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

Steve Agnew: on 3/10/18 at 21:29pm UTC, wrote ...or is the universe made up of space and time emerging from objects and...

Tejinder Singh: on 3/4/18 at 4:08am UTC, wrote Hi. No, not neutrinos. Tejinder

Wayne Lundberg: on 3/3/18 at 18:17pm UTC, wrote Tejinder, That would suggest that you would be concerned with neutrino...

Terry Bollinger: on 3/1/18 at 13:20pm UTC, wrote Tejinder, Thank you, I am deeply appreciative of your help on this point!...

Tejinder Singh: on 3/1/18 at 5:27am UTC, wrote Dear Wayne, Thank you so much for your kind remarks! I have left a brief...

Tejinder Singh: on 3/1/18 at 3:25am UTC, wrote Dear Terry, Never mind the ratings! :-) I am most grateful to you for...

Terry Bollinger: on 2/28/18 at 1:06am UTC, wrote Tejinder, Wayne is underselling himself. He is very sharp and creative, and...

Wayne Lundberg: on 2/28/18 at 0:29am UTC, wrote Tejinder, It must be fascinating to consider such philosophical questions,...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Laverne Klein: "Nice one" in FQXi's New Large Grant...

Yahoo support: "I actually did not understand the blog what the author wants to convey, so..." in Co-Travelers

reseller propolis: "Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil ..." in DNA Dust

reseller propolis: "Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil ..." in Is the world made of...

reseller propolis: "Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil ..." in Co-Travelers

reseller propolis: "Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil ..." in . . . and a Side of...

reseller propolis: "Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil ..." in Quantum Distractions

reseller propolis: "Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil ..." in Open Source Science


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

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.


FQXi FORUM
May 24, 2018

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Things, Laws, and the Human Mind by Tejinder Pal Singh [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 23, 2018 @ 19:57 GMT
Essay Abstract

The physical universe is made up of objects and events in space and time. We refer to them collectively as Things. How does the human mind convert things in the observed universe, into laws? What role does our consciousness play in this conversion process? We propose that the dynamic pathways connecting the neurons in our brains have a dual interpretation, as a thing-law. The pathways are things, by virtue of their material nature. However, our consciousness also accords a pathway the interpretation of a law, which could be a thought, an idea, an emotion, a number, a geometrical figure, a physical law, or a mathematical theorem. The mind's conversion of things into laws is what we call the horizontal fundamental. But are laws different from things? In the emergent complex universe, apparently yes. However, as we dig deeper and deeper into the reductionist layers of reality, a process we call the vertical fundamental, laws and things become more and more like each other, until deepest down, they become one and the same.

Author Bio

Tejinder Singh is a professor of physics at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai. His research interests are in quantum gravity, gravitation theories with torsion, the quantum measurement problem, and the problem of time in quantum theory.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 08:59 GMT
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

thank you for sharing your interesting point of view. It looks like that you argue that laws are concrete as things, or even more – I think that they are both void, but the view is not so different.

Good luck and best wishes!

Francesco

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 14:38 GMT
Dear Francesco,

Thank you! I have had a first browse through your pretty essay, and will respond to it there shortly.

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Francesco D'Isa replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 18:20 GMT
Thank you for your comment on my essay! I answered there.

bests,

Francesco

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


a l wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 10:18 GMT
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

I really enjoyed reading tour essay - it is persuasive and elegantly written. I am enclined to think your thesis shows much similarity to what I have submitted under the title "A Fundamental loop". Arriving at a tripartition laws/things/mind appears to be inevitable as long as we use language and it is just one more variation of the well known and much discussed Semiotic Triangle consisting of sign/thing/concept. People have been interested most often in just one side e.g. German philosophers ignored signs or scientists chose to ignore concepts.Also, I think, one should refrain from ontological committment if three domains are to remain distinct; otherwise the triangle colapses into a dichotomy. You wrote " In trying to understand how the human mind converts things into laws, we are led to conclude that the mathematical world and the physical world are one and the same. " This looks like the classical opposition subject/object. It introduces perhaps some ambiguity in the next sentence which appears to expose the gist of your approach: "The search for this union is what we would like to call fundamental". Do we agree that such a union would be rather trivial for a pair but not for a triad?

Best.

a.losev

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 14:47 GMT
Hi. Thanks so much for your wonderful comments and for telling me about the Semiotic triangle.

Regarding the union of the pair of mathematics and physics - I am puzzled when you say it will be trivial. Maybe you mean it in some philosophical sense that I am not understanding? I would have said the union would be profound and beautiful, and is an extremely tough and challenging goal for physicists.

But I agree with you that the union of the triad mathematics/mind/physical world will be most fascinating - I think of it as the bottom vertex of the vertical fundamental - where the mind also merges with physics and mathematics. Whether this has something to do with consciousness? Maybe. I don't know the answer but your question is undoubtedly a profound one. Thanks.

I will surely read your essay.

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


a l replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 19:02 GMT
I think that reductions are trivial and they look successful because they omit something. A physicalist view might propose that mathematical objects exist only mentally and the mind is just a brain state. This is the materialist answer to "what is fundamental". More interesting, even if not very convincing, is the inverse reduction made popular lately by Max Tegmark's "mathematical universe hypothesis". So, either maths and physics are objective and the mind is subjective, or perhaps physics is fundamental and all the rest is just a complication. I have been trying to argue that in order to have two things you need a difference - which is a third one, something you might find uninteresting or irrelevant but which is nevertheless mandatory. This is a functional viewpoint which can be sustained, while the substantial approach tends to collapse.

And Thank you for reading and commenting my essay.

a.l.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 17:03 GMT
Dear Tejinder

Indeed the mind is total different from the “I”, that is why I say ; You won’t find the announcer inside the radio” You say “Enter Consciousness “The Watcher”, but isn’t the watcher inside our emergent reality also an “EVENT” ? Of course you are aware of the study of Hammerhoff and Penrose where a bridge is perceived between the micro and the macro reality . see also this link

Your “vertical fundamental” perception is the same reason that I am in favour “Causal Emergence”.

You mention “Only the mind knows time; consciousness does not know time.” I would like to say : The time-restricted part of consciousness that is the origin of the “I am” is a part of the TIMELESS Consciousness (Total Consciousness).

I enjoyed travelling together with you and appreciated your participation highly.

I hope you will find some time to readmy essay "Foundational Quantum Reality Loops" where I try to give an answer to your question "Understanding how consciousness emerges as a state of matter is unfortunately beyond the scope of the present essay, and we simply assume the watcher as a given"

best regards

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 02:38 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Greetings, and thanks so much for reading my essay and commenting on it.

