Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC


RECENT FORUM POSTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
January 23, 2018

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Fundamental Physics of Consciousness by Edwin Eugene Klingman [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 14:11 GMT
Essay Abstract

Because every physical theory assumes "something", that basic assumption will determine what is ultimately possible in that physics. The assumed "thing" itself will likely be unexplained. This essay will assume one thing, a "primordial field", to explain current physics and its many current mysteries. The derivation of physics from this entity is surprisingly straightforward and amazingly broad in its implications.

Author Bio

Edwin E Klingman was a NASA Research Physicist (atomic and molecular physics) whose 1979 PhD dissertation, "The Automatic Theory of Physics" described how a robot would derive a theory of physics. After 30 years, this same theme is appearing in Science (see 'Automating Science'.) The founder of several Silicon Valley companies, the author holds over 20 technology patents and has published two university texts, "Microprocessor Systems Design", Vol I and II (Prentice-Hall). His recently published physics books address the disparate problems of physics, while introducing qualitative solutions to unsolved mysteries, and, most importantly, making testable predictions.

Download Essay PDF File




James Putnam wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 21:33 GMT
Dear Dr. Edwin E Klingman,

I have just begun to read your essay. However, I had to rush to thank you for stating this: '...a recent paper in a leading journal uses a "postulated but never seen phenomenon" to explain another "postulated but never seen phenomenon."'

James

report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 13:49 GMT
Dear Edwin,

i read your essay and saw the ease with whish you introduce the vector C representing consciousness , in parallel with Gravitational one vector G.You also quote Huang to provide the relative strenghts of four known force filds as 10, 10> -2,10> -5 and 10> -36. Then you suggest intelligence to be related to consciousness + logic.

May i say that gravity is defying unification with the other three fields and there lies the mysteries that we do not comprehend Physics in any simple manner. We have complicated it to such an extent that we are finding hard to come out of it. But just introducing consciousness as a variable/parameter without providine background justification except to say that we humans feel the reality of both directly as we are aware about their existence.

The mystery of dark matter/energy may well be related indirectly with the mystery of gravity as a complex field. It may change both its strength as well as its nature from attractive to repulsive, as per demand of the nature. In fact we know that Strong nuclear too has a shift in its nature as the distance of interaction becomes less than the size of the nucleon.

i think we have a difficult but a scientific route to understand 'consciousness' through the operation of human mind. Perhaps we can have closer linkage with life sciences were new developments are taking place through the measurements of electric field strengths in a single xell as well as the different membranes that partihcipate in various functions, including those in the brain. But mind is associated with total body consciousness and not just confined to brain.

it will be nice to see what your response is to such comments, vague as these may well be!Also, i am not sure if Huang relative strengths have been correctly given as the the values currently accepted.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 00:19 GMT
Dear Narendra Nath,

Thank you for your study of my essay and your considered questions.

May I begin by saying that I have written almost two thousand pages in support of these arguments and have found the ten page essay limit extremely frustrating. It is next to impossible to present radically new theories in any convincing manner in such brief format.

First you note that...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 05:43 GMT
Dear edwin,

i visited my essay site and have responded to you there too. i do feel you continue to proceed the eway you feel convinced yourself about. In fact if i may say i admire persons who have their own way in Physics, as that is the only way one can make a breakthrough to solve the mysteries of the world. If these could be solved the convetional way, there would have been none left to unravel!

i have not captilized the first word in your name and i sometimes wonder why such a convention has been established and excepted by us all. In fact, it is to boost our ego, which to me appears to be the main hitch in the path of open/free learning process. Humility, compassion and love in a universal manner is the key to raise the level of humanity,social or scientific efforts.

report post as inappropriate


Narendra wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 07:12 GMT
i lost my posting due to local connection with Internet server!it was a good spontaneous response to you. Let me see if i can recollect those points below:-

1. May i suggest that you link up your 2 parameter G & C approach to the evolution of the universe. it matches well as objects appeared in a sequence with higherv and higher levels of consciousness, nucleons/atoms, cosmic dust particulates, stars, halaxies, satellites with earth where first plants, trees , lower animals, intelligent animals and finally the human presdecessors appeared on the scene. We today assume life forms with some intelligent level of consciousness. But we can treat the earlier so-called non-life form objects to possess extremely low consciousness levels, rather consider them to possess none.

