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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Steve Dufourny: on 10/16/20 at 12:44pm UTC, wrote see also dear all that the gravitational energy is intriguing in its...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/16/20 at 11:36am UTC, wrote The energy is fascinating in fact , we know that it is a transfert to give...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/16/20 at 8:51am UTC, wrote In fact , the energy and the matters inside this physicality have the same...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/15/20 at 20:03pm UTC, wrote Lol between us, you don t think that the fact to consider an infinite heat...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/15/20 at 19:34pm UTC, wrote You know dear all, I don t want to convice or change the lines of...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/15/20 at 15:56pm UTC, wrote all this to tell that they are a little bit the same the matters and the...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/15/20 at 13:48pm UTC, wrote the energy becomes a philosophical and physical concept so in this line of...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/15/20 at 13:43pm UTC, wrote Yes it is a good definition, the matters and energy are correlated, Imagine...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Brian: "From the Nature abstract cited: "There is no theoretical reason to expect..." in Time to Think

Georgina Woodward: "Sorry, what a pigs ear I've made of that attempt to elucidate. Got muddled..." in Answering Mermin’s...

Stefan Weckbach: "John, "An electron is like a 2sphere, there is no cowlick, the hairs on..." in Answering Mermin’s...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Jonathan, thanks for developing , I am understanding. I consider like..." in Towards the unification...

Jonathan Dickau: "It all fits together Steve... The optimal case for close-packing of..." in Towards the unification...

Steve Dufourny: "it is the meaning of my intuitive equation, E=m(c^2+Xl^2)+ Y with X a..." in The Effects of Inertial...

Steve Dufourny: "What I tell in resume is that for a good explaination of the..." in The Effects of Inertial...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Time to Think
Philosopher Jenann Ismael invokes the thermodynamic arrow of time to explain how human intelligence emerged through culture.

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.


FQXi BLOGS
October 29, 2020

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: AI, Consciousness, Computation, and Physical Law by Sir Roger Penrose [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Roger Penrose wrote on Jul. 3, 2020 @ 11:42 GMT
Abstract: A common scientific view is that the actions of a human brain could, in principle, be simulated by appropriate computation, and even that it may not be too far into the future before computers become so powerful that they will be able to exceed the mental capabilities of any human being. However, by using examples from chess and mathematics, I argue, that the quality of conscious understanding is something essentially distinct from computation. Nevertheless, I maintain that the action of a conscious brain is the product of physical laws, whence consciousness itself must result from physical processes of some kind. Yet physical actions, over a huge range, can be simulated very precisely by computational techniques, as is exemplified by the LIGO gravitational wave detectors confirming precise calculations, within Einstein’s general relativity theory, of signals from black-hole encounters in distant galaxies.



Despite this, I argue that there is a profound gap in our understanding of how Einstein’s theory affects quantum systems, and that there is reason to believe that the events termed “collapse of the wave-function” take place objectively (gravitational OR), in a way that defies computation, yet should be observable in certain experiments. It is argued that each such event is accompanied by a moment of “proto-consciousness”, and that actual consciousness is the result of vast numbers of such events, orchestrated in an appropriate way so as to provide an actual conscious experience (Orch-OR).



Keywords: #Models of consciousness

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 08:19 GMT
Hello Professor Penrose, I love your works, I have thought about this model of consciousness and it is very relevant, I have my own idea , this consciousness is complex and so simple , its origin is that said not easy to consider, I beleive that this consciousness is an important parameter indeed and its potential can permit to solve many things when the encodings, rational and universal are a reality. I have also studied your models about the twistors, you are very relevant, I have a model about the spheres and the spherisation, an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum 3D spheres and cosmological 3D spheres and I have a model explaining this quantum gravitation, I have thought beyond the box if I can say. I work also about this global project to unite the thinkers and create a manifest of solutions to convice this UN with sciences and consciousness, alone I cannot do it I need help. Congratulations and thanks for all the works that you have given to this planet, I don t want to be too much , but I like your ideas a lot, Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 09:27 GMT
It seems so difficult to encricle really the origin of this consciousness, we arrive at big philosophical questions, the sciences community is divided about a the origin, several consider that we are an accident mathematical, others beleive in a kind of creator, like an infinite eternal consciousness creating a physicality with informations sent. I have my own philosophical idea but it is too far of our understanding, in the past I considered that this consciousness ius an emergent property due to evolution of brain, now I consider that all is a fractal of consciousness at its level, like a portoconsciousness also in your ideas, we can so rank it, the coputation that said is not easy , must we mimate the number of synaps and interactions and the same kind of systems, I don t know, the BHs and the informations have something to do in all this about the recyclings and actions of informations and the sortings, superimposings and synchronisations probably. I liked how you see this computation and the interactions between these informations, maybe the quantum computing is essential to have a kind of convergence with the biology also.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 5, 2020 @ 20:13 GMT
to be frank, I d be very honored to find a mentor like you or Connes , I need to learn more and publish correctly the publications, I work about them in maths and physics , I learn all days things that I didn t know, I evolve, I am not a professional, I was at university in geology in belgium but I have stopped in second due to a coma due to an epileptic crisis of high bad, so I have made after 1 year the agronomy and I love the ecology and horticulture ,I create a nursery here for plants in Finland with Ulla Mattfolk, I love to multiplicate the plants, I have immigrated 11 months ago, but I cannot stop to improve my theory of spherisation, this optinisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum 3D coded spheres and cosmological spheres, I have several models about the consciousness, the philosophy of my theory, the quantum gravitation that I have reached also. I found this theory in ranking a little bit of all, animals, vegetals,minerals,maths, physics, chemistry...and one day I have had this humble eureka in seeing the evolution of hominids brains in a page of biology, we see a relative spherisation if I can say since the lemurians, lol it is just a page , I told me oh my god the universe is probably a sphere and the particles also,I need to learn more and well, I have learnt a little bit also your different works and I like them, you are relevant I must say. The proto conciousness seems very intriguing,I consider than we come from a kind of eternal infinite consciousness that we cannot define, this thing creates a physicality and so all is a fractal of consciousness at its levels in function of numbers and particles and complexifications of evolution biological probably, but it is complex to really encircle this origin and how emerges this fascinating consciousness, best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Kevin Pryor replied on Aug. 6, 2020 @ 11:11 GMT
A dualist will say that the mind is not material, a physicalist will say there is not really a mind just a brain machine. Only a radical panpsychist might consider an homunculus a possibility because in panpsychism matter=mind.

A relatively massive particle homunculus would be conscious with free will because the universe is conscious with free will and the particle inherited it. Basically...

view entire post


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

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 9, 2020 @ 20:03 GMT
What is consciousness if not a field that can store complex experiences in some metaphysical non corporeal way? Why don't we just start with this assumption and see where it leads.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 10, 2020 @ 09:07 GMT
Hi Jason, I consider a kind of infinite eternal consciousness creating this physicality with codes and informations sent , I know that the sciences community is divided about this and that some consider a mathematical accident from a kind of energy and the others consider this creator if I can say like a god of Spinoza, like Einstein said, we cannot prove this and we can just have our own interpretations, for me it seems essential but I respect the other points of vue, we search answers after all, a thing interesting is that the best thinkers had considered this infinite eternal consciousness like einstein, borh, galilei, planck, heisenberg ,newton, Tesla and so more, why they thought about this ? maybe it seems evident to consider.About the metaphysics that said I cannot answer because I consider a pure deteministic way even in thinking about this kind of God, but this consciousness is intriguing when we correlate with this infinite eternal consciousness like if all was a fractal of this, probably that we can have some kinds of connections with this consciousness maybe in meditation or others but it is just for me a kind of serenity of the mind and a kind of correlations with our encodings and brains like if some truths appeared. But all this seems rational and deterministic. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 10, 2020 @ 18:58 GMT
I remember the words of a wonderful thinker, Schrodinger , he told" the total number of minds in the universe is one,In fact, the consciousness is a singlularity phasing within all beings" he wes general , and relevant I must say , one of my favorites with Planck, Borh, Einstein, Heisenberg, Newton, Maxwell mainly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 10, 2020 @ 20:16 GMT
can we extrapolate the concept of Entropy to the philosophy and the sociology? yes it is possible with determinism, a society entropical is a society tending to a disorder , so dedicated even to disappear if the universal foundamentals are not correlated and respected towards a kind of respect of hamonies in the interactions, the consciousness become essential to reach the points of equilibrium...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 9, 2020 @ 23:36 GMT
There is indeed a profound gap between gravity relativity and quantum charge. Likewise, there is a profound gap between neural action potentials and free choice. The term consciousness has no accepted meaning and so is simply not that useful for understanding either neural action potentials or free choice.

The term AI is as useless as consciousness since there is no accepted meaning, but of course, the lack of any objective meaning does not prevent discourse. When a computer has free choice, then we can wonder how that could be. Since computers simply do what the master coders want them to do, there is no computer free choice.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 10, 2020 @ 06:12 GMT
AI robots can serve humans best by doing our chores.