>Indeed the mind is total different from the “I”, that is why I say ; You won’t find the announcer inside >the radio” You say “Enter Consciousness “The Watcher”, but isn’t the watcher inside our emergent >reality also an “EVENT” ? Of course you are aware of the study of Hammerhoff and Penrose where a >bridge is perceived between the micro and the macro reality . see also this link

I am inclined to think of consciousness as the law aspect of a thing, with the thing being the organism/brain/connectome (I do not know exactly which of these `things'). In that sense, for me the watcher is the law aspect, rather than the event aspect, with the event actually belonging to the category `things'.

>Your “vertical fundamental” perception is the same reason that I am in favour “Causal Emergence”.

We are more or less in agreement here, I think :-)

>You mention “Only the mind knows time; consciousness does not know time.” I would like to say : >The time-restricted part of consciousness that is the origin of the “I am” is a part of the TIMELESS >Consciousness (Total Consciousness).

I don't get this Wilhelmus :-) What did you mean by the `time-restricted' part of consciousness, or `total consciousness'?

>I hope you will find some time to read my essay "Foundational Quantum Reality Loops" where I try to >give an answer to your question "Understanding how consciousness emerges as a state of matter is >unfortunately beyond the scope of the present essay, and we simply assume the watcher as a given"

This sounds wonderful. Thanks. Will read your essay soon.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Wilhelmus de Wilde replied on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Tejinder

Indeed we are "in agreement about your "vertcal fundamental perception, we use different words and...In causal emergence I see "steps" fromwhere new phenomena can emerge (like in the essay from Eric P. Hoel last year.

I don't get this Wilhelmus :-) What did you mean by the `time-restricted' part of consciousness, or `total consciousness'?

Sorry for the error in my expression here, with the "restricted part" I mean the consciousness as we are experiencing it in this specific emerging reality. Total Consciousness as I see it is OUTSIDE all the restrictions like time and space , outside our emerging reality. It is beyond the Planck area (however area is not a good description) that I call Total Simultaneity. "Here" all realities ra emerging like LOOPS. (see my essay). And here again we agree both it is about the "things" that go beyond our comprehension, and it is good that we both can say "I don't know"

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Narendra Nath replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 09:32 GMT
May i interject re. consciousness. There are a variety of levels of this entitiy. It can be defined as per Dictionary meaning of this word. Human beings and our predecessors came into the scene only 15/20 thousand years back. At the te same Universe has been existing in its present form since millions of years. Intelligent life also could be existing else where than our Earth with our Sun as star. Consciousnees for individuals exists as 'awarenss ' level. It varies on a tremendous scale amongst us too. For example, i rate our ancesters back 3 to 5 thousands years back, as having far greater insight than most of us have about LIFE. There is internal as well as external life. Science governs the latter while the former is governed by Spirituality, unlike religions practiced today! As the Universe shows a logical growth from its start billions of years back, we should wonder about its Creator, if we believe that nothing has not created every thing! Thus there exists a cosmic part of consciousness which has created the Universe. We call it GOD. Today, humans have various levels of it! Starting at lowest level are the animal instincts then going up we have a normal being and then we have men of wisdom. Finally, i prefer to call them the Great Rishis that existed well over 3 to 5 thousand year back who composed the Vedas and Upanishads. For myself i can say that reading an Upanishad and comprehending it to my better limit, it took me through repeated stages of studying such ancient scripts for comprehending and understanding the same to the best of my ability!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Branko L Zivlak wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 09:28 GMT
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

Your conclusion:

„In trying to understand how the human mind converts things into laws, we are led to conclude that the mathematical world and the physical world are one and the same.“

It's the same as my conclusion in the previous FQX-i contest.

Interesting is the Collatz conjecture, which ends with 16, 8, 4, 2. Not knowing about that conjecture I have assumed the importance of number 16(2^4) in the article „Two Significant Cosmological Masses“, http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View
/5752

I appreciate your essay.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 04:15 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thank you for reading my essay and for telling me about conclusions of your earlier essay.

Indeed, I agree that powers of 2, as well as numbers of the form 2^n -1, have a special role in the Collatz conjecture.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Siddhant Bahuguna wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Professor Singh,

Thank you for the insightful thoughts. I just happened to reach to your conclusion " In trying to understand how the human mind

converts things into laws, we are led to conclude that the mathematical world and the physical world are one and the same", and, to my small surprise, this is pretty much what I had conveyed in my essay. Its definitely a positive sign!

Sincerely,

Siddhant Bahuguna

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 05:27 GMT
Dear Siddhant,

Thank you for your remarks, and for pointing me to your essay. I gave it a first read just now, but I need to get back to it later to understand what you are trying to convey.

Best,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Aditya Dwarkesh wrote on Jan. 25, 2018 @ 15:13 GMT
Hi Tejinder,

Your essay was entertaining. I enjoyed your rather mildly solipsistic (with respect to mathematics) take on the whole thing, since my own viewpoint also has a dose of solipsism.

You say:

"the mathematical world and the physical world are one and the same. The search for this union is what we would like to call fundamental. Everything springs from this union."

Wouldn't incompleteness theorems and Gödelian results cause heavy limitations on the amount of help mathematics can give us with physical reality? What are your thoughts on this?

Regards,

Aditya

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 04:45 GMT
Dear Aditya,

Thank you for reading my essay, and for your remarks.

As for Godel's theorem and its implications, you of course have an important question. However, it seems to me that this question is relevant irrespective of whether mathematics is *in* the Things, or not in the Things. I cannot answer your question with authority, but I feel we should be open to the possibility that in future, both physics and mathematics, as well as our understanding of the implications of Godel's theorem, might evolve in such a way that the apparent limitations do not arise.

An interesting read on Godel and physics is this article by Barrow: Godel and Physics

As Barrow says,

"We argue that there is no reason to expect Gödel incompleteness to handicap the search for a description of the laws of Nature, but we do expect it to limit what we can predict about the outcomes of those laws,..."

Best,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear FQXi,

The onslaught of 1 rating has begun! :-) I just got a 1 and came down from 7.4 in five ratings to 6.3 in six ratings. And I figured the highest rating essay [Hossenfelder] also got a 1 rating and is down from 7.9 in ten ratings to 7.3 in eleven ratings. Other essays have been attacked too. Whoever has given these meaningless 1s should be exposed and disqualified from this contest. And seriously, these torpedo 1s should be removed from everyone's score.

Thanks,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Aditya Dwarkesh replied on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 15:54 GMT
Would like to piggyback on this and add that my own essay's rating has also suffered heavily in this, going straight from 7.3 in 3 to 6.0 in 4.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 21:25 GMT
I will add my vote that FQXi disqualify the 1-bombers. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 07:29 GMT
I subscribe to your request to FQXi, as it happened to me and others about the same time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan M. Kadin wrote on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Prof. Singh,

Your essay makes interesting observations about a number of different topics.

