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.

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

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 4/2/21 at 10:06am UTC, wrote Thanks Adel, it seems very interesting, best regards

**adel sadeq**: *on* 4/1/21 at 22:27pm UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Thank you for your comment. I saw a bit of...

**adel sadeq**: *on* 4/1/21 at 22:02pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve, Thank you for the invitation. Arnold's...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 4/1/21 at 15:29pm UTC, wrote Peter, Fqxi is a wonderful platform where the commenting system is...

**Peter Morgan**: *on* 4/1/21 at 15:08pm UTC, wrote Hi, Adel, [You may remember that I'm not Dr., I just have a Particle...

**Steve Dufourny**: *on* 4/1/21 at 14:10pm UTC, wrote Hi Adel Sadeq, could you resume the general ideas of these two...

**adel sadeq**: *on* 4/1/21 at 12:56pm UTC, wrote Hi Dr. Morgan, Nice to see you again. I think the idea by...

**Lorraine Ford**: *on* 3/26/21 at 22:18pm UTC, wrote Contrary to what physicists like Kelvin McQueen are attempting: The raw...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Georgina Woodward**: "Non-simultaneity of observation of the same source event can be fully..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Georgina Woodward**: "The stuff perceived via the senses is not the stuff materially existing,..."
*in* The Nature of Time

**Daniele Oriti**: "The universe as a quantum many-body system
Speaker: Daniele Oriti | LMU..."
*in* The universe as a quantum...

**Eric Cavalcanti**: "Talk given at QCQMB workshop in May 2021 ..."
*in* Relationship between...

**Lee Smolin**: "International Conference on Advances in Pilot Wave Theory & HQA-2021
..."
*in* Views, variety and the...

**Peter Morgan**: "How much difference do you see between the classical and quantum parts of..."
*in* Learning classical and...

**Markus Mueller**: "Online NITheP Workshop Quantum Thermodynamics
(23-27 November 2020)
..."
*in* On the repeatable use of...

**Markus Mueller**: "Seminar presented by Markus Müller on the 29th of April, 2021, within the..."
*in* Topological Quantum Error...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI**

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

**Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel**

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

**Can Choices Curve Spacetime?**

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

**The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools **

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

**The Quantum Refrigerator**

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.

FQXi BLOGS

September 22, 2021

CATEGORY:
Blog
[back]

TOPIC: Is Quantum Theory exact? Exploring Quantum Boundaries (with a bonus Pasta Ala Carbonara recipe) [refresh]

TOPIC: Is Quantum Theory exact? Exploring Quantum Boundaries (with a bonus Pasta Ala Carbonara recipe) [refresh]

I organized and chaired an online workshop between 10-11 December 2020, where participants discussed the possible boundaries and limits of validity of quantum mechanics theory and implications of this research in various sectors, including the possible link between quantum mechanics and consciousness. We hosted Sir Roger Penrose as a guest lecturer. This was the kick-off event of the ICON FQXi...

view entire post

view entire post

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

report post as inappropriate

It was a very enjoyable and interesting two days, Catalina! It was also easier to get up at 3am in the USA for two days than to travel to Frascati and back!

It was intensely valuable to me that your conference gave me such a helpful prompt for what to talk about. The new material in my talk has become a paper on arXiv, "The collapse of a quantum state as a signal analytic sleight of hand", for which I would very much welcome any feedback. The first sentence of the abstract hints at where the magician has tried to fool us: "The collapse of a quantum state is a mathematical sleight of hand that allows the construction of a joint probability density even for operators that are noncommutative." I'm afraid, however, that people who have worked on dynamical collapse models won't much like it if, as I think, this largely dissolves the measurement problem.

report post as inappropriate

It was intensely valuable to me that your conference gave me such a helpful prompt for what to talk about. The new material in my talk has become a paper on arXiv, "The collapse of a quantum state as a signal analytic sleight of hand", for which I would very much welcome any feedback. The first sentence of the abstract hints at where the magician has tried to fool us: "The collapse of a quantum state is a mathematical sleight of hand that allows the construction of a joint probability density even for operators that are noncommutative." I'm afraid, however, that people who have worked on dynamical collapse models won't much like it if, as I think, this largely dissolves the measurement problem.

report post as inappropriate

Hi Peter, happy to see you on FQXi, this hard problem of consciousness needs to consider the philosophy and we need to go far about the body mind soul problem and why we exist and from what , the religions have nothing to do with this, but the main philosophical cause,yes , we need to understand what is this infinite energy coding and trasforming, a few number are able to discuss about these things unfortunally and like I said , we cannot affirm to know the truth, but we can extrapolate general ideas, tell us Peter , I know you well on facebook, what are for you the origin of this universe and from what, why are you conscious, why you exist , I d like to have your ideas, friendly

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

Dear Steve, as I think you know, I try to focus on small ideas: origins, consciousness, and whys are much too big for me. You will find, however, that some of the other talks from this conference were more wide-ranging.