Free will is like playing a card game. You have free will with respect to whatever strategy you use to win. Feeling good about winning is what consciousness is all about!

Who cares about charges if you know how to make gravity fields?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 10, 2020 @ 21:09 GMT
When UFOs are chased by navy fighter pilots, the only conclusion a physicist can draw is: how do we do what they can do.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 10, 2020 @ 21:38 GMT
I have always thought that we have not had the visit of aliens due to our immense universe and problems technological to travel inside these galaxies and even between these billions of galaxies, if a civilization is very advanced, so they must check an incredible technology and we d not even see them if they come to study us, if a limited advanced civilization has travelled here , so they have just probably made a quick passage, but the governemnts are not going to tell us due to human stupidities, I beleive that if the aliens come it is not to imply problems because if they travel inside this universe, so their consciousness is very developped and so they don t need energy, water, food, or others like minerals, they just probably study the planets like scientists curious.I am persuaded that we are very numerous inside this universe, and that the combinations animals vegetals are incredible,many planets are less evolved and many are more evolved, it is more than fascinating, at this present they eat, they think, they evolve, they create, this and that, if I could I d visit all these planets , I dream sometines about this, I imagine planets and lifes , the conbinations are infinite in fact when we consider the pressure, the planets and their environments, ....we are not alone it seems logic seen these more than 10000 billions of galaxies, it d be odd to beleive that we are an accident or an exception, the life seems an universal foundamental, Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 14, 2020 @ 10:45 GMT
Hi Steve,

The physics community is misguided. There are no superstrings and no quantum loops. But I think there are expanding gravitons. If the Creator ever decides to turn off the flow of gravitons, the standard model particles fields would vanish, quantum fields would vanish, quantum mechanics would stop working. Existence would cease.

As for aliens, they do seem to exist. I've heard they abduct people and there are rumors of breeding programs. Physicists dismiss these things, but then come up with insane ideas with zero observers. I honestly think I it's more likely that God, ghosts, angels exist, then banging branes and E8 crystals. I really do think that gravitons are expanding spheres.

I think that Biblical stuff can be true even if it's been a rough ride. God still loves us. When people have out of body experiences, they see God. Physicists and skeptics dismiss those legitimate experiences, but are they throwing the baby out with the bath water? I think so.

If the Bible says we have a soul, then maybe it's time to flee the ranks of atheists and ask for God's blessing. Atheists have nothing to offer. They're not even right. Atheists are wrong about the physics, and are lost. It's time to abandon atheism as a mistake, an error in judgement, a testament to to our flawed nature.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 14, 2020 @ 11:58 GMT
Hi Jason, I tell me that indeed these strings or superstrings and others like the geometrodynamics like the E8 also forget to consider the coded particles and this gravitation like main chief orchestr, so I like your idea about these gravitons and the expanding sphere like main codes and origin, I beleive strongly that this gravitation is the main chief orchestra. I consider in my model like you know an infinite eternal consciousness that we name god , I beleive that we need this potential to understand the transformations energy matters but the sciences community is divided, that said, the best thinkers have considered a kind of god of spinoza, maybe when you study the generality this evidence appears logically. We need a kind of coder , I consider a god of spinoza like Eisntein in respecting the pure determinism, I am tolerant that said about the religions even if I found them a little bit lacking of rationalism in their interpretations. A sure thing seems this universal altruism and love like a truth, we are all linked and in the same boat of evolution after all , we evolve quietly and the truths are everywhere around us at all scales, this consciousness is more than fascinating, I consider it like a pure tool of improvement and optimisation, this consciousness evolving seems an important tool to utilise the things around us with wisdom to improve what we can imporve in fact in respectimg these universal laws. Many physicists consider this god of spinoza and others deny it , but a sure thing, we evolve and something codes all this , the informations and particles are more than we can imagine , we know nothing still , we must be humble and accept this truth it seems to me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kevin Pryor wrote on Aug. 11, 2020 @ 08:16 GMT
Homuncular particles can can serve as homunculus to all sorts of bodies and it is only necessary that the particle feels like it is a certain body, not that the particle changes shape. The particle has a minimalist design of a energy/information reserve and a high speed photonic input/output system regardless of whether it is serving as homunculus for a 4 legged creature, a bird, or us.

A homuncular particle has a much higher de Broglie frequency by mc2/h than typical particles and quantum mechanics gradually transitions to libertarian free will at higher frequencies and therefore energy.

The high energy particle also acts like a CPU that converts the electromagnetic homuncular code to qualia and vice versa. It inherited this capability from its universal parent, the conscious universe.

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

report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Aug. 11, 2020 @ 10:30 GMT
Respected Professor Penrose sir,

I always read your works and am greatly inspired about that

i think if we intersect philosophy with science,that will produce great results and help to solve mysteries of universe,i think the physical and mathematical aspect of consciousness can be theory of everything!and if we study the states of mind(sub conscious,conscious and like that)and if we intersect it with science then i think it will produce great results!Am i right sir?

please reply sir,

Thanking you,Regards,

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kjetil Hustveit wrote on Aug. 14, 2020 @ 13:36 GMT
Dear Professor Penrose, thank you for sharing your really creative ideas and it was a pleasure seeing you perform. I remain with some questions though - which may only be a result of my limited understanding.

Isn't it to jump conclusions to proclaim that computers will never have the ability for understanding. I do of course agree that contemporary AI is too primitive. But you said that we...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 14, 2020 @ 15:22 GMT
How about a refresher?

In Decoherence theory; the wavefunction alone exists and endpoints like particles are ephemeral results of localized observations. The global wavefunction is seen to have components that are local reduce. Philip Pearle introduced the idea of Statevector Reduction with a paper about the 'gambler's ruin' game where at the end, all of the chips are held by one player or the other. This is of course similar to a quantum mechanical collapse where one possibility emerges as fact from a field of many choices.

The theory of Continuous Spontaneous Localization (or CSL) was the next logical step; once researchers realized that gravity could induce decoherence. Seth Lloyd had the insight that systems moved toward being massively entangled, so that a particle in motion becomes merged with the detector, to be detected. And Roger Penrose introduced the idea of Orchestrated Reduction, or Orch-OR, where mutual interaction among target systems produces a single outcome.

This does NOT require the mechanism of microtubules to explain consciousness in living organisms, but Sir Roger is using that analogy to make it plausible, or to show a possible mechanism that is already a part of the biological scaffolding, which can account for quantum-mechanical effects. Cross reference this with Vlatko Vedral's work for more insight. For the record; biological structures in situ have geometrical configurations specific to quantum-mechanical properties, not present in the raw chemicals.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 14, 2020 @ 15:40 GMT
Just to emphasize...

I have been following this question for a long time. I have a typewritten copy of Phil Pearle's first paper on Statevector Reduction which I obtained after some correspondence on the topic years ago. I also corresponded with Dieter Zeh and Erich Joos about the fine points, after reading some of their published works on decoherence, and having opinions of my own to offer.

This was along the same lines as what Vedral and Lloyd were doing - involving entanglement with target systems becoming global entanglement over time. And this is what I presented at FFP10 in Perth, Australia (A common basis for quantum non-locality and thermodynamical entropy). I hoped to meet Prof. Penrose at FFP11 in Paris, the following year; but he was not able to attend.

But I did get to hear lectures from some other notable experts, including some relevant material on quantum foundations, that year. I have of course continued to research in this area since then. I should mention the work of Paola Zizzi, whose "Big Wow" cosmology involves the idea that the Spontaneous Reduction at the time of decoupling has the same magnitude as the Orchestrated Reduction for a conscious thought in the human brain, according to Penrose.

Have Fun,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 14, 2020 @ 16:26 GMT
Hi Jonathan, all this is very interesting. This puzzle of consciousness is complex and fascinating. If I can, I d like to have your general philosophy about the origin of this universe, for me the main energy beyond this physicality without time, space, matters, is an infinite eternal consciousness , so I consider that all is a kind of fractal of consciousness at its level, what is for you this thing transforming the E in matters ? They are deep philosophical questions in fact and it seems foundamental to really encircle thie origin of our physicality and this consciousness also . friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 14, 2020 @ 17:33 GMT
A tall order...

But I am still in the game, trying to explain the things you ask about. I will comment further over time, but I do see awakening and emergence as connected, so that the evolution of the cosmos and of consciousness are intertwined.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 16, 2020 @ 19:10 GMT
Professor Penrose, I thought about your model , I have studied a little bit the brains , the cortical area and the neurons are fascinating and their evolution and number also like their complexity. The mathematical abstraction seems relevant and these microtubules also but if I can , it could be relevant to consider the real foundamental objects and so the informations in their pure sense, I...

view entire post


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

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 08:52 GMT
I think the atheist physics community will destroy all of its knowledge before they accept the simple fact that God created the universe. Atheist arrogance has failed to lead to any new breakthroughs. But the combined ego of atheists will be a detriment more to Western civilization, than it will be to a Creator whom they deny the existence of. The actual mechanism of how physics works is actually pretty easy to explain, but that doesn't get you grants.