You seem to suggest that the conscious mind is distinct from the brain. In my FQXi essay last year, “No Ghost in the Machine”, I took the opposite viewpoint. I argued that consciousness reflects a specific brain structure that evolved to create a dynamic model of the environment which recognizes self, other agents, and objects.

You also question the foundations of quantum mechanics and space-time, but you seem to accept the orthodox statement of the problem. On the contrary, my essay this year, “Fundamental Waves and the Reunification of Physics”, argues that both general relativity and QM have been largely misunderstood. QM should not be a general theory of nature, but rather a mechanism for creating discrete soliton-like wavepackets from otherwise classical continuous fields. These same quantum wavepackets have a characteristic frequency and wavelength that define time and space, enabling GR without invoking an abstract curved spacetime.

This picture has no quantum entanglement, which has important technological implications. In the past few years, quantum computing has become a fashionable field for R&D by governments and corporations. But the predicted power of quantum computing comes directly from entanglement. I predict that the entire quantum computing enterprise will fail within about 5 years. Only then will people start to question the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 12:26 GMT
Dear Prof. Kadin,

Greetings, and good to meet you here again.

Yes, we seem to differ on the issue of consciousness vs. mind. I would like to quote my direct personal experience, namely that one can do simple meditation, to become the watcher, and watch one's thoughts and minds as if from `outside'. I have also been helped in this by the teachings of Eckhart Tolle, who presents this viewpoint in a simple language, essentially re-presenting ancient spiritual teachings for the modern man, so to say! I also find Alex Hanesky expressing such a view in his essay here. However I do agree that many people do not accept such a mind - consciousness split.

As for what you say about quantum mechanics, it will indeed be remarkable if breakdown of entanglement in macroscopic systems is experimentally observed in the coming years.

I look forward to reading your essay in the coming days.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



John Brodix Merryman wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 00:41 GMT
Professor Singh,

One thought to consider about time, thought and consciousness is that while consciousness goes from one thought to the next, these thoughts coalesce and dissolve, hence consciousness goes past to future, while thought goes future to past.

I think there is a lot about time that needs to be reconsidered. Is it really the Newtonian,narrative flow, which physics codifies as measures of duration, or it just change and our perception is flashes of sequence?

We still see the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 12:31 GMT
Dear Professor Merryman,

My greetings.

I did not quite understand your first paragraph. In my essay I say that consciousness is timeless, it does not know time. Only the mind knows the flow of time.

I whole-heartedly agree with you that we have a long way to go before we understand time.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


John Brodix Merryman replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 15:18 GMT
Tejinder,

Sorry about that. You give a very dense and logical description of the relationship between "things" and laws. I think there are a few issues which might frame this relationship from a different perspective.

Because our thoughta are flashes of perception, we think of time as a narrative dimension, with events strung along it, separated by intervals of duration, thus...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 07:27 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

This was a beautiful journey, starting from the apparent duality between things and laws, and arriving to their unity using arguments from physics. Also I think the notion of "law" you use unifies "meaning", "qualia", "physical law", and "mathematical truth" in a natural way. While I was reading in your essay the paragraph about stars and the motion of Mars, The Motion of Stars started to play in my music player, adding a soundtrack to your insightful thoughts, and reminding me how music is one of the purest examples of law. With this essay, I realized how much your apparently diverse interests visible in your articles and essays converge and become different paths of the same trip to the oneness (by the way, the Collatz conjecture is considered by some a mathematical illustration of oneness). Thanks again for the intellectual and spiritual breakfast at the beginning of my day!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 12:45 GMT
Dear Cristi,

Hello again, and thanks so much for your kind comments on my essay!

Indeed, I have been helped a lot by Eckhart Tolle's simple writings, to appreciate the difference between consciousness and mind. It seems to make `understanding of understanding' a little easier!

And yes, as you very kindly noted, I have tried to put this to use to understand better the `unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in physics'. If mathematics is *in* the Things, this realisation comes as a relief, with one no longer having to look for what Georgina elegantly refers to above as `mathematics' natural home'.

And trying to understand the weirdness of quantum mechanics will indeed illuminate space-time structure. And trying to understand consciousness and the mind, something we physicists have long ignored, is likely to help us with complex physical systems. You yourself have written deeply on related issues in the past, and I am looking forward to reading your new essay too.

Kind regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 14:22 GMT
Dear Eckard,

Greetings. Good to meet you again.

> I fundamentally disagree with your opinion that laws and things (map and territory) "become more and more like each other, until deepest down, they become one and the same".

Its perfectly understandable if we disagree. For me, this realisation - that maths is in the things -

comes as a relief! I have struggled...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 10:01 GMT
Thanks Eckard,

I will surely read your essay.

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Eckard Blumschein replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 17:49 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

In a reply I referred to your sentence "I fully agree with you that the `current border between past and future is the only fixed point'."

Perhaps this reply got lost for unknown reason although I got a confirmation. Did you read it nonetheless?

Maybe it was taboo to blame Einstein for writing "past, present, and future"?

I criticized that the present is strictly speaking not a state but just the border between the past and the future. The present is a fuzzy notion that may include parts from both. There is no extension between the past and the future.

A point is something that has no parts.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 22:29 GMT
Tejinder,

Thanks for your very original and interesting thoughts and ideas. It may have been better in last years contest but was valid none the less. I do also appreciate your excellent clear writing style standing out from others far harder to read.

I'd like to discuss views on areas ours have in common, the electron, EPR & QM. I have to disagree with an electron BEING it's algorithmic description even if non-commutative, but don't think you were serious. ...Were you?

To explain my view clearly it's best to read my, possibly shocking, essay, deriving a wholly classical set of QM predictions including (EPR) local reality from x,y,z axis electron momenta taken from simple spinning spheres (as momentum exchange on absorption & requantization). including a simple experimental proof. I hope those with adequate knowledge can find flaws, but so far none (mostly stony silence from shock!)

Please also read Declan Trails short essay giving the matching code and cos2 graph plot with CHSH>2 violation with no detection loophole.(steering inequality >1). I hope you feel that may answer the questions and concerns you posed. Or let me know where you think there remain doubts.

You last line question might then be a resounding NO! But let me know if you reach the same conclusion - if not too shocked!

Many thanks, for your essay and anticipated responses.

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 09:59 GMT
Dear Peter,

Greetings! It is good to meet you again. Thanks so much for your kind remarks and for reading my essay.