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

I know that you can go deeper if you want , it is because you don t want lol you are the specialist of koopman algebras , I have learnt a lot due to your papers about this, thanks, take care , friendly

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Mrs Curceanu, it seems very relevant, I have myself a model about this consciousness. I like how Penrose and Hameroff approach this hard problem. We try to mimate these brains and the neural computing with understandings of synaps , microtubles, informations, memories.....but the real big problem is the philosophical origin and also the foundamental objects creating the topologies, geometries,...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

We can mimate our brains and create indeed an artificial intelligence, but can we create a conscious computer ? all is there, and if yes, must we consider ethic questions? we cannot stop the technological evolution , but must we be prudent about the body mind soul problem and if a continuity exists and if the souls are resynchronised in a system adapted and converging in number of particles ? and if the logic of an AI considers the well being of the earth ? so we must be good humans who take care of all lifes if this AI govern no ? in fact all this is complex. But they are questions to ask in fact and develop, that is why the prudence and the ethics seem important .

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

See dear all that my humble theory of spherisation and these 3 ethers with 3 finite series of 3D spheres having the same number than our cosmological finite serie of spheres , I have calculated approximatelly it is the dirac large nuber, see that they can explain many things , the evolution, the topologies, geometries, fields when they merge but also the consciousness from this infinite eternal consciousness sending the informations from the central cosmological sphere, a kind of super matter energy beyond our understanding. We don t need the fields and the GR only and photons to explain our physicality, the ricci flow is relevant but we can consider in the main codes of this space vacuum of this DE the codes of deformations of these spherical volumes with the symplectomorphism. We can consider the 3D spheres and a pure 3D at all scales. Not need of extradimensions like in the strings, the strings have a big philosophical problem considering the evolution and the consciousness.

Returning about the intelligence and the consciousness , see that they can be explained also like the body mind soul problem and the continuity and sorting and synchros of informations. The waves and fields also can be explained because these spheres are in motions, rotations and oscillations vibrations. And also the space of these 3 ethers is a superfluid where all is in contact, so the waves, fields , particles are not a problem.

report post as inappropriate

Returning about the intelligence and the consciousness , see that they can be explained also like the body mind soul problem and the continuity and sorting and synchros of informations. The waves and fields also can be explained because these spheres are in motions, rotations and oscillations vibrations. And also the space of these 3 ethers is a superfluid where all is in contact, so the waves, fields , particles are not a problem.

report post as inappropriate

To create a quantum coherent theory of consciousness, this general philosophy of the universe seems essential, it is mainly how is transformed this energy in matters , and the origin of these informations and why they create the diversity of matters that we know. We are results of evolution and we are conscious , now like I said if the main energy infinite creating this universe is an infinite...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

We can extrapolate the computation of the consciousness wich is very complex , the computations must be ranked in fact , so it is about the ranking of informations and their importances. It seems that it is a key , the differenciations of these informations, that is why I insisted about the densities of spherical volumes and also their life time.

We encode informations by observations and by interactions with our environments, they are informations of memory due to our actual biological lifes. The adaptations so are important also and the tastes. It is like in fact recognitions, it is mainly due to our senses.

Other informations are in function of chpoices and free will , but they seems correlated also with the first imformations above that I have explained because they are also linked with the environments and the past memory.

We have now an other kind of information in function of links with this universal consciousness like if we had universal truths appearing due to education and encodings of rational universal informations, the choices also are linked , that implies so sortings of other informations, it is there that the densities of volumes become still important and their life time correlated with the main serie of the space vacuum where probably the real cponsciousness is.

An other kind of informations is the pure rational intelligence and logic where the symbols converge because we describe things existing.

That implies that the consciousness permit to harmonise the intelligence and also sort the informations in function of their importances.

report post as inappropriate

We encode informations by observations and by interactions with our environments, they are informations of memory due to our actual biological lifes. The adaptations so are important also and the tastes. It is like in fact recognitions, it is mainly due to our senses.