When Western civilization crumbles to dust, you better learn how to be a gun slinger or wield a sword. We could have traveled to the stars, but atheist physicists couldn't get past their huge EGO.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 11:00 GMT
Hi Jason, maybe it is the human unconsciousness the problem and we could be more logic, like I explained you, we have invented the arms and weapons, the borders, the money and others and if a kind of infinite eternal consciousness exist , so I beleive strongly that never this thing wanted that we create them....you know a friend told me that your twin brothers are the black people and the native indians.......we live on a planet earth having evolved oddly, and we forget generally our foundamental lwas, we are all brothers and we must live respecting these universal laws,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 11:09 GMT
Hi Jason,

And your twin sister which is black and lesbian, will be the president in USA.

The big EGO is seen in how we want to be in control of things. But this is already off-topic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 11:20 GMT
To all:

The very big problem is how we define consciousness. Penrose talk of a proto-consciousness is one step in thre right direction, as well as Damasios hierarchy of consciousness, where he also talks of proto-consciousness, but not in the same meaning as Penrose. Today the problem is that consciousness is defined as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I or J.... etc. without stating which definition is used. The most common is that awareness, which already is a result of computations, exclusions, what we call informations, is equaled with consciousness. This is so evidently totally WRONG.

Consciousness must be something very small, just as Penrose says it is in Gödelian math. But my guts resist to put it in hidden variables... then we must find how to make it emergent as information.

I also very much like Cristi Stoicas work on this, using Bohm. Must study it more. What is hidden in consciousness? The uncertainty must be something very essential in it.

Regards. Ulla Mattfolk.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 21:01 GMT
For Jason,

One of the oldest known poems is from Ancient Egypt called "Hekau" or 'the utterance.' It starts out "Hekau, anuk puuh Khephr naah" which translates to "the utterance is the origin story of Khephra." In this work; it is taught that the body of the Divinity had to arise first, along with Consciousness, before the material world could arise.

This reflects a sensibility more like Paola Zizzi's "Big Wow" where the event which condensed the possibilities (from an initial superposition) in the early universe was the emergence of cosmic consciousness - a big "Wow!" - an awakening. But one could also make a nice analogy with higher Maths, asserting that the sequentially evolutive property of the Octonions had to arise before the universe could be made.

'Was created' or 'did evolve' is somewhat a matter of perspective about the cosmos and not necessarily something completely different. Castaneda talks about the realm of the "pure abstract" and one could argue that consciousness needed to arise there, and that the universe arose from that. This makes sense. What makes it hard is when 'creation' is treated as a dogmatic religious belief.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 21:22 GMT
In further reply...

I think it is a non-explanation to say "God created it." so I agree with Kjetl. The real question is whether the evolution of the universe was shaped through conscious participation or was in fact automatic. So I ask; do you feel consciousness was necessary to having the universe arise?

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 21:46 GMT
Jonathan, we can tell all what we want , nobody knows the answer, nor you, nor me, nobody, we are limited and about the consciousness in fact it is the same, we don t know why we think and are conscious, and it is different than this intelligence in fact also, in fact we cannot affirm is something has created this physicality or mot and the persons persuaded lack of humility and determinism, so I retrun the question , it is the same in the other sense, do you fell the mathematical accident was necessary to having the universe arise, in fact all our assumptions are just assumptions,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 21, 2020 @ 18:11 GMT
I look at the standard model, the periodic table, the physics constants, and I think to myself, how did any of this arise in a "one shot" situation, by mistake? Or as a random event without design?

Even the Bible describes God as a Holy Ghost. And ghosts are known to be invisible things that cause things to happen, but evidence of there existence is very difficult to establish. But we live in a universe in which the physics community has established the existence of invisible things like Higgs bosons and virtual particles.

By assuming the existence of an Intelligent Designer (God), I can already come up with a graviton model that uses things that are already established in physics, to create an experiment using things that engineers can already do. I don't need to make up superstrings and quantum loops and E8 crystals which have no basis in physics reality; those things are just for ego gratification and eye candy, they have nothing to do with reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 21:17 GMT
To Ulla...

Yes the variability and uncertainty are essential. Things must be free to vary and in a state 'yet to be determined,' at some juncture, for free will to be possible. Constructivism teaches that only that which can be constructed is real. The reality of consciousness is realized in making determinations, which is in part pure observation, but is necessarily also an expression of free will, and a construction. So I agree with your main point in reply to my comment.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 17, 2020 @ 21:54 GMT
it is more complex than this , and this consciousness and free will can converge due to encodings foundamental and observations, but we cannot compute them actually , it is different than this intelligence and if thinkers think they can, so they lack of logic because they don t know the real foundamental objects nor this origin of our universe and why we think , they just mimate the microtubules and brains in utilising some mathematical tools but it is not to explain the consciousness or free will, just they mimate the intelligence, we cannot confound simply.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 09:55 GMT
One of the big questions is why hidden variables like asymptotic degrees of freedoms and virtual particles has to exist like a shadow universe. But why are our classical world limited to 3D? It is about our senses and our perceptions maybe, and they are not perfect, actually long from perfect, but still often many times better than any instruments we can create. This is a problem for our measurements. Also our brain modulates the information we get, around 10% of total information, and distort it... So I want to EXCLUDE humans from the measurement theory.... but again, what would be a perfect measurement, objective? I don't know.

Unsure information is often 'fixed' first. So we have two eyes, two ears, two sides almost similar, but varying a little. Maybe this thought can be used, like in LIGO, two 'arms'...? In Penrose model it would be gravity induced? Weighted scales in a way... a selection before measurement in a way...

Note that this is always a function of time. Time has also its own uncertainty (it is continous).

Life is a function of time. Symmetry breaking and decoherence...

Best, Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 18:29 GMT
Thank you Ulla,

It is perhaps true that asymptotic freedom and virtual particles point the way to a larger field of view - that reality is actually higher-dimensional. From where I stand; it looks like our familiar 3-d space is emergent. What if the higher dimensions present in some theories coexist in a more tangible way?

Perhaps saying extra dimensions are curled up is paradoxically like saying they are pasted on the edge of the universe, if the current cosmos had a higher-dimensional origin. This is I think supported by the known properties of non-associative algebras on which many higher-d theories including String theory depend.

I think the "disproof of reality" experiment is based on an incomplete measurement schema where certain conditions need to be satisfied. Briefly; the apparatus would need to create a condition such that no more than 2 of the entangled qubits are collinear and no more than 3 are coplanar. From what I recall; their whole apparatus is on a plane. So a complete measurement of this kind would require 7 qubits and prove that reality is objective after all.

More later,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 20, 2020 @ 18:45 GMT
My grandfather

while still alive

put the light of

the prize in my eye

before I was just twelve

and he died.

And I cried.

He said I would know

if my thoughts were

righteous if I could

walk down the street

as if they were

all visible.

Let an ethical regard

for humanity be

your guiding star

for it will remain fixed

amid the tumult and

gales that would hurl many

a soul upon the shoals

of life.

Go figure. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 18:33 GMT
So excellent!

It might stop people from thinking altogether though. That might not be so bad. T'san Sen said "Stop talking, stop thinking, and there is nothing you will not understand." Perhaps your grandfather was on to something.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 18:49 GMT
yes we need a lesson about the universal altruism and the humility in front of this universe, the vanity destroys all, we are all vanitious and not perfect unfortunally and we are eaily irritated and touched, the false politeness sometimes is even the fake road after all but a good new, we evolve in consciousness and we fight this vanity with an universal love like artists imaginative on this sphere earth, lol don t critic never the ideologies, thoughts, beliefs, philosophies , works of humans, they become so angry, always this vanity and jealousy, but after all we are all linked isn t it ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 24, 2020 @ 18:54 GMT
Jonathan and John, like it seems that you are real universalists full of love and without vanity, you could utilise your consciousness and skillings in sciences and about the global generality in putting maybe some relevant ideas on my group GLOBAL COLLABORATION, we need concrete ideas, I know that you are so humble and so skillings that it could be relevant to have your general points of vue and solutions for the common well , all can be analysed, the politics, the economy, the ecology, the technology, this and that, show me your heart and your solutions, we must create a good manifest to convice this UN but , don t accept this global system but improve it with universalism and altruism and skillings in sciences and consciousness, I know that you are probably interesting persons , so show me without vanity of course...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Aug. 25, 2020 @ 17:53 GMT
Once again, the term consciousness is ambiguous and therefore not very useful for science or AI. Free choice is a much better way to show why we act the way that we act. Here is Penrose’s abstract with free choice replacing consciousness and shows that free choice is just Penrose’s orchestrated objective reduction.

