the theme of this essay contest is premature, and unlikely to lead to any resolution that would be widely accepted in the mathematics or physics communities"
That's right, at this stage we can only speculate. This is useful too: although...
view entire post
Dear Matt,
> "I will argue, simply because we do not yet have any really good mathematical or physical theory of consciousness, that the theme of this essay contest is premature, and unlikely to lead to any resolution that would be widely accepted in the mathematics or physics communities"
That's right, at this stage we can only speculate. This is useful too: although not Popperian science, but a part that leads to hypotheses. Most of them untestable at this moment, and those that can be tested don't clarify a bit what is consciousness.
> "event horizons fail Popper falsifiability, while apparent/trapping horizons are perfectly acceptable science in Popper’s sense"
You are right about event and apparent horizons, and I admire Hawking for being willing to give up ideas he previously endorsed with enthusiasm. I guess that many physicists who were bothered with the apparent information loss in black holes considered the horizon as local, apparent, and gave little weight to the teleological definition, although this one is the right one. Or perhaps they didn't ignore it, but the timelessness of the block world view made the involved teleology appear OK.
Regarding the wavefunction collapse, I agree again with the insufficiency of decoherence and various interpretations of QM is well supported. But I think teleology is not present only in Wigner-like interpretations. I think any attempt to a realistic interpretation, if it has to account for nonlocality and especially contextuality, has to be teleological. Elements of reality, whatever they are, have to be nonlocal both in space and time. Of course, I wouldn't speculate that this sort of teleology explains the tiniest bit of consciousness. I just think it is unavoidable, unless we give up reality, and replace with something like qubism (although I think this still only hides it by refusing to discuss about the physical processes between measurements). But I think that relativity comes to rescue, since the block world view makes this teleology or apparent retrocausality more digestible. Only if we want the world to start with any possible initial configuration and evolve in time in such a way that we don't see Schrodinger cats and the measurements have definite outcomes, we have to include the collapse or reject reality.
Your essay is enjoyable to read and contains good arguments, which converge well to the conclusion.
Best regards,
Cristi Stoica
The Tablet of the Metalaw
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:37 GMT
Oh! I did not realize that you had raised the point already only a few minutes ago. I stated the same, but there may be certain unexplored paths in physics which attempts to show how information is naturally associated with states of matter, implying that information has a reality of its own.
Rajiv
report post as inappropriate
Author Matt Visser replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 23:11 GMT
Dear Cristinel, Rajiv:
Speculation is good, as long as it is controlled and disciplined speculation...
Experimentalists have an adage: Never change more than one parameter at a time...
Theorists should probably take note --- don't introduce more than one new speculation at a time;
otherwise you are into uncontrolled and undisciplined speculation, with then little expectation of useful progress.
Regards
Matt
Cristinel Stoica replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 10:55 GMT
Dear Matt,
Very well said, I completely agree with you (although in my essay for this contest I allowed myself more freedom than I would normally do :) because I think it is a good opportunity to exchange ideas).
Best wishes,
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:20 GMT
Dear Matt,
"... simply because we do not yet have any really good mathematical or physical theory of consciousness, that the theme of this essay contest is premature, and unlikely to lead to any resolution that would be widely accepted in the mathematics or physics communities."
Challenge accepted ! But are you one of the rare ones who not only throw this challenge but also support the development of such a description in physics? After all, consciousness has emerged in physical systems, therefore, there must be a description of the physical world that allows it. In my encounters, I find a large section of physicists, who nip the arguments / development in the bud. Even in my inability to state it any differently from most of us who exaggerate our own claims -- I must invite you to comment on my essay, even though Brendan-San ensured that a fuller description could not appear among these essays. Of course, in this essay, I could not take the issue all the way up to actual emergence of Consciousness, but I hope, you will observe a definitive path.
Rajiv K Singh
report post as inappropriate
Author Matt Visser replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 23:17 GMT
Dear Rajiv:
I can only promise that I will not demand artificially high standards for any proposed physical theory of consciousness. The model should have a high degree of internal coherence, and some realistic hope of being connectable to experiment/observation...
Regards
Matt
Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Matt Visser,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 23:04 GMT
Nice essay Prof Visser,
Your analysis of the theme of the contest is nice… for example in the conclusion you said about your essay…. ‘The theme of the essay contest implicitly appeals to consciousness (be it human or otherwise) to even define aims" or intentions", and the fact that we simply do not have a coherent physical understanding of the ontology of consciousness….’...
view entire post
Nice essay Prof Visser,
Your analysis of the theme of the contest is nice… for example in the conclusion you said about your essay…. ‘The theme of the essay contest implicitly appeals to consciousness (be it human or otherwise) to even define aims" or intentions", and the fact that we simply do not have a coherent physical understanding of the ontology of consciousness….’