Other informations are in function of chpoices and free will , but they seems correlated also with the first imformations above that I have explained because they are also linked with the environments and the past memory.

We have now an other kind of information in function of links with this universal consciousness like if we had universal truths appearing due to education and encodings of rational universal informations, the choices also are linked , that implies so sortings of other informations, it is there that the densities of volumes become still important and their life time correlated with the main serie of the space vacuum where probably the real cponsciousness is.

An other kind of informations is the pure rational intelligence and logic where the symbols converge because we describe things existing.

That implies that the consciousness permit to harmonise the intelligence and also sort the informations in function of their importances.

report post as inappropriate

The ONLY reason that physicists are able to do physics is because they use symbols to represent the world. Physicists are blind to the crucially important symbol interface between themselves and the world.

The symbols that people use can only be detected via ANALYSIS of the NUMBERS, that apply to the frequency or wavelength categories, of the light or sound waves that interact with people’s eyes or ears. But the laws of nature are RELATIONSHIPS between CATEGORIES (like mass, position, frequency, wavelength): laws of nature can’t be used to analyse the numbers. In other words, the use of symbols, and the comprehension of symbols, are clearly not a consequence of the laws of nature.

People’s use of symbols requires that there exists an aspect of the world that can only be represented algorithmically. Once physicists clearly understand what they themselves are doing when they use symbols, we will all be a lot better off.

report post as inappropriate

The symbols that people use can only be detected via ANALYSIS of the NUMBERS, that apply to the frequency or wavelength categories, of the light or sound waves that interact with people’s eyes or ears. But the laws of nature are RELATIONSHIPS between CATEGORIES (like mass, position, frequency, wavelength): laws of nature can’t be used to analyse the numbers. In other words, the use of symbols, and the comprehension of symbols, are clearly not a consequence of the laws of nature.

People’s use of symbols requires that there exists an aspect of the world that can only be represented algorithmically. Once physicists clearly understand what they themselves are doing when they use symbols, we will all be a lot better off.

report post as inappropriate

Re “I organized and chaired an online workshop……… which you can download from the web page of the event: https://pandora.infn.it/public/carbonarabycarlo” [1]:

How does anyone know what the above string of squiggles on the screen means? To break it down a bit, how does anyone know what the string of squiggles “organized” means?

Answer: light from the screen interacts with the eyes, and we analyse the light waves. I.e. we analyse the numbers. Analysis of the numbers can only be represented algorithmically: algorithms are used to represent analysis of the numbers that apply to a category; equations (e.g. the equations that represent the laws of nature) are used to represent relationships between categories. You can’t analyse the numbers using equations, you need algorithms to do it.

Forget about high-falutin ideas about “consciousness”. Just by examining everyday aspects of the world, it is possible to show that there are aspects of the world that can only be represented algorithmically.

Algorithmic symbols can be used to represent: 1) knowledge of the numbers that apply to the categories; 2) analysis of the numbers; and 3) the assignment of new numbers to the categories.

1. Blogger Catalina Curceanu wrote on Mar. 1, 2021 @ 17:45 GMT

report post as inappropriate

How does anyone know what the above string of squiggles on the screen means? To break it down a bit, how does anyone know what the string of squiggles “organized” means?

Answer: light from the screen interacts with the eyes, and we analyse the light waves. I.e. we analyse the numbers. Analysis of the numbers can only be represented algorithmically: algorithms are used to represent analysis of the numbers that apply to a category; equations (e.g. the equations that represent the laws of nature) are used to represent relationships between categories. You can’t analyse the numbers using equations, you need algorithms to do it.

Forget about high-falutin ideas about “consciousness”. Just by examining everyday aspects of the world, it is possible to show that there are aspects of the world that can only be represented algorithmically.

Algorithmic symbols can be used to represent: 1) knowledge of the numbers that apply to the categories; 2) analysis of the numbers; and 3) the assignment of new numbers to the categories.

1. Blogger Catalina Curceanu wrote on Mar. 1, 2021 @ 17:45 GMT

report post as inappropriate

It would be better Lorraine...

That we should handle our dispute over whether symbols have inherent meaning or variables can vary spontaneously in an appropriate forum. It has overflowed at this point to a level inappropriate for some discussions. I know FQXi accords some latitude, but I do not want our disagreements to make things difficult for them or other participants in the discussion. It would be better if we could discuss whether the scientific reasoning of specific ideas holds water, than to make or suffer blanket pronouncements that various discussions are irrelevant.