Abstract: A common scientific view is that the actions of a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2020 @ 18:00 GMT
There are a hundred trillion cells in the body. Every one of them acts like a battery. Is it any wonder that we experience hunger, wants, desires?

Incidentally, the entry point of consciousness by a soul is not micro-tubules, it's wave functions. Wave functions come from the Planck scale and transmit our experiences back down to the Planck scale.

Free choice is really only possible for those with prosperity. Yet we can all make choices. But the question is: can we all get what we want?

If you want an AI that can actually perform helpful work around the house, that would really help humanity. I don't think it needs actual consciousness.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Aug. 26, 2020 @ 04:14 GMT
It is the 200 billion neural synapses that determine free choice...Prosperity is a result of free choice not the other way around. Our emotion spectrum determines feeling and feeling determines free choice. The matter-action universe is made up of matter, action, and quantum phase and so wavefunctions represent that reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 26, 2020 @ 17:56 GMT
It is my opinion that matter occupies wave functions. The distinction is that, if we experience feelings, it is because wave functions are part of the human soul/spirit. I assume that wave functions are describing actual things that are not part of the standard model (yet) but someday will be. Wave functions are like space, somewhere to put a particle (electrons, atoms, chemistry, etc.). Particles don't feel. Consciousness is more of a spiritual field (spirit field). A spirit field "Feels" what it's like to have molecular chemistry going on, thus experiencing "being alive". At least this way of organizing things makes more sense to me.

It is also more natural and respectful toward humanity to acknowledge their soul, unlike the atheist science community that likes to enslave common people by telling them they don't have a soul.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 26, 2020 @ 18:10 GMT
I have never seen a more obvious attempt to enslave and tyrannize humanity by telling them they have no soul, and then discounting all the evidence, contact and communication with spirits, throwing it out like a medieval villain throws an unwanted baby off the castle tower.

Physics only makes sense if wave functions are seen as part of a "spiritual" phenomena. Atheist physicists talk about 26 dimensional superstrings, but can't even come up with an experiment to prove their existence. Yet to say that a wave function could exist with 26 or more degrees of freedom as something that can exist without biological cellular structures is somehow heresy!

Atheists like to say that "WE" don't know; but the truth is that some people have eyes to see what's going on, and it's more accurate to say "YOU" don't know that you have an everlasting soul that grows more complex as it experiences many lifetimes. Each lifetime is like packing up this 26+ dimensional wave function so that it fits into a 3D+1 biological body (whether it's comfy or not).

Free will is your choice to: eat the cup cake or not. That means that you can make choices for short term pleasure or long term advantage. All this other stuff I hear about choice being "NOISE" is bonkers!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 26, 2020 @ 19:35 GMT
This reader never said there is no soul...

But the challenge, in making things scientific, is to devise a context where what we know from Science and what Spirit tells us can simultaneously exist. Penrose has taken a stab at this and deserves to be respected for it. His idea is tangible and remains plausible. He has taken a lot of undeserved ridicule instead, from reductionists in the life sciences.

It is even a greater challenge to find a common basis for God and Science. I have some ideas on this and it appears you do too. But I doubt either of our conceptualizations reveal the grandeur of the truth. Most people don't know Math was the tool God used to invent the universe (if you like that metaphor), but that you have to apply all of it at once.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 26, 2020 @ 19:48 GMT
I am glad there are those in the science community who are more enlightened than atheists like Steven Hawkings and Niel DeGrasse Tyson who use their fame to disparage the idea of a soul as being a parlor trick of nature. Neither of whom made any significant contributions to physics.

Furthermore, it's not a metaphor that God used mathematics to create the universe. It is my view that gravitons expand at the speed of light and fill all space with 4D relativistic geometry. Objects that act like mathematics.

Say what you want about how "nobody really knows". But between you and me, I know how to create an experiment that can prove the existence of gravitons. In contrast, the atheist physics community has nothing to test or to prove the existence of superstrings or quantum loops.

Jason

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 26, 2020 @ 20:23 GMT
Hello to both of you, I like the 3, Penrose, Hawking and Neil Degrasse Tyson, they are general and skilling, I have read the book a brief strory of times, I have seen all the cosmos of Neil de gRasse Tyson, they have their own philosophies and they share relevant ideas, the series cosmos were very good , they have assumptions but the most important is their works concrete, like Penrose he has pondered many relevant papers on Aarxiv, I have learnt all his papers , of course he has several assumptions like his ideas about the quantum gravitation and the hard problem of consciousness , but they try to explain unknowns and share wonderful general ideas, nobody knows the origin of this universe really nor the foundamental objects after all, we just try to find explainations. They are genius for me and it is more than respectable. Like told Jonathan, never he has told Penrose about the souls , he has like all his philosophical ideas but here it is about this model of consciousness and in reading his papers , the reduction is very interesting. These 3 thinkers have given to the world relevant things, with different methods,I have dreamt so much with the series cosmos, Neil Degrasse Tyson has endorsed me on linkedin before my hackings on this platform, I was obliged to stop, I had too much problems by odd persons, Regards

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

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 01:33 GMT
A wormhole is a strong acceleration field along a linear path. Physicists could literally create one within a few years if they listened to me and put their mind to it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 01:54 GMT
A wormhole occurs when the relativistic mass is not shed as quickly as would the negative acceleration require. Spatially, a temporal displacement occurs and the particle simply goes from being in one conjunctive pair position to another in the same instant of linear. time. And it is typically along what would trace as a graduated curved trajectory.

Is that what you are trying to say?

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

report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 03:17 GMT
Theoretically, a worm hole could be created that lift people or objects off the ground onto a moving platform with a vertical acceleration field of 3g, and a cylindrical field 3 meters wide, 100 meters long.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 04:35 GMT
John,

None of what you said is necessary to talk about work holes.

Jason

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 17:50 GMT
Dear John, here is a relevant paper of Roger Penrose, Ivette Fuentes, Richard Howl, it is about an attenpt to unify the quantum theory and this general relativity with a Bose Einstein condensate, I liked how they gravitize the quantum theory for measurements and quantizations, they recognise that there is a problem and that it is unclear in fact , this Bose eisntein condensate for me is very relevant , I have made the same for my renormalisation of this quantum gravitation, I have just like I told you encoded this cold dark matter and considered 3D finite series of spheres and their motions, rotations oscillations, they have utilised the sphere in this work. I d like to discuss with them about all this, it seems relevant and I could explain them my model having reached this quantum gravitation in respecting the newtonian mechanics, I have just changed the distances and otehrs because the main gravitational codes are farer , so we must take into account a different logic that just the protons and electrons to resume.They are just emergent in fact.

Here is the paper on arxiv https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.04630.pdf

regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 19:42 GMT
This looks relevant to me Steve...

Thanks,

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 19:52 GMT
Great! Now if only you could think of something that could be isolated in the laboratory to perform experiments on!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 19:55 GMT
Perhaps try using entangled photons. Try blueshifting/redshifting the entangled pairs using centrifuges with fiber optic cables on them to simulate the Equivalence Principle. Basically you'd be charging up the entanglement with gravitational potential energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 28, 2020 @ 19:36 GMT
As for the abstract, AI, Consciousness, Computation, and Physical Law by Sir Roger Penrose, the real question is: do we care if AI robots that can do common tasks have consciousness? If they can serve humans by doing chores, then they have fulfilled their purpose.

Human consciousness is meant to do more interesting and exciting things! Human beings are meant to fulfill their purpose, which is unique to the individual.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 04:12 GMT
While you are correct...

I would ask you to get off your high horse Jason. John is right; the question is the relevance of Penrose's approach for a physical mechanism or framework in which consciousness might reside or arise. It is rather a trivial thing to have the emergence of conscious properties in physical matter - if you assert the physical universe was first created by a conscious entity.

What Penrose is attempting to do is in many ways harder. For you to say this angle of approach is invalid is a specious argument that ignores the need to be able to prove premises through scientific evidence. What is your evidence procedure to clinch the case that Penrose's work is irrelevant? I doubt you are even thinking in those terms, and instead want Penrose to adopt your view.

Good luck,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 05:55 GMT
I have an idea for a hierarchy of fields, some of which make the standard model possible, but others are higher dimensional fields that are better compared to spirit/spiritual planes of existence.

To be candid, when I try to explain how a spirit/soul is related to a quantum field, I get this feeling of dread because I know that you'll just doubt what I'm saying. Trying to explain how these things work to a "learned man of science" is torture because you won't accept any new ideas other than your own.

I'm also the guy who figured out that the expanding graviton makes more sense than superstrings and quantum loops, but the physics community is too high on their high horse to listen to that suggestion either.