2. The parallel approach to see that 'consciousness ' is a mere rotating form of mass gravity, is an interesting aspect. The two together then explain the entire physics growth through your 'analogical' approach.

3. your career background is interesting too. What was the variety of companies that you contributed to growth in USA.

4.It seems you have visited my essay with a posting. i shall see it more closely again.

report post as inappropriate


Narendra nath wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 13:08 GMT
Edwin, sorry that i have made some further comments on my essay site , in response to yours, but these concern more your essay than mine. Any way i hope you will visit my essay again and then feel free to respond there or at your own essay site. Wec seem to have commeon interest in the role consciousness plays in science we do, wheather we admit it directly or not.

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 18:03 GMT
Dear Narendra

I have responded on your essay page but I repeat the response below for any who may only be following my page:

You state: "Now, i treat brain as a processing and memory centre only while the rest of the body cells , billions in number, are all sensors as well as activators to send signals and receive signals from out side"

I agree that the brain is processing and...

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 18:09 GMT
Hi dear Mr Edwin Eugene Klingman ,

It's my favorite essay ,because we see the whole and the fundamentals .

Intelligence is the driving force of the universal conscious .

It's the catalyzer of the harmony ,we are creations ,created for something ,our rule is to catalyze harmoniously our ecosystem .

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 18:14 GMT
error of posting sorry

I think it's important at this moment to act by adapted sciences respecting the harmony .Many systems are on the bad road .

I don't see an other solution than the unification of faith and universal systems where some adapted solutions are created .We must stabilize and rebalance some priorities like the soil .

Humanity is like a rainbow ,a diversity of colors united in the light ......it's difficult to turn off a big fire with one water drop ,nevertheless a whole of drops makes Ocean .....

A pleasure to have read your essay

good luck for the contest

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 20:22 GMT
Steve

Thanks for your kind words and your good wishes for my essay.

I will attempt to respond to some of your questions.

You state that:

"There no the dark energy is false and don't exist furthermore"

The 'dark energy' is considered as an explanation of the apparent fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating whereas gravity alone would be expected...

view entire post





Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 08:38 GMT
dear Mr Edwin Eugene Klingman ,

I thank you for your explainations .It's interesting for suynergies and improvements ,optimizations.

It's relevant about the perfect fluid and the incompressibility thus the entanglement .

About the Dark energy ,I think it's only a relative perception where some parameters of evolution must be inserted ,if not we don't see the real dynamic ,a...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 19:14 GMT
Steve,

Thanks for the attention you've devoted to my essay. I'm glad that you found it interesting and appreciate your comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 08:50 GMT
Hi Mr Edwin Eugene Klingman ,

You are welcome ,it's sincerely .Your points of vue are importants .A so rare vue of whole ,a pleasure to read this kind of writings and works .

Take care

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 16:12 GMT
I enjoyed reading your essay and I would like to direct your attention to my essay contribution to the FXQi contest listed below. You will find that it has a connection to your area of interest.

Your further comments would be appreciated.

Darryl Leiter Ph.D

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

What Is Ultimately Possible in Physics Will Be Found Within An Observer-Participant Universe Where The Photon Carries The

Arrow of Time

by Darryl Jay Leiter, Ph.D

ABSTRACT

In confronting the challenge about what is ultimately possible in physics one must resolve three fundamental issues which occur at the interface between the microscopic and macroscopic levels of the universe: (1) the origin of the arrow of time in the universe; (2) the nature of macroscopic objective reality in the context quantum theory, and (3) an explanation for the emergence of macroscopic conscious minds in the universe. In response to this challenge we argue that the resolution of these three fundamental issues may be found within the paradigm of an observer-participant universe where the photon carries the arrow of time

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 00:37 GMT
Dear Darrryl Jay Leiter,

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting. I have read your essay and found that Jonathan Dickau's comments were most helpful. The unorthodox use of 'color' combined with QCD may throw some readers off, but Dickau explained it well.

I must confess that the arrow of time has not bothered me much lately, since the attribution of consciousness to a 'field' and the definition of consciousness as "awareness plus volition" almost erases the problem of the time arrow. If volition is the ability to act, it seems self evident that action can only occur going 'forward' in time. A related aspect is that the consciousness field interacts with itself, an inherently non-linear operation. As discussed in my essay, this is compatible with Yang-Mills gauge theory, and is inherently non-Abelian, as explained in detail in "The Chromodynamics War". I haven't given enough thought to the linearization of the consciousness field to be able to say whether an Abelian operator gauge symmetry such as you develop is a reasonable approximation.