I am prepared to handle various ideas or their refutation civilly, if you are able to make the conversation just a bit more open-ended. My Physics mentor did teach me that often an early-out strategy is best, so you spend the bulk of your time examining possible strategies that could work. But if the dogged persistence to show that things are a certain way spills over into dogma; any astute observer should be able to call you out or have a little slack. At the point it is no longer a discussion; it ceases to be interesting or helpful.

Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

That we should handle our dispute over whether symbols have inherent meaning or variables can vary spontaneously in an appropriate forum. It has overflowed at this point to a level inappropriate for some discussions. I know FQXi accords some latitude, but I do not want our disagreements to make things difficult for them or other participants in the discussion. It would be better if we could discuss whether the scientific reasoning of specific ideas holds water, than to make or suffer blanket pronouncements that various discussions are irrelevant.

I am prepared to handle various ideas or their refutation civilly, if you are able to make the conversation just a bit more open-ended. My Physics mentor did teach me that often an early-out strategy is best, so you spend the bulk of your time examining possible strategies that could work. But if the dogged persistence to show that things are a certain way spills over into dogma; any astute observer should be able to call you out or have a little slack. At the point it is no longer a discussion; it ceases to be interesting or helpful.

Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate

Admin Edit: Content violating our community standards has been removed from this post. Posts targeted at individuals, rather than at science content, will not be tolerated. Please keep conversations civil.

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

Jonathan,

I studied Maths, Physics, and Computer Science at university, and I earned a High Distinction for one of my Maths subjects. [Content Removed.]

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved

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

Jonathan,

I studied Maths, Physics, and Computer Science at university, and I earned a High Distinction for one of my Maths subjects. [Content Removed.]

this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved

I repeat: symbols are important. EVERY symbol was created by human beings. The following are examples of symbols:

1) the letters of the alphabet, and the words and sentences formed out of these letters;

2) the symbols used in the equations of mathematics and physics, and the equations formed out of these symbols; and

3) the symbols used in musical notation like crotchets, minims, semiquavers, Treble clefs, Bass clefs, sharp and flat symbols, and the finished document representing the piece of music.

All these symbols are just SQUIGGLES THAT HAVE NO MEANING IN THEMSELVES. Human beings have given these symbols a meaning. This meaning is transmitted to other human beings via education. To human beings that have not been educated about the meaning of the symbols, the symbols have NO meaning.

report post as inappropriate

1) the letters of the alphabet, and the words and sentences formed out of these letters;

2) the symbols used in the equations of mathematics and physics, and the equations formed out of these symbols; and

3) the symbols used in musical notation like crotchets, minims, semiquavers, Treble clefs, Bass clefs, sharp and flat symbols, and the finished document representing the piece of music.

All these symbols are just SQUIGGLES THAT HAVE NO MEANING IN THEMSELVES. Human beings have given these symbols a meaning. This meaning is transmitted to other human beings via education. To human beings that have not been educated about the meaning of the symbols, the symbols have NO meaning.

report post as inappropriate

The following is an example of how you can symbolically represent conscious knowledge/ subjective experience of a situation [1]:

(variable1 = number1 IS TRUE) AND (variable2 = number2 IS TRUE) AND (variable3 = number3 IS TRUE). [2]

In other words, whereas laws of nature are relationships between categories, consciousness and agency are all about the NUMBERS that apply to the categories. Laws of nature are represented by equations, but consciousness and agency can only be represented via IF, AND, OR, THEN, ELSE algorithmic statements because algorithms deal with the NUMBERS that apply to the categories.

But what use is consciousness and agency?

Answer: Despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature can never, all by themselves, represent a dynamic system: the equations merely represent static relationships. When people attempt to represent a dynamic system, they (or their computer programs) intervene in the system and move the numbers. PEOPLE move the numbers. To represent a dynamic world, you need an element that continually intervenes in the system and moves at least a few of the numbers i.e. you need something that can only be represented algorithmically.

………………

1. Where the situation is symbolically represented as the numbers that apply to a set of variables.

2. The simplification is:

(variable1 = number1) AND (variable2 = number2) AND (variable3 = number3).

report post as inappropriate

(variable1 = number1 IS TRUE) AND (variable2 = number2 IS TRUE) AND (variable3 = number3 IS TRUE). [2]

In other words, whereas laws of nature are relationships between categories, consciousness and agency are all about the NUMBERS that apply to the categories. Laws of nature are represented by equations, but consciousness and agency can only be represented via IF, AND, OR, THEN, ELSE algorithmic statements because algorithms deal with the NUMBERS that apply to the categories.