Maybe in 50 years from now, the physics community will figure out that they all have souls. Maybe you'll realize that you were wrong in your criticism of people who believe in ghosts, God, UFO's, abducting ET's; maybe then you'll get off your high horse and on the highway of technology development. Only then can we fly around our solar system, exploring, mining for minerals, meeting new life forms.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 11:15 GMT
I'm gonna go way off topic here just to touch base with you, Jason.

So... how did Moses get all twelve tribes together in the most fertile center of the Nile delta, to foment rebellion and escape slavery in the first place? Do you really want to believe that the ancient Egyptians who built the Pyramids, were the only race of people in the history of human civilization to evolve a slave...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kuyukov Vitaly wrote on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 13:28 GMT
There is an interesting fact, if the de Broglie

wavelength is equal to the Planck length,

then the momentum is determined on the

Planck scale

L= 10 {-35} m

p = m v = h k = h / L = 60 ( kg m/s)

A person lives with such an momentum (60

kg, 1 m / s) , intelligent creature. I think this

is not a simple coincidence, on the Planck

scale the concept of space-time is replaced

by quantum gravity, moreover, the quantum

theory is modified (generalized uncertainty

principle). This means that the wave

properties on the Planck scale should

disappear (the many-worlds interpretation

disappears, a single self remains), the border

between the quantum world and the classical

world passes on a human scale.

Moreover, I am formulating the idea of a

wave filter. Any sentient being must have

momentum in the area of the Planck scale

(not less than this value). If the

momentum is less, then wave properties

prevail, then the mind splits into many

worlds branches, a single rational self will

not arise. Human momentum fits perfectly

into the Planck scale (on the border between

the quantum and the classical world).

Fermi paradox, where are the civilizations in

the galaxy. Quantum gravity responds, an

intelligent creature exists with momentum in

the region of the Planck scale, where the

wave properties of the body disappear. This

is a very small detection range. This is a

wave filter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 13:48 GMT
Kuyukov Vitaly

sorry, I do not know which name is your surname, or given name, so I'll greet using both.

That is appropriate to the problem Sir Roger has laid out, in context to the physical laws and applicability to making a computation of intelligence beyond the arbitrary measurement of intellect common today.

How that gravitational potential expressed at Planck scale physically manifests itself is very fuzzy to me. It however does hold up that any enclosed space will have a center of gravity, and it would be interesting to get hands on psychological reports of subjects experiencing long duration space flight in free fall orbit.

Now we are getting a proper topical discussion started. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 14:39 GMT
Hello all, it is relevant indeed but the problem is that nobody know the planck scale and so the main codes and even the origin of this universe, I beleive strongly that we can just compute the intelligence but we cannot mimate the consciousness, it is probably beyond our understanding and technology, now if one day we arrive to create an artificial consciousness, it implies a lot of ontological questions, and philosophical and even we must be prudent about all this. For me the intelliegnce is about our standard model, but the consciousness is about a deeper logic at these main codes. Why we exist, what are we, from what, why we think, why we evolve, have we an infinite eternal consciousness or are we a mathematical accident, all this is beyond our understanding, we must accept this, that implies limitations in computations, predictabilty, decidability, we cannoty confound I beleive the intellence and the consciousness, even if they can converge they seem things different. It is the same about , have we a soul, or not ? why we encode informations and how they are sorted and in function of what and where ? we are limited unfortunally. Even the foundamental objects we don t know them, even the origin of this universe we don t know, have we fields, have we coded particles and from what ??? can we affirm to know ? no unfortunally. Even this planck scale it is just an assumption also of Planck, and it is not possible to reach it , we cannot measure it. It is the same with the infinity, the infinities and the finite series, and all the partitions, we don t know really , we are youngs in fact in knowledges . Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 16:06 GMT
a thing wich intrigues me is that we can rank the consciousness in different levels , I don t know how many but it seems important, the computation of the works of Turing could help of course but the complexity of mathematical algorythms is incredible in the theory computational of the mind. The procedures need to insert a deep logic and we are not there unfortunally considering these limitations of scales and main codes but a partition universal exists indeed. What is the road so ? it must be ranked and the procedures can appear , there is probably a connection and bridge with this AI, the functionalism and connectionism so become the keys with the turing method, the neural networks must of course take into account these brains and the neurosciences. How can we converge between the classical computation and the neural computation and this consciousness and intelligence, they are different in fact but bridges, rational exist.It is there that the incompleteness of Godel becomes relevant about the argumentations and informations. The cognitive sciences are so complex that a general method ranking all is necessary. I beleive strongly that the quantum computing is the secret but for this the foundamental mathematical and physical objects must be considered and I consider like you know 3D coded spheres, that can converge like a conjecture with the strings but we need also to encircle this quantum gravitation and the main codes, like this fith force also more the main codes at this planck scale of scale of these said main codes. That becomes a puzzle of a complexity beyond our understanding and it is very intriguing if we find the road. A kind of wisdom is important in these works that we extrapolate and search.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 19:53 GMT
Or more accurately, teach science without atheist commentary because it's all absurd anyway.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 19:59 GMT
Between us Jason, we understand all here ion FQXi who is the most relevant between you and Penrose you know , it is easy to see and recognise , you could learn his wonderful papers instead to critic oddly, you repeat things , we have understood Jason, now please develop and go deeper because there you repeat the same things still and always and nothing is really interesting, try to be relevant liek Penrose or Susskind or Wilczek or Connes, or Dupliij, or Hooft or others, at this moment them they have proved their skillings, not you , regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 20:13 GMT
Teaching AI to "understand" is a waste of time.

You need to create a "wetware brain" that can behave in a way that acts like the eigenstates of a wave function. But those eigenstates are going to be things like:

1. Do dishes.

2. Pick up clothes on floor.

3. Scoop litter box.

4. Sweep the floor.

5. Put everything in its designated place.

6. Scrub toilets.

You have to use robots to do these things with little or no guidance. You also have to build these robots to be durable and to offer them on the open market for a low cost.

Remember how they treated droids in Star Wars? Exactly like that. Because they're not going to have an actual consciousness! They're going to have wetware that creates virtual constructs of things like houses, rooms, objects.

We don't want and we don't need some stupid AI to think for us. That's what humans are for.

You can have industrial robots that can do more complicated things like fix and repair other tools. Medical robots could assist the doctor with a diagnosis, but only if the patient is okay with it.

ROBOTS SERVE HUMANS! Robots should know how to make drinks, sandwiches, serve snacks. Robots have no souls and no consciousness. If you want wisdom, go climb a mountain and find a guru! Robots are servants! Robots have no rights. Robots have no feelings. Robots are not machines that feel anything. If you want to be compassionate, go find a human being to help, give kindness to or be friends with. Robots shouldn't even look human!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 29, 2020 @ 20:32 GMT
AI is not supposed to think about the infinite. That's what humans are for. AI is supposed to be the mind of a robotic mobile tool platform. The job of the AI is to help the mobile platform to navigate the physical world so that it can perform its designed tasks, functions, and serve the needs of humans.

It is the human that is supposed to think about the infinite. It is the job of the robot to make sure the human has a snack.

The needs of the humans ALWAYS comes before the needs of the robotic appliance platform.

If you feel compassionate for robots, then you are anthropomorphizing them in a way that is inappropriate.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 30, 2020 @ 02:46 GMT
The atheists are fearful of living an afterlife! QFT seems to suggest that spirits could be higher dimensional fields.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Aug. 30, 2020 @ 04:34 GMT
Trolls are afraid of real life, they hide in cyberspace.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Aug. 30, 2020 @ 04:48 GMT
So you're not attacking my theory, you're attacking me personally. That's fine.

You have to decide to withdraw your soul from darkness and seek out the light.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 30, 2020 @ 06:21 GMT
If you could accept that quantum fields lead to higher dimensional fields lead to Spirituality, then we could all work together, live happily, and create wonders beyond your wildest dreams!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 30, 2020 @ 17:52 GMT
Jason, we cannot affirm that the extradimensions are a reality,it is just an assumption like in this string theory begining in 1D at this planck scale and after the 1D cosmic field and after we extrapolate 11D or others in other tools like the geometrical algebras and this E8 exceptional group, but all this is not proved, I consider mainly particles coded, 3D spheres and this 3D for me is foundamental at all scales, it is the choice of the universe and we can also have our own philosophy and even our own interpretation of a kind of infinite eternal consciiousness creating this physicality in coding and sending informations to create our topologies, geometries, matters, fields and the evolution, I can understand what you tell but nobody can affirm these deep unknowns, we don t know in fact nor the origin of this universe, nor the foundamental objects. We must accept these limitations with humility and try to prove our assumptions. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Aug. 30, 2020 @ 18:33 GMT
Steve,

You're quite right about the abstraction of demensionality, and it is difficult to get the idea across to those whom don't like mathematics, that such things we call a sphere isn't referring to a ball but only the closed, 2 dimensional surface. Or a dimension meaning only something we decide on by which we make a measurement, such as the commonly recognized 3 axis orthogonal relationship people simply take for evidence when they look at the ceiling corner of their room. But we can also say the full side of a shoebox is "a" dimension, and the other sides are each seperate dimensions. The lack of general consensus on strict definition of terms often leads to confusion. It doesn't mean the room corner isn't itself real, but it does mean that it isn't the choice of which meaning of dimension we use that makes it real. Building materials do that. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 30, 2020 @ 18:53 GMT
Hi John, I consider 3D spheres for these quantum and cosmological spheres, the 2D is interesting for the hopf fibrations on the surfaces of these 3D spheres, that permits to rank the quasi particles for me. The universe and it is personal of course is in 3D at all scales and the 3D spheres and their rotations motions oscillations and deformations are for me the secret of all our physicality. So I...

view entire post


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

report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Aug. 30, 2020 @ 21:45 GMT
Dr. Penrose, please,

Maybe the argument that would permit quantum coherence in the warm wet macro-world of microtubules would be to go with Planck's preloaded theory so that qubits are not instantaneous events, and renormalize the time parameter to 1 as a factor the Boltzmann Constant.