As you have already mentioned about the event horizons of Blackholes, I hope you may have look at my essay where there are no Blackholes, no singularities, no Bigbang, yet drives the Galaxies towards some goals!
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:29 GMT
Dear Mat Visser
I invite you and every physicist to read my work “TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I’m not a physicist.
How people interested in “Time” could feel about related things to the subject.
1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.
2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.
3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.
4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as “Time” definition and experimental meaning confronts them?
5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,… a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander…..
6) ….worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn’t a viable theory, but a proved fact.
7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.
8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.
9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.
11)Time “existence” is exclusive as a “measuring system”, its physical existence can’t be proved by science, as the “time system” is. Experimentally “time” is “movement”, we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure “constant and uniform” movement and not “the so called Time”.
12)The original “time manuscript” has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.
I share this brief with people interested in “time” and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.
Héctor
report post as inappropriate
Kookaetxelantza Zuntzunegi Zentzaibaitz wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 10:47 GMT
Dear Matt Visser,
By reading your essay one just can imagine consciousness as a bundle of fields over a manifold so-called space time.
This is just imagination and fantasy because what seems clear is this :
That bundle of fields , if there existed something like this thing , would be extraordinary weak here on Earth : human beings are unable to know this sort of question because the "field of consciousness "??? , here and now is very weak. In the past , it was even weaker than now and in the future it is going to vanish. Then, there may be the possibility of traveling points ( i think they were called anunnakis and that sort of stuff , most of them just fantasy and layers of lies over lies in order to make some money by making religions ) from patches of the manifold where the field is stronger than here . Obviously these points would be only able to come here from patches with stronger values of the field and the exception would be a case like that of that film about the alien and Sigourney Weber . ... Hence, consciousness owns to the field of fantasy and imagination, it has always been this way and it will remain the same.
Congratulations for your essay , best wishes.
report post as inappropriate
peter cameron wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 13:15 GMT
Matt,
Glad to see someone has taken the contrary approach to the organizer's theme. Agree that to claim a math model for sentience one must have an understanding of wavefunction collapse in the foundation of the model.
Curious re whether event horizons are or are not teleological. By the "...explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes"...
view entire post
Matt,
Glad to see someone has taken the contrary approach to the organizer's theme. Agree that to claim a math model for sentience one must have an understanding of wavefunction collapse in the foundation of the model.
Curious re whether event horizons are or are not teleological. By the "...explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes" definition, you seem to ask what purpose the event horizon serves and conclude none, as it is unobservable.
What this seems to ignore is quantum gravity. What defines a quantum system is phase coherence. With wavefunction collapse amplitude info is gained but phase info is lost. Phase is the local gauge variable, not observable in a single measurement. However it may be that this does not rule out the possibility obtaining information from the event horizon via multiple measurements. See for example the work of Vaidman and Aharonov on weak measurement, and in particular some interesting recent experimental results:
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/133
Agree with your assertion that "there are no black holes - in the sense of regimes where light cannot escape to infinity", with the possible exception of the singularity (presuming one might take it to be a regime). The piece missing from discussions such as this is the concept of impedance matching. The point singularity has infinite inductive impedance and zero capacitive impedance. One cannot impedance match to it, so energy cannot flow to or from the singularity. However one can calculate the impedance mismatch between say an electron and the event horizon at the Planck radius. The mismatch is huge, the resulting 'photon' wavelength many times the radius of the observable universe. You can see a plot of the impedance structure of the vacuum at Planck scale in figure 10 of this paper:
http://vixra.org/abs/1701.056
Agree with your conclusion that "...we do not (yet) have any suitable and appropriate well-agreed-upon mathematical/physical framework to address these issues." However I think we might have made some small step in that direction in the essay submitted by my co-author, Michaele Suisse.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2913
Best regards,
Pete
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Ben Tolkin wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 23:52 GMT
A good essay! It may be a little awkward to point out the problems with how this question was phrased so directly, but I don't think you can do a serious analysis without acknowledging the assumptions, vague terms, and generally poorly-defined nature of the prompt. I really wish other essays had spent more time on this, instead of diving in to their pet theories.