I like your treatment, and admire your approach, but I am unable to believe that consciousness 'emerges' from matter or material constructions (glorified Lego blocks).

Avoiding the many-worlds solution, which seems to be inherently non-physical, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be that a particle is 'non-physical', spread over a number of 'possible' physical states until a measurement is made, at which time it somehow 'collapses' into reality, and the multi-state vector settles into the measured state. Although the probability is somewhat deterministic, the behavior before measurement is essentially random. But the true meaning of random is "for no reason at all", since, if there is a reason for a behavior, it is not random.

In a consciousness-field-based theory the unpredictability is not interpreted as random, but as a consequence of the inherent volition, or "free will" built into the field, however small, and however subject to energy constraints.

What are the consequences? The replacement of a meaningless random basis of the universe by a (possibly meaningful but unpredictable) conscious basis of the universe makes it a whole lot easier to swallow the "self-assembly" of the first living cell, an otherwise statistically unlikely event. The net result is that the replacement of an essentially random universe based on a (Yang-Mills gauge theory compatible!) consciousness field allows us to reject an absolutely meaningless (random) universe for a possibly meaningful (conscious) universe.

In fact, the problem becomes, how does the universe emerge from consciousness, not how does consciousness emerge from matter. My essay attempts to outline this approach.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 00:51 GMT
In comments on another essay Uncle Al wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 23:22 GMT

You say, "If we simply ask 'How can we reconcile Quantum theory with Relativity?' we may find ourselves disappointed." General Relativity has c=c,G=G, h=0. Quantum Field Theory has c=c,G=0, h=h. Write predictive theory in which c=c,G=G, h=h. It's not a big deal, conceptually. Who bells the cat?

Answer:

It seems appropriate to point out that in the derivation of the Master equation and the subsequent derivation of the Quantum Flow Principle, the two major results and starting point of my theory, I have explicitly: c=c, G=G, and h=h.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




NN wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 03:21 GMT
i have been suggesting to others in this forum to have a look at your unique essay that considers using two variables that are directly perceived by one and all. it is an attempt that needs to proceed further so that we get some predictions to check experimentally. i am personally keen on it. There is no difficulty for the human mind to overcome any hurdle in the way. After all truth is simple and non-avasive. It is the human mind's complexities that make it so appear. Mind is a constantly agitating entity and it needs to be tamed and quietened.There are techniques that help in such an effort if one has faith, belief and sincerity of purpose.

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 23:17 GMT
Dear Narendra,

I am honored that you recommend my essay to others. You correctly capture the essence of my approach that our physics should be based on phenomena that are directly perceived by one and all, versus on abstractions that are not even agreed by all to exist. Surely the ultimate physics will not be based on such abstractions.

You are also correct to state the importance of predictions. I have made several, such as that the core of the neutron should be negative. All current theories predict a positive core, but experiment says negative. It is difficult to compare and contrast predictions with lattice-QCD because all of the current models, no matter how different in detail, boil down to a canonical form that is the same for all. The model agrees with (but did not predict) the 'perfect liquid' seen at RHIC, whereas QCD was predicting a 'weak gas'.

There are other consequences of my theory, such that charge is quantized ( a mystery in QED and QCD), the fine structure constant is derived (it is not in any other theory) and the model predicts a J/psi decay to three gamma's, as recently measured but predicted by none. The theory also predicts some two gamma processes that are currently being filtered out of the experimental data. and explains 'Halo' neutrons, with significant consequences for QCD.

But by far the strongest prediction is that no Higgs boson will be found, nor will the axion, or the three SUSY right handed neutrinos (required by neutrino mass) nor ANY of the SUSY particles nor any new particles at all (except for resonances) be detected at LHC.

That is, my theory says no new particles will be found. If any are found, it will probably falsify my theory. That is a much stronger prediction than others are making.

Thanks again for your kind support.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 23:22 GMT
Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I have read and enjoyed your essay. In this comment I will attempt to link some of your ideas to some of my own. I am including a copy on my page for the convenience of readers.