Before Charlie Rose was disgraced he had a series panel discussion called "The Brain" on PBS in the States, and recalling some of that and other dust in my skull, The mylean (spelling?) sheath that insulates long neurons is segmented and electro-mechanically behaves something like transformer substations in electrical transmission lines, giving a much faster response across the whole length of neural impulse. And someplace I recall that the optic nerve from the retinal neurosis to the ocipital lobe is something like a meter long and condenses the number of electro-chemical signals from the eye to the brain a thousandfold.

That and perhaps micro-wormwhole displacement of subatomic particles in a matter filled space would help qualify quantum mechanics as computational bioware. On an ad hoc provisional basis, given that free neutrons are theoretically ejected at ~90% of light velocity, if temporal displacement could occur if the relativistic mass were not shed (again, classical preloaded energy level decay lag) as fast as the relative velocity down to ~86% (Lorentz Gamma curve) light velocity, the temporal displacement would be across a very short distance in space giving at least some probability of a subatomic particle to appear to make a qubit decoherent choice in the cranial region.

jrc

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

report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 1, 2020 @ 19:28 GMT
Perhaps a cheap experiment for a Pauli wormhole detection would be to use a SQUID and a elemental Beta emitter with a smear of ballistic gel as a topological insulator, like the lithium grease on the underside of ECM when mounting it to the distributor. Then compare detection values against a cathode ray type emitter. KISS Never mind q in calibration, setting the cathode emitter to the same velocity as the isotope emitter velocity in a small vacuum chamber could use a scintillation screen, then make redundant tests of both types through ballistic gel. A measurable difference of p of the Beta particles at precise equal eeparation would argue well for Hameroff's premise of quantum interference in microtubules. jrc

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

report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 31, 2020 @ 03:49 GMT
Steven Hawkins got it wrong! Entropy DOES leave our universe. When humans suffer, all that information is stored in the brain. All the worries, fears, survival strategies, memories of being hurt, are all stored in the memories of the brain. When we die, all those memories turn to dust. Near Death Experiences confirm this hypothesis.

Physicists who study AI got it wrong when they thought that some superior robot AI would be able to solve problems that humans can't solve. The truth is, the atheist physicists are not using their minds to their full potential. If you took up meditation, you would be able to solve problems at higher levels. I have already demonstrated that this is possible. I'm not a professional physicists and I'm not particularly brilliant; but even I can figure out how the graviton has to expand at the speed of light in order to unify QM with GR.

The purpose of AI robots is not to do with physicists can't do. You already have it in you to solve the hardest problems. The purpose of an AI robot is to make you a sandwich, do your dishes and wash your clothes while you're contenmplating the mysteries of the universe.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 31, 2020 @ 19:24 GMT
Too bad you won't talk to me about entropy. I will argue that "death" removes entropy from the universe, and that God already knew this. I'm not arguing that death is a good thing. I'm arguing that God knows how his universe works.

I am arguing that God exists, that souls exist.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 31, 2020 @ 20:05 GMT
Hi Jason, We can argue indeed and we can have our philosophical ideas but we must also prove our assumptions, and Penrose has probably his own ideas personal and philosophical but he is a rational scientist and he knows that inside the sciences community the thinkers prefer to not speak too much about these things because the sciences community is divided and many consider only the pure...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 1, 2020 @ 01:23 GMT
There is plenty of evidence to support near death experiences. None to support string theory, so you should chuck it in the waste basket for being a mathematical fantasy with no connection to reality.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 1, 2020 @ 01:27 GMT
What good is mathematical fairy dust if we throw out truth?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Aug. 31, 2020 @ 19:27 GMT
One can argue that when a physicist dies, all that knowledge is removed from the universe. So entropy CAN be reduced.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 1, 2020 @ 16:09 GMT
the entropy Jason is a complex topic in details but simple generally, In thermo I suppose that you know, it is the calculation of disorder, for example we can calculate the energy disponible to make a work, see the relevance of the equation PV=nRT, and so S is the natural logarythm with the work of Boltzman if my memory is correct. We don t know all about the main codes like I said and so the disponible energy and so the real entropy universally speaking but it seems irreversible in the arrow of time. If we want to analyse the philosophy of this entropy, nobody knows really and we cannot affrim what is the secret after the death, but probably that there is someting indeed to analyse but we have limitations actual. We could maybe consider the electronagntism and work for the life and the death and correlate with the consciousness and a deeper interpretation of this gravitatipon, but we are not there actually,l we don t know simply, nor you nor nobody in fact, we have just assumptions and personal philosophical interpretations. See for example the life, the organism and the second law of thermo about the increasing entropy and that the Entropy is a function of the state of the system, so the change in entropy of a system is determined by its initial and final states. In the idealization that a process is reversible, the entropy does not change, while irreversible processes always increase the total entropy. You can extrapolate these ideas about the total entropy of the universe. An interesting analysis also is the theory of informations and the works of Shannon to see clearer...regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 1, 2020 @ 16:43 GMT
You're right. Without direct observation, nobody knows for certain. Some phenomenon might be too subtle to be verified in an empirical way. In fact, there was a time when people didn't believe in special relativity! Some people still don't!

So, I agree with you that the philosophy of entropy is terribly misguided; it is sad that it led Boltzman to commit suicide. We should do a little more, as part of the scientific community, to remind people that entropy does not imply hopelessness any more than a Higgs field implies that non corporeal consciousness is proven by physics. Or maybe it does! Maybe entropy does imply hopelessness, and quantum fields do imply a non corporeal afterlife! Unreasonable skeptics will still doubt it, but again, there are people who don't believe in special relativity or a round earth!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 1, 2020 @ 16:53 GMT
Happy :) that we can agree sometimes, we need indeed to know more about all this, and the empirism and rationalism indeed are essential.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 1, 2020 @ 19:10 GMT
Noise! LMAO!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 1, 2020 @ 23:32 GMT
By "noise", do you mean the OM...?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 2, 2020 @ 06:24 GMT
If Penrose had discovered meditation and the OM, I was going to get excited! But ... noise... proto consciousness...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Gerhard Ris wrote on Sep. 2, 2020 @ 11:11 GMT


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

report post as inappropriate


Gerhard Ris wrote on Sep. 2, 2020 @ 11:15 GMT
Dear Sir Penrose,

Thanks for the nice lecture, and nice slides on a most important topic AI, Consciousness, Computation, and Physical Law

I’m a former Dutch lawyer, magistrate and D.A. who in order to help a client whose children were taken from her due to a IQ test, used my model on legal evidence and proof that my friend emeritus professor of statistics Richard Gill calls...

view entire post


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

report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Sep. 3, 2020 @ 01:36 GMT
Hi Gerhard,

What is "to think properly"? Is that your own definition of what proper thought is, or from someone else's philosophy?

Isn't there some usefulness for people who can think improperly? By which I mean opposing approved group think? Potentially opening up new ways of operating/new directions and preventing stagnation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 3, 2020 @ 05:19 GMT
Good catch Georgina! "To think properly" is definitely open to interpretation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 3, 2020 @ 07:58 GMT
Hi all,

Georgina, Happy to see you , I asked me where you were like we didn t see you at this moment, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 3, 2020 @ 05:32 GMT
"Infringement is slavery and thus forbidden as are all undue infringements on fundamental human rights. " This statement reminds me of my brother's ex wife who once said that "tickling is literally torture". You have to be mindful of extreme statements or they can lead you to insanity, lead you to make a cascade of choices that are harmful to others in some other way you hadn't thought of.

"We are robots with inherent shortage of memory space. Robots that must assume to have a meaning to life and a free will. Get this wrong and the system will get more and more overstressed and fail in a Dr Ingo Piepers style WWIII. "

We are certainly souls who inhabit a biological body. It is true that there are limits to our cognitive function that if exceeded, can result in an unhappy life. We all want to live happy lives if possible! We should take care of one another, but also respect each other's wishes.