That said, I do think you could have moved on from acknowledging the problems with the question to defining your own terms and exploring these issues a little more. It may be true that we don't have enough knowledge of the physical brain to understand consciousness and aims; it's still useful to wonder if we could *ever* understand these in purely physical terms (at times it seemed a bit like you were assuming we could, which is not necessarily well-founded) and exploring these questions can still be interesting. If this topic is *so* premature nothing useful can be said about it, you wouldn't have written an essay at all, so you might as well go more in-depth on why it's premature and what steps we should take next instead!
report post as inappropriate
Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Prof. Visser,
I read your essay with great interest. I agree that the essay topic as stated deals with mind and consciousness, and that there are no consistent physical models that deal with these issues.
I think the missing link is the biological concept of evolutionary adaption. In evolution, random fluctuations provide the raw material, but they are filtered by the environment to select out structures that survive. Even consciousness may be an adaptive structure.
I address the issue of adaptation in my own essay,
“No Ghost in the Machine”. I argue that recognition of self, other agents, and a causal narrative are built into specific evolved brain structures, based on neural networks, which create a sense of consciousness as part of a dynamic model of the environment. The reason that this is such a difficult problem is that we are being misled by the subjective perceptions of our own minds. I further suggest that similar structures may be emulated in developing true artificial intelligence.
Alan Kadin
report post as inappropriate
james r. akerlund wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 04:49 GMT
Hi Matt,
I read your submission for this contest and your submission for the 2012 contest and I am trying to figure out why you didn't some how extend your 2012 submission and apply it to this years contest. Instead you say bad contest question. You know that is up to you and you wrote on that decision, fine. This year's contest did leave some very strange doors open for all kinds of strange ideas, but you didn't need to also entertain those ideas. My submission ignored those strange ideas that lead thru the human mind and looked at how math effects the universe. But reading your submissions, I doubt you will be able to stomach my words or thinking. By the way, my submission is in the vein of the many-worlds interpretation but it argues against your "...with the minds of conscious entities constantly dividing down the infinitely branching yggdrasillian world-tree of future possibilities. (And, if you take the path-integral approach seriously, a merging world-tree of past possibilities.)"
You ask the question; "Can mathematics exist without a mind to formulate it?" I counter that question with this one. Can Euclidean geometry exist in non-Euclidean spacetime? The answer is yes, where the rules of Euclidean geometry apply. The rules of Euclidean geometry apply regardless if a mind is applying them or not. The mind only finds that they apply it doesn't invent that they apply.
Anyway, good luck in the contest.
Jim Akerlund
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 06:16 GMT
Hi dear Matt,
Your sarcasm just killing, but I'm a man who respect this dealt!
But let me ask - where are you? I would like talk on this matter, in case you see this purposeful. Let me know please (in my page)
Regards,
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 07:44 GMT
Hi Matt,
Very well presented. It should be a preface to the contest. If I read your essay first, it would have added clarity to my own work. And do check out my essay. I believe you will enjoy it.
Also the paper: http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/1188/1163
will tickle your cosmological interests.
Thanks,
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:47 GMT
Dear Sirs!
Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».
New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.
Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Narayan Kumar Bhadra wrote on Mar. 25, 2019 @ 16:39 GMT
We study with a new conception beyond the standard model physics and about the formation of biological molecules/atoms. Our physical universe appeared by a continuous symmetry breaking of the new energy sources from ‘Big Rip’ Singularity[i.e. when space-time(here we consider the square of the Einstein’s real space & time of the physical unfolded universe i.e., -R2)is infinity in another...
view entire post
We study with a new conception beyond the standard model physics and about the formation of biological molecules/atoms. Our physical universe appeared by a continuous symmetry breaking of the new energy sources from ‘Big Rip’ Singularity[i.e. when space-time(here we consider the square of the Einstein’s real space & time of the physical unfolded universe i.e., -R2)is infinity in another phase] to the “Super Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(11)”(that means considering the Revised Standard Model of Physics) then GUT the “Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(5)”[i.e., the present Standard Model of Physics], i.e. in a “Particular Physical Universe” (called a narrower universe) [there may be created several type of particular “ Physical Universe” in the ocean(filled with new energy sources explained details in my previous articles) of the wider universe which infinitely largest].These class of symmetry group starting from Big-Rip singularity where energy pressure and density exists[it was shown in my article “The Complex Quantum and Classical Pseudo-Tachyonic Universe”, IOSR Journal of Mathematics (IOSR-JM) e-ISSN: 2278-5728,p-ISSN: 2319-765X, Volume 8, Issue 3 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 15-32 www.iosrjournals.org)] and can be expressed mathematically(by using lie-algebra) as SU(5) SU (3) SU( 2) U(1); SU(11) SU (5) SU( 6) U(1); SU (23) SU (12) SU (11) U (1); SU (47) SU(24) SU (23) U (1); ...........so on.