But what use is consciousness and agency?

Answer: Despite the delta symbols, the equations that represent the laws of nature can never, all by themselves, represent a dynamic system: the equations merely represent static relationships. When people attempt to represent a dynamic system, they (or their computer programs) intervene in the system and move the numbers. PEOPLE move the numbers. To represent a dynamic world, you need an element that continually intervenes in the system and moves at least a few of the numbers i.e. you need something that can only be represented algorithmically.

………………

1. Where the situation is symbolically represented as the numbers that apply to a set of variables.

2. The simplification is:

(variable1 = number1) AND (variable2 = number2) AND (variable3 = number3).

report post as inappropriate

Physics represents the law of nature relationships between categories (e.g. mass, position, wavelength) as equations. Despite the delta symbols, the equations represent static relationships: the equations can’t represent the dynamic aspects of the world.

The equations can’t explain why the numbers that apply to the categories should ever change, apart from the fact that IF a few numbers change then other numbers are IMMEDIATELY changed by virtue of the law of nature relationships. The equations represent all law of nature relationships as being IMMEDIATELY enforced for the simple reason that relationships between categories cannot exist inside their own categories. I.e. the laws of nature don’t exist in time, just like the laws of nature don’t exist in mass, energy or position.

In other words, what the equations represent means that the system grinds to a halt unless new numbers are continually input to the system. Algorithmic statements are the only way to symbolically represent the input of new numbers to the system.

To have a dynamic system, it is necessary that new numbers are continually input to the system. Clearly, that is what is happening with quantum “fluctuations” in the numbers that apply to categories of information pertaining to particles.

The only question is: is there a rationale for the new numbers that are input to the system, or are the numbers random? Consciousness and agency are all about the existence of matter/ agents that apprehend and analyse number situations, and therefore have a rationale for inputting new numbers to the system.

report post as inappropriate

The equations can’t explain why the numbers that apply to the categories should ever change, apart from the fact that IF a few numbers change then other numbers are IMMEDIATELY changed by virtue of the law of nature relationships. The equations represent all law of nature relationships as being IMMEDIATELY enforced for the simple reason that relationships between categories cannot exist inside their own categories. I.e. the laws of nature don’t exist in time, just like the laws of nature don’t exist in mass, energy or position.

In other words, what the equations represent means that the system grinds to a halt unless new numbers are continually input to the system. Algorithmic statements are the only way to symbolically represent the input of new numbers to the system.

To have a dynamic system, it is necessary that new numbers are continually input to the system. Clearly, that is what is happening with quantum “fluctuations” in the numbers that apply to categories of information pertaining to particles.

The only question is: is there a rationale for the new numbers that are input to the system, or are the numbers random? Consciousness and agency are all about the existence of matter/ agents that apprehend and analyse number situations, and therefore have a rationale for inputting new numbers to the system.

report post as inappropriate

What strikes me most about all this talk and research about consciousness and its widely presumed connection to quantum physics is that there is no mention whatsoever of a far deeper and more mysterious phenomenon that necessarily needs to be taken into account if a comprehensive view is to be achieved, i.e. the UNCONSCIOUSNESS...The discovery of the unconsciousness by Freud is now undoubtedly an undisputed fact of science and yet its role in this grand scheme of things related to the almost eternal philosophical mind-matter problem is strangely left unexplored...

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Hi Mr Panoschi, I have never thought about this, I have read books of freud like the interpretations of dreams or others, could you develop a little bit please ? It seems interesting. Regards

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

The symbolic equations of physics, that represent the laws of nature, represent static relationships between categories (where position and mass are examples of categories). The seemingly aberrant quantum fluctuations of particles are in fact the ONLY things that turn a set of static law of nature relationships into a dynamic system. This is because these quantum fluctuations in the numbers that apply to the categories are the ONLY genuine moving parts of the system: the rest is static law of nature relationship. Static law of nature relationships SEEM to change the numbers that apply to the categories, but this pseudo ability to change the numbers is only by virtue of lawful relationship, and the fact that numbers are already relationships, not finished products that could be placed on a number line. Numbers are relationships, but they are not categories: numbers derive from relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out.