Please each other? Ourselves? Please God? So many choices! I honestly think we can do all three if we pray, ask for help from the Spirit World.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 3, 2020 @ 08:25 GMT
Professor Penrose,

I d be happy and honored if a person like you could support my project GLOBAL COLLABORATION on FQXi, I need persons like you , authorities and you have probably very relevant ideas to convice the UN with concrete innovative solutions where all wins, alone we are nothing, this project is very important for me, we must try to change this planet with sciences and consciousness,

best regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Sep. 5, 2020 @ 13:16 GMT
Hi all,

I have understood nature and properties of three states of mind (sub conscious, conscious and superconcious)I think the physical and mathematical aspect of superconcious state of mind can be real theory of everything!!but it is extremely hard! To develop algorithm and technology for superconcious state of mind is also tedious job!I am writing article on three states of mind! I think it will be quite useful regarding our job!I will let everyone know when I will finish that article!

Thanks and regards to all

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Sep. 5, 2020 @ 15:43 GMT
Prasad,

How much does this job pay? And do we have to pee in a jar? I can hit a jar. jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 6, 2020 @ 07:55 GMT
I think we should go back to the cosmic paradigm where we are souls who reincarnate into a world that was created by God. Basically a little bit Judaeo-Christian, a little bit spiritualism. Let's just learn to love one another.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 6, 2020 @ 08:40 GMT
are you sure that you encircle the love, I doubt, you don t show a real tolerance and universal love , we see a lot of hate probably due to jealousy and frustration, it is so a fake spiritual christianity, you don t really encicle his message I believe, all what you want is to satisfy your ego, you are not an altruist fo me, but you could prove maybe that I am false, you must improve your soul, it seems not sufficient, the paradigm is there, evolve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 6, 2020 @ 11:19 GMT
If there was a real universal language, it might be humor. Animals like chimpanzees and dolphins seem to enjoy humor.

I think there is some kind of "woke" consciousness that is getting in the way of humor and laughing. It needs to be removed.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 6, 2020 @ 11:41 GMT
lol interesting about the humor that said, let s laugh , I know a lot of jokes :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Mark Wolfe wrote on Sep. 7, 2020 @ 23:35 GMT
C'mon Steve! Stop prevaricating! How much evidence had to be thrown out that would have proved that the Spiniza god and Universalism is real?

Because I can tell you! People like YOU threw out millions of testimonials of near death experiences and contact with the Creator-God, and with family and loved ones.

How much "science credibility" did you have to borrow to make your Spinoza god respectable!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 7, 2020 @ 23:42 GMT
The problem with the physics community trying to understand consciousness is that (1) you can't,... LOL

(2) ...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 8, 2020 @ 04:06 GMT
Steve,

Why can't you be a little more reasonable? Reasonable like me?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 8, 2020 @ 09:32 GMT
yes of course Jason, of course

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 11, 2020 @ 17:24 GMT
Hameroff and Penrose have very well worked about this consciousness and the cognitive sciences and the fact to try to unify this neurocomputing and this quantum computing, the secret is there, of course it becomes very complex because we don t know these foundamental mathematical and physical objects , but we can try to converge with the good mathematical tools, a partition exists with these foundamental objects, their geonetries, topologies, fields and properties and the microtubules, like Hameroff told, this consciousness is a deep mystery and the quantum consciousness becomes the key, the fact to conscier that the main primordial energy is conscious seems the key but how is distributed all this inside this physicality , the secret is there, what abiout singularities also tha main codes, it is a big unknown in fact , but we approach all days. I read a relevant paper of Hameroff , Quantum mathematical cognition requires quantum brain biology, it is very relevant, and the links with the free will seems essential also and why the rationalism seems to order the encodings, it is maybe the secret to heal the mental sickness due to disorders in brains and a lack of rational sortings, the infornations are too much in disorder for the schizophenia or psychotic comportments, we arrive at this psychology and the education and environments and of course the encodings with the sortings, superimposings and synchros. That implies so a questipon, how we encode and synchronise or sort these informations and why the memory stabilise them and why they permit to extrapolate the ideas and adaptations to our environments with our observations..... that becomes it seems to me a key if we find these foundamental objects.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 11, 2020 @ 18:55 GMT
the amino acids seem the keys also if we understand well their properties and excitations, they become foundamental like they are in all cells, the tryptophan is intriguing , they are encoded and we retrun about these encodings and if the quantum spheres, coded also are essential and foundamental objects, we can find several interesting link for these electronic excitations , the electron phonon and thermal links become interesting also and the works of Schrodinger, that implies in my model a relevance if this DM cold is encoded in nuclei and that we have this fith force, and the 3 aethers, we have codes encodings and the question is why and how , these microtubules need to be better understood and the secret seems to converge with the neural computing and quantum computing these transferts of energy and informations and so we need these foundamental objects ands the two fuels, photons and cold dark matter more the main codes , the space. All this puzzle becomes so complex seen the numbers of these finite series of 3D coded spheres and and all the amino acids and others in the brains, The coherences and decoherences seem essential and so the entropy and negentropy due to these 2 fuels in resume.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 01:04 GMT
Consider this Jason Mark Wolfe...

Scientists attempt to hold themselves to the highest standards of intellectual investigation, which requires either evidence-based proofs or sound logical deduction - so Physics tends to be empirical or mathematical. It is unsound to label scientists as deficient, for failing to grasp a truth that may not be in evidence.

You may have individual experiences that convince you God is real and palpable. In this you may be lucky, or cursed, because it's not like the fact you have seen God rubs off or touches everyone else in a way that makes God palpable for them. Then there is this "You claim to have the direct experience of the Divine; so what does it do for you, and how do we know?"

In the movie "Dr Strange" there was a character Jonathan Pangborn who decided not to delve further into the Mystic Arts, but instead to return to a normal life. I was such a student once; and then decided that learning to visit other dimensions could help me understand Physics better. It turned out to be true and it is especially applicable in Quantum Gravity.

On the other hand; I would never expect you or anyone to believe that I have visited with the Godhead in the highest place, or whatever. To be honest; it has been a long time since I took anyone on a grand tour journey like the Ancient One did for Strange when he first came to Kamar Taj. And one of the 3 people I so guided passed away back in July. So the evidence dwindles. The evidence for mystic travels is in the experiences themselves Jason.

Don't confuse belief with evidence or proof.

Best to you,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 07:58 GMT
Hi Jonathan, it is sure that we cannot affirm to know these things, of course we are all free to think like we want but the fact to affirm to know deep assumptions is not really rational. It is well explained what you have told,

friendly

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 08:30 GMT
Even with these experiences we must follow the evidence based journey in science. The 'religion' of science is to doubt, and it doubts even evidences, much more pure beliefs without evidence.

Great experiences may give you clues to follow, like some intuitive path, but they are never themselves Truths. You have to do the lessons yourself.

The negative side of blind belief is sometimes well seen. Sadly so.

Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 21, 2020 @ 08:46 GMT
ulla , lol many doubt that they can doubt :) all persuaded the humans

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Sep. 22, 2020 @ 07:25 GMT
Hi all,

I just read that there are 64 dimensions in the universe and God resides in 65th

Dimension according to indian philosophy! Also there are number systems, which are real, imaginary, quaternions, octonions,and sedenions which are in the order of 2^n! If we go beyond sedenions number system,then ultimate reality can be described,but according to Cayley dackson's construction we can not go beyond that!I think this post is debatable and can be useful!so I always say philosophy and science should go hand in hand to solve mysteries of universe and reality!

Love to all,

Regards,

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 23, 2020 @ 18:39 GMT
It sounds like...

You must be talking about the E8 x E8 universe theory of John Hagelin. While the octo-octonions do have more than a passing interest for me; I would put my money on a different formulation. It sounds like you want to put God just out of reach rather than inside of creation Prasad. Is that right?

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

My question is :

Can we go beyond sedenions?

If that is possible then the ultimate reality can be formulated!

Thanks,

Regards,

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 07:05 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

I recently read after sedenions come trigintaduonions! Has trigintaduonions formulated yet? Can we extend Cayley Dickson's construction to trigintaduonions and beyond that? Which will come as 64th dimension! Please answer!

Thanks,

Regards,

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Sep. 24, 2020 @ 09:52 GMT
can you give us the link, pls.

Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 27, 2020 @ 01:06 GMT
Adding dimensions won't necessarily get you more space or options...

If you study the higher-d spheres, you find that (hyper-) volume tops out in 5-d and (hyper-) surface area in 7-d. On the other hand, 24-d can be shown to be the most compact, in terms of sphere extents and close packing.

Then there is optiony. The octonion sphere S7 has 28 possible smooth or differential structures, while the sedenion sphere S15 has 16256. Since S1 through S6 have only one possible structure that makes them cool somehow.