> I'd like to discuss views on areas ours have in common, the electron, EPR & QM. I have to disagree with an electron BEING it's algorithmic description even if non-commutative, but don't think you were serious. ...Were you?

I am dead serious about this, Peter :-) One way I can try to motivate this, at least for myself, is the inescapable need for a complex function to describe a `real' particle such as the electron. Whatever description / formulation of quantum theory we might want to use, it seems impossible to escape complex numbers. When mathematics creeps in so critically in a physical description, I feel more comfortable in identifying the two, rather than persisting with the thing versus law dichotomy. Then there is the apparent delocalization in physical space, and finally the likely disappearance of classical space concept in quantum gravity.

I will surely read your essay, and Trail's. I might not have any comments; kindly don't infer no comments as not read :-)

My best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 13:04 GMT
Tejinda,

That's a brave move! But don't you feel it's a bit desperate? I hope you're half that brave & comment on the classical ontology. i.e. identify the slightest flaw you may perceive. You'll see why I suggest a better option on studying it.

Yes. Electrons needed complex functions. I show the REAL motions, experimentally at larger scale with photo's and a short video showing the twin paired & inverse momenta (also showing 'non-integer' spins). Yes, 'complex numbers' can be used but best to consider all 3 degrees of freedom one at a time, in Cartesian 'planes' to build a physical picture.

Producing apparent 'nonlocality' is central to the model. It only takes (anti)parallel polar axes to adequately 'entangle' each pair, then study real exchange of momentum on absorption/requantized emission ('measurement') by polariser & photomultiplier field electrons.

Consider; Bob reversing electron polar angle reverses HIS finding, so we get pairs; S,S not S,N, or p,p. not p,q. but in the 'complex' (just multiple) planes. It's only rocket science! Bill McHarris explains how statistics then used the wrong assumptions.

I (we) even point to where QG can then emerge, but only as an aside. It still needs the right person to follow that up. (Tell me if you fancy it).

Very best,

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 13:12 GMT
Tejinder,

I forgot above to add the link to the very short version of the video;100 second video; https://youtu.be/WKTXNvbkhhI

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 03:06 GMT
I have composed and published some writings of mine on topics like. viz. Science Interface with Spirituality, Inconstancy of the Physical Constants, Cosmology and Particle Physics, a relative study.... I find a study of thoughts interesting. It does not have a continuous train, there are short and longer gaps.It is during such gaps that our mind comes into full play and it is able to interact with cosmos in a better way. Here i give a personal quote from Einstein, which was published in a book by Professor D.S. Kothari. Einstein has said that what are called my top discoveries have not come out of my intellectual thoughts. These have come from some empty moments in the thought processes and thus these came from external sources to my usual thinking. That is i have not thought about these!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Narendra Nath replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 04:35 GMT
I give a liitle more of the Eictein quote. In fact, ladies at Princeton were keen to meet the genuis Einstein. Einstein knew what they were going to seek the background behind discoveries associated with him. Only he knew the truth. He had problems in his mind and his own thoughts/ thinking processes were busy deciphering them. He was not thinking about photoelectric effect or relativity as such. It is then that happened which have already been expressed above, as he directed his house maid not to permit entry to these ladies, as he had nothing to clear their curiousity!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 10:16 GMT
Dear Narendra,

Is the universe as a whole Conscious; is there something such as cosmic consciousness? I honestly do not know the answer. For human beings at least we can say that we experience self-awareness. As for the universe, we only know it through observations and experiments, and through the physical laws we discover about the universe. How are we to conclude from these that the universe is self-aware in the same way that human beings are? Maybe future developments in science will prove you right. At present, I do not know! :-)

I fully agree with you that great ideas are often born in the `no-thought' state. I hesitate to conclude from here that human consciousness is hence interacting with a `cosmic consciousness', leading to the discovery of this new idea. Simpler for me is that human consciousness is at work, and according the law aspect to the neural pathway. This need not require us to actively engage in thinking.

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Narendra Nath replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 14:13 GMT
We may differ. I like to rate philosophy as the mother of sciences. Science developed a methodology when it started operating seperately from original mother philosophy. Our current methodogy norms may well restrict its growth. I tend to associate freedom of a disciplined mind to go beyond our scientific methodology. The latter should be an ever expanding paradigm, that goes with expanding scietific knowledge.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Christophe Tournayre wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 06:43 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

I enjoyed reading your essay; it was well written and interesting. I was concerned when you start to address the subject of consciousness. I really like your search for consistency between things and laws.

Kind regards, Christophe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Narendra Nath replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 07:51 GMT
Christophe and Tejinder, please excuse my interjection here. I find that ' Consciousness ' is being brought in to our discussions on a scientific topic on ABSOLUTENESS! The reason is 'what is behind our thoughts/ thinking processes. It is considered a domain of psychologists/ neurologists, oculogists who are all linked with the field of medicine. They are basics with biology and many of them are...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 10:03 GMT
Dear Christophe,

Thank you for reading my essay, and for your very kind comments.

With regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Narendra Nath replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 13:53 GMT
I wait for Tejinder's response to my latest comment above. You agree that the gap between thoughts play some role. I mentioned what Einstein own experiences as published in a book by Dr. D.S. Kothari, express. When the mind is having to deal with such gaps in thinking process, what remains open to mind is the interaction with cosmos around us.That is where i feel we come across the cosmic consciousness. It is all prevading and timeless entity. I even feel that our entire Universe, as also other verses exist, as originated by cosmic consciousness. The latter is popularly associated with the concept of God as Creator in common understanding.Thus, to me consciousness preceeds Big Bang or creation zero time. That is it has always existed irrespective of the Universe. It is the original remarkable intelligence and logic that existed and contributed to the generation of the Universe we perceive since we came on the scene billion years later on the scene!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:09 GMT
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh Ji:

I enjoyed reading your essay and introducing the fundamental concept of thing-law. I also share common interest in your research to explain the QM measurement problem or collapse of the wave function. I have developed a relativistic model to resolve the measurement problem and explain inner workings of QM in my paper – What is “Fundamental” – Is “C” the Speed of Light?. It also resolves several paradoxes of physics theories and cosmology.

I would deeply appreciate your comments/rating on my paper and would like to keep active communications with you on your ongoing research. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:15 GMT
Corrected link to my paper – What is “Fundamental” – Is “C” the Speed of Light?.

Thanks

Avtar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:19 GMT
Another try - Corrected Link to my paper – What is “Fundamental” – Is “C” the Speed of Light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:46 GMT
Sorry, the link is not working. Please go directly to my paper.