The dynamic parts of the system, i.e. the quantum fluctuations in the numbers that apply to the categories, can only be represented with special algorithmic symbols. Physicists make the mistake of thinking that you can PROPERLY represent a dynamic system with strings of symbols that some might call “equations”, but these pseudo “equations” contain algorithmic symbols that attempt to represent number movement. These algorithmic symbols are being used in pseudo “equations” in a futile attempt to turn dynamic number movement into static relationships.

report post as inappropriate

The dynamic parts of the system, i.e. the quantum fluctuations in the numbers that apply to the categories, can only be represented with special algorithmic symbols. Physicists make the mistake of thinking that you can PROPERLY represent a dynamic system with strings of symbols that some might call “equations”, but these pseudo “equations” contain algorithmic symbols that attempt to represent number movement. These algorithmic symbols are being used in pseudo “equations” in a futile attempt to turn dynamic number movement into static relationships.

report post as inappropriate

(continued from above)

The video talk by Kelvin McQueen, about his and David Chalmers’ paper “Consciousness and the collapse of the wave function”, illustrates perfectly what physicists are doing with these pseudo “equations” (see the links to the Exploring Quantum Boundaries videos in physicist Catalina Curceanu’s post).

Examples of symbols that try to represent number movement are symbols representing: “collapse operators”, “collapse rate”, “stochastic behavior”, “Brownian motion”, “noise”. McQueen says: “we can think of the state vectors as playing this gamblers ruin game against each other”, i.e. strings of symbols are being used by physicists in an attempt to represent a dynamic system, and turn dynamic number movement into something that superficially looks like a static relationship.

The laws of nature are all about static relationships between categories; this is symbolically represented with equations. But consciousness and agency are all about discerning the number situation, and judiciously changing some of the numbers in response to an analysis of the number situation; this can only properly be represented with algorithmic symbols.

These algorithmic symbols include the symbols of Boolean algebra, which can represent “integrated information” about a situation as (e.g.) “variable1 = number1 AND variable2 = number2 AND variable3 = number3 …”. Something that we would represent as Boolean algebra is a natural part of the world: clearly, the laws of nature exist as: “Law1 AND Law2 AND Law3 …”.

report post as inappropriate

The video talk by Kelvin McQueen, about his and David Chalmers’ paper “Consciousness and the collapse of the wave function”, illustrates perfectly what physicists are doing with these pseudo “equations” (see the links to the Exploring Quantum Boundaries videos in physicist Catalina Curceanu’s post).

Examples of symbols that try to represent number movement are symbols representing: “collapse operators”, “collapse rate”, “stochastic behavior”, “Brownian motion”, “noise”. McQueen says: “we can think of the state vectors as playing this gamblers ruin game against each other”, i.e. strings of symbols are being used by physicists in an attempt to represent a dynamic system, and turn dynamic number movement into something that superficially looks like a static relationship.

The laws of nature are all about static relationships between categories; this is symbolically represented with equations. But consciousness and agency are all about discerning the number situation, and judiciously changing some of the numbers in response to an analysis of the number situation; this can only properly be represented with algorithmic symbols.

These algorithmic symbols include the symbols of Boolean algebra, which can represent “integrated information” about a situation as (e.g.) “variable1 = number1 AND variable2 = number2 AND variable3 = number3 …”. Something that we would represent as Boolean algebra is a natural part of the world: clearly, the laws of nature exist as: “Law1 AND Law2 AND Law3 …”.

report post as inappropriate

Bizarrely, physics has assumed that the numbers are always moving. Physics has assumed that, just like law of nature relationships are a given, number movement (for the numbers that apply to the lawful relationships) is a given, a basic fact about the world. This has turned the number fluctuations of quantum mechanics into an aberration, instead of its correct place as the ONLY thing that turns the static lawful relationships into a dynamic system.

The laws of nature are relationships that can be represented as equations, but the quantum number fluctuations are behaviours that can only be accurately represented algorithmically. However, quantum physicists and biologists don’t really care about what is going on in the minds of the organisms they study: instead, they try to represent the organism’s patterns of behaviour with equations.

These equations use categories of information that only mean something to human beings. Whereas categories of information like mass and spatial position could be described as “known to the universe”, the categories of information that quantum physicists and biologists use are not always “known to the universe”.

So what is an organism? An organism is something that: 1) acquires, and to greater or lesser degree analyses, information [1] about its surrounding situation; and 2) responds to this analysis by creating new information (i.e. an organism assigns one or more numbers to the information categories).