Thus we assumed that our physical universe appeared by the continuous phase-like transition creating several new energies(compared as like Gas-Vapor-Liquid states) and actually unfolded with the symmetry breaking of the Super Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(11) [ SU (6) SU( 5) U(1)]leaving with new energy sources SU(6), called latent energy groups as explained details in my previous articles, and SU(5) [ SU (3) SU( 2) U(1)], the Gaussian Unified Energy group (GUT) and the electrodynamics U(1), which are inevitable arises particles that have the characteristics of a magnetic monopole. Monopoles are highly stable particles and once created they are not destructible. And so they would survive as relics to the present epoch.
Again our all experiments and measurements or truths/believes are mainly on the basis of “Standard Model of Physics” or “General Relativity Theory” that means any calculation or experiments made on the basis of matter universe(i.e., 4-dimensional universe where so called space-time-matter exists, although it is called real that means only for a particular purpose that counting for a complete matter body like physical universes, cluster, galaxies, stars, humans, lives, trees,…etc.) formed by the Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(5), we called it’s a narrower universe i.e., a particular physical universe where expansion and contraction both may be occurred simultaneously within the speed of light for a particular observer and hence Lorentz transformation, Time dilation,…..etc. Violations may be occurred when we go beyond the “Standard Model of Physics” of SU(5) to the “Revised Standard Model of Physics” i.e., SU(11), thus outside the physical universe, in the case of the “Wider Universe” where the energy particles were found in another phase. We illustrate the scenario with an example that when water decomposed into Hydrogen and Oxygen, the character of water are far different from the characters of hydrogen and oxygen.
Again, it was considered that the human brain and its mental aspects are associated with classical brain physiology and are also part of a quantum physical universe. The human brain conceived as an interfacing organ that not only produces mind and consciousness but also receives information. The brain or its parts of the brain are conceived as an interference hologram of incoming data and already existing data which equivalent to the subject’s memory.
Thus our consciousness or intelligence is a part of the universal consciousness or intelligence.
The animate and inanimate bodies are developed or expanded in the similar manner. The physical universe expanded from so called Big-Bang singularity scheduled by the conscious energy groups SU(12), SU(6),.….etc. but the situations created slowly after the symmetry breaking of SU(23), then SU(11)……..etc. then by rapidly unfolded matter energies by the symmetry breaking of the Unified Gaussian Group SU(5) by exchanging the bosons of the latent energy group of SU(6) into the bosons of SU(5) in the theory of the Super Unified Gaussian Group SU(11) and then Jk–bosons of conscious energies SU(6) are therefore tightly binding the quark-likes particles and then gradually formed protons-likes, neutron-likes,….etc. quasi-particles having masses may have been five times that of the usual protons, neutrons,….etc or having much more new unknown particles (which are very much medical relevance for better and critical treatments) created other than Hadrons, Hyperons, Nucleons,…etc. of SU(5) and after then those unknown particles may gradually increasing their strengths like as increasing the atomic numbers of usual matter atoms and hence we may found heavy bio-molecular living matter atoms etc. and then created multiple bio-molecular cells combining with nonliving matter atoms. Thus living matters always created by the energies of the group of SU(6) together with all other atoms/elements/compound elements/mainly covalence-compounds….etc. which was formed only after the symmetry breaking of the nonliving matter energy groups of SU(5) as, encountered in condensed matter physics, e.g., in the description of the
conduction electron sea, excitons, magnons, polarons, polaritons, etc. (Ashcroft & Mermin, 1976). This is very important in view of the potential importance of quantum effects in biology and in consciousness where not only are systems of many particles considered, but they function at high temperatures compared to those typically encountered in quantum physics then so called various kind of complex living cell bodies.