Thanks

Avtar

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Avtar Singh wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 20:17 GMT
Another try for corrected link to my paper – What is “Fundamental” – Is “C” the Speed of Light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 21:09 GMT
Sorry, finally got the link working:

my paper – “What is Fundamental – Is C the Speed of Light”.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 11:38 GMT
Dear Avtar,

Thank you for your kind remarks and for reading my paper. I look forward to reading your essay.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Brajesh Mishra wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 04:26 GMT
Dear Singh Saheb,

Excellent write-up ! These words carries more weight as it comes from a Professor like you working in one of premiere Research Institute in World. It is one of the best essay submission in this context. I share the underlying thought process ingrained in your essay.

I have also expressed my views about the mysterious nature in the submission

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2998

I strongly believe that we Human are a self-hypnotized species - the existing knowledge base with us is too minuscule to appreciate the complexities of Nature. We have a long way to go.

With Best Wishes

Brajesh Mishra

Working as Director

Department of Telecommunications, GoI

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 08:32 GMT
Dear Brajesh,

Thank you so much for your kind remarks on my essay. I totally agree with you that we know very little; most remains to be known and discovered.

I look forward to reading your essay.

With regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 05:31 GMT
Tejender, you raised a query about cosmic consciousness vis a vis human consciousness. Universe at creation had a low entropy which is constantly increasing eversince the the moment of creation. Naturally, there was a level of consciousness possessed at start but with increasing entropy, the level of consciousness will change. Universe at start had the knowledge built in that a human intelligence will evolve way way later. Then only it can appear as it happened about 15000 years back. Thus entropy implicitly contains cosmic consciousness which then distrubutes itself as life appeared in the form of plants/herbs, animals and human beings with our ancesters that evolved too!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 06:56 GMT
Dear Narendra,

Hello. I do not really have anything more to say on consciousness at this juncture, other than what I said in my essay. I did come across this paper

Consciousness and Entropy

and related papers by these authors, but I think these are at this stage ongoing studies. Also, they talk of entropy as a measure of consciousness, not entropy AS consciousness.

Regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



adel sadeq wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:40 GMT
Hi Tejinder

I like your essay, especially the conclusion since my idea confirms it. Many FQXI essays in past and present confused issues and instead of making them clearer, they made it all mysterious, mystic and what not, and forget how science does the remarkable job it has always done.

Anyway see if my essay makes any sense. Thanks

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3127

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 18:01 GMT
Dear Adel,

Thanks so much for reading my essay and for your kind comments. I am very pleased to note from a first browse of your essay that we agree on the principal conclusion as to how the physical and mathematical worlds relate to each other. I will read your essay soon.

Best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Flavio Del Santo wrote on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 21:33 GMT
Dear Prof. Singh,

thank you for sharing this interesting essay.

I would be glad if you find a moment to go through mine, as well, and to have a discussion about convergences and differences between our works.

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3017

All good wishes,

Flavio

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 17:08 GMT
Thanks Flavio. I will read your essay soon,

Best,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 09:29 GMT
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

i very much enjoyed your essay. You start with the most obvious, namely consciousness, the latter being the crucial tool for at all making some statements about whether or not an external reality has some fundamental properties or not.

Albeit your attempt to find a fundamental grounding for all of reality is well layed-down and reasonably argued, please allow...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 10:29 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thanks so much for reading my essay, and thanks also for your insightful comments and the important questions that you raise.

I would regard the mathematical world as timeless; in the sense that I have described time as a thing, and the mathematical world as a law. If we were to write down Newton's second law of motion to describe the motion of classical bodies, the law is timeless by itself: the time coordinate that appears in the acceleration is the law aspect of the thing that is time.

Suppose next that consciousness is a law; it being the law aspect of the thing that is a living human being. Mathematics being timeless, and laws and consciousness being timeless, are consistent with each other.

The mind, being distinct from consciousness, is the collection of all the thing-laws made from all the neural pathways in the brain. One such thing-law is time: or more explicitly, thing-time : law - time. In this sense mind knows time and its flow, because there is the law time associated with the thing time. The law time, being a law, is timeless, in the sense that the concept of time is timeless.

I hope my answer is of some help in clarifying an important question that you raised. I will be most happy to engage in a further discussion.

Thanks and regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

thank you also for your reply.

To make sense out of the supposed dichotomy of timeless mathematics and a world of time, one could well say that the very concept of time is timeless, in the sense that there is no static state of things. So, in this sense, there will always be some dynamics irresolvably linked with existence.

I guess when you speak of mathematics...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 16:55 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Sorry for my slow response [I am travelling until another week] - your post has many important issues, and I will try to give my response in parts, in the coming days.

I was thinking, maybe self-awareness is a better word than consciousness, in the present context?

I have been making a distinction between mind and self-awareness; the former to me is time dependent, the latter is not. Is the following a helpful analogy? : self-awareness is the thoughtless I state (ground state), which when excited with thoughts, generates the mind. The ground state never changes, but thoughts change, hence the mind is time-dependent.

The brain evolved over time to help an organism respond better to the environment. In the evolutionary process, there comes a stage where the brain responds to the environment by starting to recognise its law/mathematics aspect. I am suggesting that the emergence of this phase is linked to emergence of self-awareness. Since I do not know what the scientific basis of self-awareness is, it is hard to prove this. But I do believe that timeless self-awareness is essential for thinking.

I have read your essay - it is very deep: I need more time to react to it - please bear with me.

Regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 00:05 GMT
Professor Singh,

You are a good writer and your work is pleasant to read, but for the life of me I have no idea how it connects in any way to physics or science, or how to connect some of the leaps of connection between paragraphs. How math became reality by the end of your essay seems to have a lot more to do with your excellent (and they truly are) skills as a writer than any kind of logical argument that I was able to discern.

I should note that after witnessing a few days of the Hunger Games rules of this competition, I abandoned any interest in "winning" this absurd contest and chose to go back to my role as a an associate editor-in-chief for a technical magazine: Assessing what I actually am seeing in these essays, not trying to build alliances.

You are a really good writer, and you sound like a really nice person. However, since your essay lacks anything but your writing skills to tie the arguments together, I would discard it within five minutes for its lack of providing anything fundamental other your personal and philosophical perspective -- which is fine, but in the end it's just that: Your opinion.

Cheers,

Terry Bollinger

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 05:57 GMT
Dear Professor Bollinger,

Thank you for reading my essay, and for your criticism. I will try to reconstruct in brief my line of reasoning, and perhaps then you could point out specific criticisms.

1. There is a physical universe around us, and we use experimental data about it to discover laws of nature. We use our mental faculties (mind) to do so. This same mind has thoughts and...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 09:26 GMT
Dear Professor Singh,

i am not Terry Bollinger and have no intent to answer your questions in place of him.