You state that:

"The relation between physics and human consciousness may never be fully answered (due to the fact that it is "all in the brain"), but understanding the...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 01:27 GMT
I agree with Janko Kokosar's basic proposition that:

"Evidently consciousness influences on movement and evidently it is part of physics. .[and] Free will is not the same as coincidence - an intentional movement of a hand is not the same as coincidental movements of the hand."

"For a model of quantum consciousness (or any physical explanation of consciousness) we need an atomization of consciousness, ... an analysis, what is consciousness. If it is so, some sort of consciousness is stored already in an one-cell organism. ... So we obtain a panpsychism, where consciousness is everywhere. If consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, it should really exist everywhere."

This approach is followed in my essay: that consciousness is a field phenomenon. It does exist everywhere, like gravity, but in varying strength. If this is the case, and, as above, consciousness influences movement, then one must ask how this field couples to matter.

Here it depends upon how one views matter. If one believes in the reality of "superposition of the wave-function" then matter has only a tenuous existence until the wave-function collapses, and so the coupling is at best tenuous. On the other hand, if particles really do exist in reality, and it is only the unpredictability of the measured state that is at issue, then we might assume that the consciousness field couples to real matter and may even be responsible for the quantum unpredictability of the material particle.

In a sense this is a "hidden variable" approach to quantum mechanics, but of course Bohm did not anticipate that the hidden variable would be a consciousness field with an element, no matter how small, of "free will"

Kokosar insists that consciousness must be part of physical reality. Also, I like his statement:

"We are used to connect consciousness with logic, but logic is important only for survival, not necessarily for awareness."

In my essay, I separate logic (machinery) from conscious awareness and volition, for this very reason. The logical machinery is subject to evolution, and the development of brains is based on survival. The brains essentially "enhance" the local consciousness field, they do not generate or give rise to consciousness.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 01:34 GMT
Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I have read and enjoyed your essay. I posted this comment in your essay and repeat it here to link some of your ideas to some of my own.

You state that: "The relation between physics and human consciousness may never be fully answered (due to the fact that it is "all in the brain"), but understanding the limitations of brain as a thought machine will...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 01:55 GMT
Dear Giovanni Amelino-Camelia,

While insisting that the end of fundamental physics is nowhere in sight, you do acknowledge the "recent standstill", ie, the lack of new discoveries. If, as I believe, there will be neither Higgs nor new particles found at the LHC, then the end may be closer than you think. I am assuming that a TOE means only that it is consistent with all currently available...

view entire post





Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 23:11 GMT
Greetings Eugene,

I would guess - from some of the comments flying around on the forum pages - that I will enjoy your essay. It would seem we have some views in common. I haven't read it yet, but will be downloading it now. Comments will follow.

All the Best,

Jonathan J. Dickau

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 01:05 GMT
Hello again,

Sorry, the above post should read

Greetings Edwin,

I just realized my error. Have yet to finish the essay. Will report back.

Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 15:24 GMT
Greetings,

I'm not sure what I think yet, good sir. Despite the fact that I came into the process half believing in some of your more far-out premises, I must say that I find your essay to be the most far-fetched one I've read, at this point. I would say you are likely both inspired and deluded, but I would need to examine what you are saying a lot more closely before I could conclude either with certainty.

You did make me think, however. Your essay is thought-provoking, to say the least. I have to wonder if your choice of mathematical analogies was merely a carefully tweaked construction, to support your premises, or whether it is the case that the Math flows from your assumptions. By admitting to your readers that such suspicions are natural, you defuse this somewhat, but still leave me with plenty of questions (which may take a while to coalesce).

It makes sense to me that a rudimentary form of consciousness could be pre-existent, and take shape through the laws of logic imposed by the nature of processes - leading either to awareness or the creation of form. In my view, there is a hierarchy of levels of abstraction - that emerges in any creative or observational process. As determinations are added, we move from oneness to conditions or relations. It seems, therefore, that a primal consciousness could give rise to form via the Observer effect, simply by making determinations of what is.