It should right that the actual real time measurement or calculation counting from the symmetry breaking of the Super Unified Energy Group SU(11) instead of the symmetry breaking of the Unified Energy Group (GUT) of SU(5). For lives, the real time was measured in two halves first from the fertilization by their parents(actual counting of time started) and second from the birth till to the death, although for our age(time) calculations, we ignore the first half similarly for the real time calculations of our physical universe we ignore the first half that means from the symmetry breaking of SU(11)up to the next symmetry breaking of SU(5)[although material substances created by the Unified Gaussian Group SU(5) by the directions of SU(6) with a suitable situations when it is possible to create bio-molecules that means all then chemical elements created from hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon,…etc. and with heavier elements or compound elements created by the quarks were tightly binding with gluons etc. of SU(5), and thus inanimate particles are then ready for the creation of the animates particles that means the situation when we consider to produce biological molecules or other units like single live cell then gradually multiple cells with DNA/RNA pairs, chromosome pairs,….etc. where most of the organic compounds in which are mainly constructed by the co-valence compounds or compositions or constituted like polymers which are also tightly binding by theJk–bosons(latently)[details ofJk–bosons explained in my previous articles] of SU(6) and creating strong electromagnetic forces[in theory of SU(11) where the latent energy group of SU(6) are created so strong forces relatively the weak forces of SU(5)] (that means in comparison to the chemical elements or compounds elements of atoms/molecules etc. which are constructed by the quarks binding with gluons ….etc. are weaker than some of the unknown new particles formed by the quarks-likes binding withJk–bosons) or creating a strong current SU(6) in the frame-work of SU(6) U(1) like the weak force SU(2) created a weak current in the frame-work of SU(2) U(1) are ready to dynamical situations within the living matters or cells or lives. Our physical universe expanded up to Big-Break singularity like by the directional commands with the energy group SU(6)[by exchanging 30-number of bosons of SU(6) into the 30-number of bosons of SU(5) or vice-versa by exchanging the J-bosons of SU(11)] created like so called consciousness together with all other leaving new energy sources SU(12), SU(24),…..etc. Thus we may be assumed that consciousness is not only in animates but also for inanimate (where quarks are tightly binding by the gluons forming protons, neutrons, electrons,…. etc. for nonliving matters) for which unfolded in a suitable situations like earth(where quark-like particles are tightly binding by theJk–bosons of SU(6) for living matters) and the created residue unknown new particles other than usual particles (that means as like protons, neutrons, electrons,…..etc. which are formed by quarks with gluons) are always remained within the living and nonliving elements or compound elements or covalence compounds or polymers…..etc. as quantum gravity and everywhere which are called as vacant spaces within our universe. The above mentioned processes are always occurred continuously in the wider universe which is infinitely larges with other new energy sources. Hence in quantum theories of consciousness, it is suggested that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe.
Energies of SU(6) created quantum gravity as well as gravitational forces which are required for the formation of a complete body with definite shape for living and nonliving matter bodies, like stars with its planets,…. etc. and living bodies with its parts,…. etc. and then so called vacant spaces are properly filled with the strong new forces of SU(6) around us and also formed like living cells with organic and inorganic elements or compounds…. etc. mainly constructed by the chemical co-valence compounds (carbon based like in earth, another planet may be silicon based etc., because carbon and silicon belongs to the same group in our periodic table) that means which are more flexible for creating several angled atomic bonds other than rigid crystal-likes and then it is bindings with cells may operated more easily than other rigid or crystal solid bodies of elements/compound elements and hence formed as biological cells by creating with polymerizations etc. and hence then cell-divisions etc. Within the biological cells SU(6) combining with all other several elements or compound elements with different ions which are created more different waves but coherently emerging as a single wave or wave functions. Thus in the bio-molecules/atoms etc. where all material parts created by the elements/atoms of the Unified Gaussian Energy Group (GUT) of SU(5) delivering behaviors like intelligence, consciousness, mind, emotions,…. etc. with the combinations of the new energy sources of SU(6),….etc. and also created an electromagnetic force or current within the brain cells i.e., microtubules by the latent energy group SU(6) creating
an electromagnetic strong force in the framework of SU(6) U(1) with producing new unknown particles in the living mode or nonliving mode.Thus for living bodies through ion channel constituted a flow of current throughout the body carrying with charges of free electron-likes etc. and also may be similar for the case in the universe where stars atmosphere like as brain cell……etc.(taking as centre point) always controlled the whole system for example our solar system etc. The created amount of material substances by SU(5)changing by the bosons of SU(6) are always fixed for a particular nonliving/living developing bodies and hence for expansive universe or for its parts of the system till for the compilation or stable shaped. Similarly, after a certain or fixed time (age) our living bodies started like contraction. Thus, always maintaining a common system like for universe /cluster/galaxy/star/planet/animal/…..etc. those are all controlled mainly by the same energy sources of SU(6), then by others like SU(12),SU(24),..…etc. with the combination of the strong force SU(3), weak force SU(2), & electrodynamics U(1) of SU(5).
view post as summary
attachments:
Abstract.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.