I only want to ask you if you could clarify my questions in my comment above yours concerning your essay, since otherwise it would be hard for me to judge your essay on the basis of some unconfirmed assumptions (what should not be the sense of this contest).

Thanks in advance,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 10:32 GMT
Dear Stefan,

I have now replied to your post above.

Thanks,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 00:00 GMT
Respected Prof Tejinder Pal Singh sab

You have nicely integrated consciousness into Physics, your words are really great... " How does the human mind convert things in the observed universe, into laws? What role does our consciousness play in this conversion process? We propose that the dynamic pathways connecting the neurons in our brains have a dual interpretation, as a thing-law. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 07:36 GMT
Dear Prof. Gupta,

Thank you for your kind comments. Please give me a few days. I will get to your essay.

Best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 12:54 GMT
Yes I will wait for your esteemed words.....Prof Singh sab.....

=snp

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 04:46 GMT
Dear Tejinder Pal Singh

Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.

My essay is titled

“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.

Thank you & kind regards

Steven Andresen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 07:38 GMT
Dear Steven,

Thank you. I look forward to reading your essay. Please give me a few days. If I have anything useful to say, I will leave comments on your essay page.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 17:30 GMT
Tejinder,

I agree with you, so we can skip that. Scored. Done.

So I'll address the people who do not agree with you. Terry Bollinger has an obvious bias against philosophy in science, and I understand that--I've been a technical editor, too. I've thought like that, too. We apply a strict demarcation, and the subjects shall never communicate.

You rebutted that perfectly, with point # 9. It may be philosophy that drives " ... the search for unity in hidden likenesses ..." in J. Bronowski's words, though the binary choice is incomprehensibility, a choice not available to we who undertake the search.

Jackson asked Dickau in this forum " ... isn't the real question; what is the Mandelbrot set, and matter, 'made of'?" Easy to say the Mandelbrot set is made of z --> z^2 + c. Easy enough to say that matter is made of particles.

I agree with you that the last mystery, spacetime, is the beginning of a greater one. How do we comprehend? That question is not equivalent to the philosophical, "Why do we search"? My essay: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3124

Best,

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 17:12 GMT
Dear Thomas,

Thanks so much. I will definitely read your essay before ratings close.

Terry has replied below - maybe the three of us can discuss together.

Best,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear Professor Dear Tejinder Pal Singh,

I am deeply appreciative for your detailed and thoughtful response, and I am so sorry for the long delay in my reply! I was caught up in the Malwarebytes update disaster back on Jan 27, and ended up bricking my laptop with my own attempts to fix what they had done to it. I am now back up and running.

I will right now spend some serious time...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Terry,

Greetings, and thanks again, for this interesting and important conversation.

By the way Terry, I am not the author of that book on Sikhism :-) In Sikhism there is not much variation in names, so lots of Sikhs have exactly the same name.

I would say that in my essay I have kept religion/God/Creator completely out of the picture.

My motivation was to treat processes as fundamental, and in that spirit I asked `how does the mind convert experimental data into laws'? I thought this is one fundamental process without understanding which our search of fundamentals is incomplete. And then one thing led to another. I immodestly confess that pursuing this question has helped me gain some insights, which I doubt I would have had but for this contest. In that sense I feel grateful towards FQXi that they asked this question.

I whole-heartedly agree that asking what is fundamental in the context of experiments and falsification would lend itself to a precise scientific treatment of the question. But I think this question is important in philosophy too, and as we see, we have many philosophers participating. So I think we have a difference of opinion here, as to the scope and reach of the contest question.

I will try to reply soon to your next message.

My best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 04:08 GMT
Professor Singh,

What an interesting quantum theory you have proposed your ref [6]!

As it happens, I find the idea that there is a very deep relationship between space and matter to be very plausible, though in my case I would suggest that it is a dualism that emerged at the time of the "big bang" due to the emergence of both classical time and classical information, which I would...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 07:47 GMT
Dear Terry,

Thanks again for your kind interest. I will address one point here, that of self-awareness, and return to the others later.

I do regard self-awareness as a very high level process: it is a property of the entire connectome or maybe the entire organism. It is not a property at the neural level.

Self-awareness and mind are distinct and different. Is this assertion the one you find problematic? Here I am not indulging in religion or spirituality. It can best be called a personal psychological experience and a great many people agree with it. [I in particular benefitted from the works of Eckhart Tolle, though there is much he says which I disagree with]. There are various ways to it. During meditation, with some practice, one can reach a thought-free state: there are no thoughts in the mind, there is only self-awareness. Then one can deliberately add thoughts, as if self-awareness controls the mind. These thoughts get added at the neural level.

Another way to see that self-awareness is different from the mind: the mind is evr-changing, but my awareness as I, never changes ...I am always the same I.

I hope we can sort this point out amongst ourselves.

Thanks and regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Terry Bollinger replied on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 11:20 GMT
Tejinder,

First, I must apologize for my slow response. FQXi does not seem to alert me of responses on any thread except that of my own essay, so I am forced to search for such replies manually.

Your distinction of self-awareness and mind is in no way a problem! I fully respect your personal experience, since after all we ultimately observe the world only though our personal perceptions. However much we may want to map those to perceptions "directly" to an external reality, that is the illusion, not the perceptions.

The issue instead was that because I have never to the best of my knowledge had the same kind of personal experience you just described, my ability to follow your logic hit an abrupt barrier at point 4. It wasn't that I did not respect what you said; it was just that I could not understand from my own experience how you get from point A to point B.

I suspect I'm not the only one who had that difficulty, since again, the kind of personal experience you have had is not necessarily part of other people's experience. At the same time, I must emphasize that not only do I have no problem with your experience itself, but I found it fascinating and intriguing. I will continue to try to understand it because I respect your description of it.

In terms of the essay bottom line: If you can come up with a way to convey your perspective without a direct reference to your own personal experience, I think you would get more traction with more people for your intriguing (and it is!) overall argument.

Sincerely,

Terry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Gantz wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 22:21 GMT
Prof Singh -

Having read your essay snd some of the comments, I find the very premise of a Thing - Law structure to be inherently limiting. Another duality in a long line of dualities. I would characterize this as a foundational axiom - a tenet of faith - yet not something that can be proven - and not something that I would define as "fundamental".

There is a very strange mystery inherent in self-awareness that you fail to address. It does not explain - rather it confounds. As I point out in my essay"Faith is Fundemantal", self-awareness (consciusounes) invites Godellian incompleteness - and all truth is necessarily incomplete and inaccessible.

Sincere regards - George Gantz

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 07:33 GMT
Dear Prof. Grantz,

Thank you for reading my essay and commenting on it. In my essay I have called the following process `fundamental': how does the human mind convert the observed physical universe into laws about it? In answering this question, I take self-awareness as a given; I do not attempt to offer an explanation for its origin (except at the very end of the essay). In answering the question of `how minds makes laws' I find the thing-law extremely useful.