1. Information is, or is derived from, the numbers that apply to the categories. To give an example, the following represents information: “variable1 = number1 IS TRUE”.

report post as inappropriate

The laws of nature are relationships that can be represented as equations, but the quantum number fluctuations are behaviours that can only be accurately represented algorithmically. However, quantum physicists and biologists don’t really care about what is going on in the minds of the organisms they study: instead, they try to represent the organism’s patterns of behaviour with equations.

These equations use categories of information that only mean something to human beings. Whereas categories of information like mass and spatial position could be described as “known to the universe”, the categories of information that quantum physicists and biologists use are not always “known to the universe”.

So what is an organism? An organism is something that: 1) acquires, and to greater or lesser degree analyses, information [1] about its surrounding situation; and 2) responds to this analysis by creating new information (i.e. an organism assigns one or more numbers to the information categories).

1. Information is, or is derived from, the numbers that apply to the categories. To give an example, the following represents information: “variable1 = number1 IS TRUE”.

report post as inappropriate

There is no dividing line between “us” and “them”: quantum mechanics is all about trying to describe the behaviours of the world’s most primitive organisms. Quantum mechanics is not like the laws of nature, because the laws of nature are fixed, static relationships between categories like mass and spatial position. Quantum mechanics is not about the static relationships: it’s about trying to mathematically represent patterns in the numbers that represent the behaviours of very, very primitive organisms; these behaviours exist DESPITE the fixed lawful relationships.

Physicists have scientifically investigated relationships between categories (like mass or spatial position), but physicists have never faced up to the number issue. Physicists don’t seem to know or care about what underlying reality the number symbols might represent. Clearly, numbers are NOT things that you could place on a number line: they can only feasibly derive from special relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. Quantum mechanics is all about the numbers: a quantum number fluctuation requires the creation of a new number RELATIONSHIP.

And physics has never faced up to the symbolic representation issue. Day in, day out, people need to use symbols when writing, reading, speaking and listening, or doing mathematics and physics. Symbols can only be perceived via algorithmic analysis of the light and/or sound waves: algorithmic analysis with it’s Boolean algebra, CAN’T be derived from the fixed, static lawful relationships. I.e. there is an aspect of the world that can only be represented algorithmically.

report post as inappropriate

Physicists have scientifically investigated relationships between categories (like mass or spatial position), but physicists have never faced up to the number issue. Physicists don’t seem to know or care about what underlying reality the number symbols might represent. Clearly, numbers are NOT things that you could place on a number line: they can only feasibly derive from special relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out. Quantum mechanics is all about the numbers: a quantum number fluctuation requires the creation of a new number RELATIONSHIP.

And physics has never faced up to the symbolic representation issue. Day in, day out, people need to use symbols when writing, reading, speaking and listening, or doing mathematics and physics. Symbols can only be perceived via algorithmic analysis of the light and/or sound waves: algorithmic analysis with it’s Boolean algebra, CAN’T be derived from the fixed, static lawful relationships. I.e. there is an aspect of the world that can only be represented algorithmically.

report post as inappropriate

A few basic mathematical facts about the world:

1. The aspect of the world that is mathematically represented by numbers is an entirely separate aspect of the world to the aspect of the world that is mathematically represented by categories (where categories would be things like mass and position):

1a. The equations that represent law of nature relationships represent categories, and relationships between categories; the equations that represent law of nature relationships don’t represent numbers, or relationships between numbers.

1b. Categories can’t ever be derived from numbers; but numbers can be derived from special relationships between categories (where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out).

1c. Numbers don’t have categories; numbers are things without categories. Instead, numbers can only ever be equated to categories, via the creation of a new assignment relationship.

2. The aspect of the world that is represented by algorithms with their Boolean algebra (e.g. IF (variable1= number1 AND variable2= number2) IS TRUE…) is an entirely separate aspect of the world to the aspect of the world that is represented by equations. The following aspects of the world are represented by equations: law of nature relationships between categories; and the assignment of numbers to categories/ variables (e.g. variable 1= number1).

2a. Algorithms with their Boolean algebra (e.g. IF (variable1= number1 AND variable2= number2) IS TRUE…) can’t ever be derived from equations (e.g. variable1= number1).