If you study the fibrations of S15, you find it only breaks down into S7, S3, and S1 - for the octonion, quaternion, and complex numbers. So the 16-d sedenions get you to the point of having only the generative or evolutive algebras.

What extra benefit do you imagine 64-d gets us Prasad?

Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Sep. 27, 2020 @ 02:55 GMT
r = 1

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Sep. 27, 2020 @ 04:46 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for your comment!

That means if we go in higher dimensions , lower dimensions must be satisfied!

Just like when Yogi's goes in higher dimensions through mediation lower dimensions are purified! but what could be the logic behind that?is it 8 factorial?

Thanks,

Regards,

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 02:29 GMT
You'll like this...

The geometric figures and algebras go through a rotation with a period of 8 called the Bott periodicity. So similar structure appears over and over in higher dimensions, if you index by 8.

My take is that higher-d structures do affect our 3-d reality in 4-d spacetime, because cosmological transitions implement a dimensional reduction process which results in the present day dimensionality.

I look to simultaneous bottom-up and top-down processes to effect convergence.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 11:05 GMT
Hi To both of you,

Dear Jonathan. I love this theorem of Bott, and the homotopy groups of spheres and when we link the poincare conjecture proved by Perelman, that becomes relevant in considering also this E8 if we replace the points of strings by these finite primoridal series of 3D spheres having oddly in my calculations the dirac large number if we consider the number of cosmological spheres , we can even link the topological and euclidian spaces and the K theory. The homomorphisms become interesting to analyse. Several mathematical tools can be added also like the lie groups of course and derivatives more links with the works of Clifford. I beleive also that we can make a kind of conjecture with the D branes, strings and the Mtheory , superstrings in focusing in a pure 3D like a foundamental ,and in fractalising simply the scales with these mathematical tools. An other relevance is to consider the symplectic works , and symplectomorphisms. We can rank many things at my humble opinion. Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 20:14 GMT
It's like an infinite ladder....

Lower-d form extends into the higher-d and higher dimensional form projects onto the lower dimensions. But that way the shape of the scaffolding (Math itself) influences the shape of reality. Fun Stuff!

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Sep. 30, 2020 @ 13:14 GMT
Hi all,

i have two comments regarding existence of universe!

1:i think universe came into existence from point like intial singularity and ends into black hole singularity,this process repeats therefore universe is cyclic!

2:i think everything came into existence (matter,light,gravity and like that)from point like intial singularity ,and this physical world was formed!

thanks,love to all,

prasad divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Oct. 2, 2020 @ 07:42 GMT
dear jonathan,

we know that riemann's zeta function is applicable to complex numbers!,my question is can we extend it upto sedenions?

please reply,

thanks

prasad divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Oct. 3, 2020 @ 06:08 GMT
hi all,

i have a question to all physics lovers in different context:

we know the formula of uncertainty principle is deltax*deltap>or =h/4*pi, but what will happen if deltax*deltap=0?

please answer

thanks ,

prasad divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Oct. 6, 2020 @ 11:31 GMT
Respected Roger Penrose sir,

Many congratulations on getting prestigious Nobel Prize!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 6, 2020 @ 11:34 GMT
Hi Prasad, indeed he merits it, he is very skilling and relevant, congrats to him ,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Oct. 7, 2020 @ 02:18 GMT
Congratulations!!! long time coming.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 7, 2020 @ 09:26 GMT
Hi John, have you seen his words, I beleive a little bit the same with this Big bang, I see differently but I consider a deeper logic also, Penrose said this

“The Big Bang was not the beginning. There was something before the Big Bang and that something is what we will have in our future.

“We have a universe that expands and expands, and all mass decays away, and in this crazy theory of mine, that remote future becomes the Big Bang of another aeon."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Oct. 7, 2020 @ 14:02 GMT
Hi Steve,

I'm looking forward to the articles that will certainly follow, and the discussions that ensue. There has not been much in the news media yet and I haven't browsed the scientific journals, but from the snippets I am also quite curious to hear more of Andrea Ghez and her mathematical perspective. She is only the 4th woman to share in a Nobel and it is worth noting that many of the women whom are successful these days in pursuing careers in physics and cosmology are more likely to be found in Relativistic and gravitational studies and research than in the statistical world of QM. A short take of her on the network news gives a hint; she remarked that one of the intriguing things about Black Holes is that Time and Space become 'mixed'. And!... there arises the physical distinction between SR and GR where the notion of Time 'stopping' in a gravitational well is quite the contrary to Einstein's SR gedanken of time coming to a stop at light velocity. There should be some good discussions coming. :-) jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 7, 2020 @ 16:09 GMT
John, have you seen in his paper giving the Nobel prize , he speaks about spherically symmetrical collapses ,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Oct. 7, 2020 @ 11:40 GMT
Hi all,

I think universe may have came into existence from point like intial singularity and ends in black hole singularity! This process repeats as universe is cyclic!

Thanks, regards,

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 8, 2020 @ 19:34 GMT
May it please the reader...

I can boast of being published in the same volume with Sir Roger. He never got to Paris during that conference, but we were both presenters at FFP11, only he was a plenary speaker and I was a lowly plebe. See the following.

Frontiers of Fundamental Physics - 11th International Symposium

And his contribution is open access:

The basic ideas of conformal cyclic cosmology

Congratulations Sir Roger, on the well-deserved and long overdue Nobel Prize.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Oct. 11, 2020 @ 05:54 GMT
hi all,

i have a question in different perspective:

if energy can neither be created nor be destroyed ,then how does energy exists?

please reply,

prasad divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 12, 2020 @ 04:02 GMT
The question seems off topic. However I think the answer is tied up in what we think 'to exist' means. There is a difference between material existence, things which have substance, and volume, or being and are able to be at a singular time compared to energy of all kinds that does not have a body of its own but is change or potential for change of substantial things, it is or happens over time. Things with mass exist (at Uni-temporal Now), energy happens.

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

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 13, 2020 @ 00:03 GMT
To put it another way: Materially existent things, substance, being are like nouns. Energy is like verbs, designating doing of some kind; moving, flowing, vibrating and so on. Potential energy is like adjectives, designating the condition of the noun thing; Like primed, compressed, raised and so on. Verbs and adjectives apply to something else other than themselves.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Oct. 13, 2020 @ 06:34 GMT
dear georgina,

nice explanation!

i think intial energy may have came from from absolute source of energy for very small interval of time!some people say that it was already there but how can there be something from nothing?

is it eternal consciousness?

if universe is created through thru big bang then what powers big bang?

it is never ending hierarchy!

i think science is unable to explain this! we will have to go for philosophy for that

this is quite challenging ,isn't it?

thanks,

regards,

prasad divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 13, 2020 @ 10:35 GMT
Hi Georgina, Prasad, we must recognise that all this is beyond our understanding , we can have our own philosophical interprtations but we don t know really. It d be odd to affirm to know the truth, why we have this universe, and from waht, what is this energy indeed ? and why we have this evolution also and informations and matters energy transformations, what is the real origin of our universe,, have we something before this BB, and if yes what is it ? and before this physicality , what is this energy transformaing ?? are we a mathematical accident, have we an infinite eternal consciousness creating codes and informations , we don t know but a sure thing all this is fascinating . More we learn, more we are aware to know so few.I consider personally an infinite eternal consciousness , it is my choice to think like this and it is due to my studies, learning probably but I don t affirm simply.Maybe simply this thing was alone since an eternity and create a thing beyond our understanding, the relevance is the optimisation improvement and maybe we create a thing simply evolving and our consciousness are tools. We are probably youngs even still.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Oct. 14, 2020 @ 01:21 GMT
Hi Steve, you ask ,"what is this energy indeed?" I think my characterization of energy is reasonable, There is no need or evidence that it is a different kind of substance, of itself. Some might argue that electromagnetic radiation (EMr) has no medium. but travels through the void, so must be something of itself. My opinion is that there can not be waves in a true void. The void must contain a base medium that allows EMr to travel through it. It is not required by General relativity but that does not mean it does not exist. That its distribution is altered around large masses causing curvature of light paths is some evidence for it. Using curvature of the space-time mapping to explain the cause makes less sense to me.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Oct. 15, 2020 @ 13:13 GMT
I like Georgina's definition...

Energy is more like a verb than a noun. It is the tendency for things to change in a particular way, and the source of a force to effect change, but it is not a thing in the same way a rock or an atom is. We may give energy a quantity, but this is more like determining how much liquid is in a vessel than knowing what kind of liquid it is. We know that energy can be stored and that it flows like a liquid does - always seeking a lower level or potential - but energy is not of itself or only a collection of electrons or photons. Energy is the impulse or impetus to vary, and while it shapes all the noun-like things, or causes them to move, it remains more elusive and verb-like.

Best,

Jonathan

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.