I look forward to reading your essay.

Kind regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Member Noson S. Yanofsky wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 11:29 GMT
Dear Tejinder Singh,

I really like your essay. It is very clearly written. Thank you.

I have two small points.

Firstly I do not see the connection between self-awareness and coming up with laws. You state that self-awareness is necessary to come up with laws. But you do not say why. One can imagine an AI computer programed to come up with laws but not having self-awareness. Also, certain animals come up with some pretty sophisticated models in their head about the universe around them. While I agree with you that they cannot put them in symbols, they can communicate them. (I am thinking of bees and ants). I do not think that these animals have self-awareness. (I agree with you that some neurological sophistication might be necessary for both self-awareness and the ability to make laws, but that does not mean that one is necessary for the other.

I like your presentation of the Collatz conjecture. To me it shows that there is a certain chaos in mathematics. The fact that 27 is so different than 26 and 28 means that the chaos is really there and it is hard to get a handle on this problem. Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was never a proof of the Collatz conjecture. It is simply just true.

Again, thank you for your wonderful essay. Please take a look at mine.

All the best,

Noson Yanofsky

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 09:20 GMT
Dear Noson,

Thanks so much for your kind comments, and some very important remarks.

You say "One can imagine an AI computer programmed to come up with laws but not having self-awareness." I fully agree that an AI computer can do this without being self-aware. But I would lay emphasis on your word *programmed*. In other words, who wrote the program, and decided that one ought to look for the law in some data? I believe taking that decision requires self-awareness: to tell one's mind to do such as such. I would regard the mind as being subservient to self-awareness. An AI computer would not be aware / would not recognize that the law it has found is the law aspect of the thing (data) which was fed to it. To my understanding, it churns out the law without thinking any further about say its implications. I would say if an AI computer takes a decision to write a program [i.e. to program itself] to find the law in some data, it would be already self-aware. A self-aware being has the ability to program itself to find the law aspect of the thing-law.

Thanks for asking this important question. It clarified my own understanding.

I would say the behaviour of non-aware creatures such as bees and ants is programmed behaviour: the sensory response is governed by the feedback from the brain. But this does not involve associating laws with things - if it did, then there would be intelligent decision making [e.g. "stormy weather is predicted for day after, stay indoors"]. There seems to be no memory, no prediction.

Thank you for interest in the Collatz conjecture - I do hope one day we will find the proof :-) I agree there apparently is some chaotic behaviour, coming from a simple deterministic law: the behaviour is stochastic but the proof cannot be statistical because the evolution is the same for every number.

Thank you for your very nice essay too :-)

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 18:36 GMT
Dear Tejinder Singh,

I have read your essay and invite you to read EPR experiment and Linear Polarization at: http://vixra.org/pdf/1303.0174v5.pdf

I also request you to read my essay on wave-particle and electron spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3
.pdf

Kamal Rajpal

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 04:20 GMT
Dear Kamal,

Thank you for reading my essay, and for drawing my attention to your work.

Best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 13:06 GMT
Hello Tejinder,

I liked a lot, and specially the not commutative interpretation of électrons in our space time, like Dirac said what is an electron really ? , it is a wonderful essay, good luck and friendly from Belgium :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 04:21 GMT
Dear Steve,

Greetings, and thank you for your kind remarks.

Best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Luca Valeri wrote on Feb. 16, 2018 @ 18:33 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

I like the aim of your essay, that tries to bring together our subjective experience of our self awareness and consciousness and the objective experience of the lawfulness of our external world. It reminds me a lot to Carl Friedrich Von Weizsäcker's work. He saw these two fields of experience never as contradicting each other but as a unity.

Similar as in your essay...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 04:30 GMT
Dear Luca,

Thanks so much for your kind and insightful remarks, and for telling me about the work of von Weizsacker, which I will surely look up.

Thank you also for telling me about the ideas in your essay, which I am now reading.

My best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Member Markus P Mueller wrote on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 21:58 GMT
Dear Tejinder Singh,

I really like your essay, it was great fun to read! I am also sympathetic to your conclusion that laws and things ultimately become the same. Perhaps one can also say, in favor of this view, that our intuitive picture of what a "thing" is becomes more and more inapplicable as we go down the "vertical fundamental", similarly as you describe in IV.

Good luck with your essay!

Best wishes,

Markus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 04:36 GMT
Dear Markus,

Thank you so much for your kind appreciation.

I like your emphasis that

"our intuitive picture of what a "thing" is becomes more and more inapplicable as we go down the "vertical fundamental" ".

Indeed, I agree with you, and perhaps this has interesting philosophical implications!

Kind regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 08:58 GMT
Dear Tejinder

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 10:54 GMT
Dear Steven,

Thank you for telling me about your essay. But honestly, this barter thing, ``you read and rate my essay, and I will do the same for yours'', makes me uneasy :-) I am not for it. We read, comment and/or rate those essays where we have something useful and

interesting to say.

My best wishes to you in this contest,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Anil Shanker wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 22:15 GMT
Dear Tejinder,

I enjoyed reading your essay. You beautifully discuss the nature of consciousness and the connections between the physical and biological domains. I however find that the reductionist layers of reality as you discuss may not be able to fully grasp the intangible nature of consciousness. You may also have alluded to this vaguely by referring to "the consciousness seems confined to the spatially localised body". The complexity and dynamical systems of the biological world cannot be simply entertained by a confined mathematically consistent basis, an exercise of human imagination. The interrelatedness of macromolecular scaffolding and functionality of biological systems would need another level of framework beyond these confines. I will add that the complete comprehension of consciousness will entail a deeper journey into the worlds of biological and physical evolutions. I believe they intricately co-exist, co-evolve and are co-dependent to define what we term "fundamentalness/absoluteness/consciousness".

Best regards,

Anil

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 08:38 GMT
Dear Anil,

Thank you for your valuable comments. I respect your differing views on matters related to consciousness.

Kind regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 04:32 GMT
Tejendra, further to Anil's comments above,duality is part of life itself. The connect between QM and gravity bothers me too! Artificial Intelligence is nothing but intelligence itself as it deals with communication with aliens who may have followed a different route to understanding the nature.Whatever little i know of cosmology and particle Physics0, these two stands apart as two pillars at the ends. What lies in between remains poorly understood. Just shows how difficult it is to have a singlr theory to explain every thing in nature. The essays by Karen and you are ontop of lsit with the community of authros. However, i feel the scenario in nature permits us to look at our basic concepts and revise them as inadequate if we wish to work towardss a single theory for everything. To me estalished scientific methodolgy as eveloved thus far may not provide us the way to follow. Nature desires simplcity and humility to explore it rather than complicated assumptions and postulates. Complexity can only be handled with simplification rahter than further complexity!Human bias is our wrost enemy and we need to become selfless and free thinkers

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 23, 2018 @ 08:40 GMT
Thank you Narendra,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 08:25 GMT
Hi Singh,

I fully enjoyed the way you put things together it and I think further words are useless.