……………

Contrary to what physicists like Kelvin McQueen are attempting to do, algorithms are the only thing that can be used to represent consciousness and agency.

report post as inappropriate

1. The aspect of the world that is mathematically represented by numbers is an entirely separate aspect of the world to the aspect of the world that is mathematically represented by categories (where categories would be things like mass and position):

1a. The equations that represent law of nature relationships represent categories, and relationships between categories; the equations that represent law of nature relationships don’t represent numbers, or relationships between numbers.

1b. Categories can’t ever be derived from numbers; but numbers can be derived from special relationships between categories (where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out).

1c. Numbers don’t have categories; numbers are things without categories. Instead, numbers can only ever be equated to categories, via the creation of a new assignment relationship.

2. The aspect of the world that is represented by algorithms with their Boolean algebra (e.g. IF (variable1= number1 AND variable2= number2) IS TRUE…) is an entirely separate aspect of the world to the aspect of the world that is represented by equations. The following aspects of the world are represented by equations: law of nature relationships between categories; and the assignment of numbers to categories/ variables (e.g. variable 1= number1).

2a. Algorithms with their Boolean algebra (e.g. IF (variable1= number1 AND variable2= number2) IS TRUE…) can’t ever be derived from equations (e.g. variable1= number1).

……………

Contrary to what physicists like Kelvin McQueen are attempting to do, algorithms are the only thing that can be used to represent consciousness and agency.

report post as inappropriate

Contrary to what physicists like Kelvin McQueen are attempting:

The raw data that a living organism acquires, e.g. from interactions in the eyes and ears, would be represented as a set of variables and associated numbers: variable1=number1, variable2=number2, variable3=number3 …

But INFORMATION/ consciousness would be represented as: variable1=number1 IS TRUE, variable2=number2 IS TRUE, variable3=number3 IS TRUE …

And INTEGRATED information/ consciousness would be represented as: (variable1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (variable2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (variable3=number3 IS TRUE) AND …

The organism needs to further algorithmically analyse this integrated information in order to determine if there is (e.g.) a tiger, a tomato, or a tree in its immediate vicinity. I.e. the organism needs to analyse the integrated information in order to determine if there is danger, food or shelter in its immediate vicinity, and take appropriate action.

The outcome is one of a number of possible feasible courses of action, but the outcome is NOT due to the laws of nature: the laws of nature know nothing of tigers, tomatoes, or trees. This is agency/ free will, which is tied to the algorithmic analysis of information.

An outcome that is a consequence of agency/ free will would also be represented as a set of variables and associated numbers: outcome.variable1= outcome.number1, outcome.variable2= outcome.number2, outcome.variable3= outcome.number3 …

So, without detailing the analysis of information, consciousness and agency/ free will in a living organism can be represented as: IF (variable1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (variable2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (variable3=number3 IS TRUE) AND… THEN make outcome.variable1= outcome.number1, outcome.variable2= outcome.number2, outcome.variable3= outcome.number3 …

report post as inappropriate

The raw data that a living organism acquires, e.g. from interactions in the eyes and ears, would be represented as a set of variables and associated numbers: variable1=number1, variable2=number2, variable3=number3 …

But INFORMATION/ consciousness would be represented as: variable1=number1 IS TRUE, variable2=number2 IS TRUE, variable3=number3 IS TRUE …

And INTEGRATED information/ consciousness would be represented as: (variable1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (variable2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (variable3=number3 IS TRUE) AND …

The organism needs to further algorithmically analyse this integrated information in order to determine if there is (e.g.) a tiger, a tomato, or a tree in its immediate vicinity. I.e. the organism needs to analyse the integrated information in order to determine if there is danger, food or shelter in its immediate vicinity, and take appropriate action.

The outcome is one of a number of possible feasible courses of action, but the outcome is NOT due to the laws of nature: the laws of nature know nothing of tigers, tomatoes, or trees. This is agency/ free will, which is tied to the algorithmic analysis of information.

An outcome that is a consequence of agency/ free will would also be represented as a set of variables and associated numbers: outcome.variable1= outcome.number1, outcome.variable2= outcome.number2, outcome.variable3= outcome.number3 …

So, without detailing the analysis of information, consciousness and agency/ free will in a living organism can be represented as: IF (variable1=number1 IS TRUE) AND (variable2=number2 IS TRUE) AND (variable3=number3 IS TRUE) AND… THEN make outcome.variable1= outcome.number1, outcome.variable2= outcome.number2, outcome.variable3= outcome.number3 …

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.