Rate it accordingly.

If you would have the pleasure for a short axiomatic approach of the subject, I will appreciate your opinion.

Silviu

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

corciovei silviu replied on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 08:26 GMT
forgot to log in

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:38 GMT
Dear Silviu,

Thank you for reading my essay, and kindly drawing my attention to your essay, which I am now reading.

Best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:54 GMT
Hello Tejinder,

if you still wish to comment on my essay, I have listed my main points in and addendum at page 9 of the attached file.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

attachments: 1_FundamentalFINALAddendum.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Stefan,

Thank you. The addendum, which you posted above, definitely helped. I had read your essay earlier a couple of times. Your essay shows great intellectual depth. I do not seem to have anything useful to add, so I have not commented on your page.

My best wishes for your success in this contest.

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 01:41 GMT
Dear Tejinder, thank you for reading my essay and the addendum. I know it takes some time and energy to delf into many different essays and hence ideas in such a short time, so thank you again for having done this.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 13:35 GMT
I have posted a personal message at your e-mail Id re. consciousness and have posted some recent investigations that show that cosmic consciousness exist independently of human consciousness. However, the latter does get affected by the former, thereby implying the role it plays in affecting human consciousness at the individual level. You and i have difference of opinion in this respect. Let us hope things will become clearer as the subject in under scientific investigation. I have strong belief that we humans being part of Nature's evolution do get affected by cosmic consciousness weather we like it or not. Logic that nature followed in evolution of the universe, earth as planet of Sun the star and placement of human being at the appropriate time is definetly a super intelligence and thus a matter which can be better understood by invoking what is called Artificial Intelligence studies involving means of communications!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Terry Bollinger wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 22:42 GMT
Dear Professor Singh,

I just wanted to let you know that because you were one of my very first rating attempts, I graded your excellent essay too low. I was mostly way too focused on my own "Does it answer this year's FQXi question?" criterion. I emailed FQXi and asked them to either let me change your score or change it for me, but I never received a response. I am still hoping they fixed it. I assume there's some way to check who scored what, but I've never looked it up. I consciously try to pay as little attention to the ratings as I possibly can; personal contribution and mutual support (!) I think are what really count in the end.

I am still reading your essay, and your intriguing paper on noncommutative spacetime! The paper is straightforward quantum stuff, accessible with some effort, but your essay is such a wonderfully different and clearly cogent perspective that I truly want to understand it. I am frustrated that my usually decently good "seeing it like the other person sees it" brain function kind of went south on me for that one.

In any case, I hope all goes well for you, both in the FQXi contest and in your physics theory development. Physics needs more such diverse, new-perspective approaches!

Cheers,

Terry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 03:25 GMT
Dear Terry,

Never mind the ratings! :-) I am most grateful to you for engaging me in a very fruitful discussion, and for your very kind interest in my work.

I assume from your post above that one point of debate between us is the distinction I make between consciousness on the one hand, and mind on the other. I understood this distinction only in recent years, and that too from spiritual literature, not from neuroscience literature! I believe spiritual masters have known this distinction from ancient times, including Buddha and other teachers from the Indian subcontinent. If you are OK with trying out spiritual works, I can suggest Eckhart Tolle's book `The Power of Now' where I believe he does a good job of clarifying this distinction. Also his popular video in parts addresses this question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3CunRgjXBk

We may disagree with many things he says, but the above point he brings out well.

I have some questions about your very engaging essay, and I hope to get there soon.

My thanks and regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share


Terry Bollinger replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 13:20 GMT
Tejinder,

Thank you, I am deeply appreciative of your help on this point! I’ve already looked up the video, and noted with particular fascination this quote:

--------------------

Eckhart Tolle on awareness:

1:58-2:10 - "You are the awareness behind it without which none of this would be here. You'd just be atoms and molecules in space. You are the awareness that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 00:29 GMT
Tejinder,

It must be fascinating to consider such philosophical questions, especially for someone with "research interests in quantum gravity .. and the problem of time in quantum theory."

For my essay I tried to point out /propose "what" it is that is fundamental, and although there is some philosophy involved in the approach, well, I guess it isn't as fun to read.

I am surprisingly in strong agreement with your statement "..laws and things become more and more like each other, until deepest down, they become one and the same." This is certainly true, because at the a-priori level, at which all the fundamentals of physics must come together in unison, things are just too small to be directly observed. (..with the possible exception of the neutrino.)

I hope to hear more about your research interests..

Wayne Lundberg

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3092

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Terry Bollinger replied on Feb. 28, 2018 @ 01:06 GMT
Tejinder, Wayne is underselling himself. He is very sharp and creative, and at one point in his essay he casually drops in a resolution to a problem that hundreds of other folks looking at the same issues have completely overlooked. You and Wayne have very different essays and essay styles, but both are in my short list of essays I've set aside for much closer looks. Cheers, Terry

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 05:27 GMT
Dear Wayne,

Thank you so much for your kind remarks! I have left a brief post on your essay page. I am totally in support of `putting geometry into particles'.

My own work has been mainly concerned in recent years with the quantum measurement problem, and its possible connection with gravity. We reviewed this subject some years back, in

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4325

My thanks and best regards,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Mar. 3, 2018 @ 18:17 GMT
Tejinder,

That would suggest that you would be concerned with neutrino mass measurements?

Wayne

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Tejinder Pal Singh replied on Mar. 4, 2018 @ 04:08 GMT
Hi. No, not neutrinos.

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share



Steve Agnew wrote on Mar. 10, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
...or is the universe made up of space and time emerging from objects and events? People observe discrete matter actions and then predict the future, which you call a law. When people agree with each other about each other's subjective laws, it becomes a common objective law.

At the deepest level, you say that predictions of action and action become one and the same. That is, the causal neural set that we call prediction of action becomes the same causal neural set that we call action. Indeed, at some point, a neural prediction does become an neural action since that is what makes up a causal set.

You essay starts with two questions, "How does the human mind convert things in the observed universe, into laws? What role does our consciousness play in this conversion process?" Your essay ends with a single question, "Could it be that when we will have understood consciousness, its mathematical description will become one and the same as its physical description?"

It is not clear that you have answered any of these questions...

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.