But what you are positing in your essay is a bit more radical, and it will take some additional thought before I can conclude that your construction makes sense. At this point, I am not convinced, but I would rather suspend judgment until I can examine or digest your ideas further.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 18:27 GMT
Dr. Edwin E Klingman,

I enjoyed reading your essay. I think your work is potentially very important in rescuing theoretical physics from the shackles of mechanical inventions of the mind. Your approach of introducing one original property and deriving all else from that property is, I think, an essential part of any correct attempt to define the nature of the universe. My own work is very different in its particulars; however, your use of a single fundamental cause for both mechanical type effects and intelligence is shared by me.

I like how you separate the consciousness field from the use of material to form logic and then combine them together to explain the existence of intelligence. Your approach neatly includes the unification of intelligent effects and mechanical effects. I am not sure that they are separate; however, they appear that way to us. So, it is a practical useful way to approach the problem. You have done a great deal of work and I realize that we are limited in space here in these forums. I did want to ask one question:

You speak about ... If a limit to Cr-field curvature of space-time does exist, it can be shown that this limit leads to quantized charge creation, ... Did the magnitude of electron and proton charge reappear naturally as a fundamental constant in your theory?

James

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 19:45 GMT
Dear Jonathan J. Dickau,

I placed this comment on your page, and wrote it before reading your above comment. Thank you for your comment. It is difficult to argue with, but I have written roughly two thousand pages presenting all details necessary. Let me remark here that the conception of the gravito-magnetic field at the particle physics level has little relevance, so the most detailed...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 20:17 GMT
Dear James,

Thanks for your very kind remarks.

You state, "I like how you separate the consciousness field from the use of material to form logic and then combine them together to explain the existence of intelligence. Your approach neatly includes the unification of intelligent effects and mechanical effects."

After reading your essay I was hoping that you would find this approach pleasing. It is the key to the biological evolution of increasingly complex logic and intelligence without the need to believe that awareness and free will could ever arise from material/mechanical constructions (Lego blocks).

Your further remark about the unification of intelligent effects and mechanical effects: "I am not sure that they are separate", is valid. See the comment I made to Jonathan Dickau above, to the effect that the mass forms (condenses) from the field, so, in that sense, they are one and the same, merely different "phases". Yet the difference clearly separates the 'logical structure' aspects, so important to the evolution of intelligence, from the fundamental aspects of awareness and volition/free will, which are not tied to any particular structure, and in fact interact with protein, silicon, or neural logic elements.

In essence, the field carries awareness and volition, the material logic structures allow the emergence of ideas, thoughts, or models. The interaction of the consciousness field with itself provides 'self-awareness' and the interaction of the field with logical structures allows "thoughts", etc. The logical structures also store info (the past) and combine or project info (the future) while always existing in "the eternal now".

Your question: "If a limit to C-field curvature of space-time does exist, it can be shown that this limit leads to quantized charge creation, ... Did the magnitude of electron and proton charge reappear naturally as a fundamental constant in your theory?"

The "quantization of charge" (unexplained in QED) arises from the existence of a limit to curvature. Because the actual units of charge are dependent upon other physical units, what falls out of the process is the derivation of the "fine structure constant" relating charge to h and c. This fine structure constant, the key to QED, is nowhere explained in today's physics. So I believe it's safe to say that, yes, the value of the electron charge is explained by the theory.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 00:25 GMT
Thank You,

I appreciate the time taken to make a thoughtful response like this one. I have read the comments on my essay's forum page (where I made a few comments), and the additional preamble above. It seems there would be much to talk about, if I had adequate time for reading your work and corresponding.

I like to imagine I have an open mind, but I like to be discerning as well. So I may need a while to digest or assess things. There are many aspects of your work I like, and even moreso - I find reason to applaud many of the comments I see you have made elsewhere on these forums. Ergo; we can conclude that there is a substantial level of agreement between you and I - far greater than any random approximation.

Kind regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 04:13 GMT
Hello again,

I just wanted to add that it will be interesting to see what does or doesn't show up at the LHC, once it's up to speed. If you or Franklin Potter are correct, we will not see a Higgs particle at all. But where he predicts more quarks (another family), you predict that no significant new discoveries at all will be made.

I think it's a safe bet something interesting will be observed, but I'm not ready to go out on a limb with any predictions. There might be interesting observations of cosmic ray spin-offs or some such, as well. I would not completely rule out the possibility they will discover far fewer than the range of particles expected to be seen. In fact, I think it's likely there will be a few 'absentees' when the tally is made, forcing people to go "huh?" But I imagine there will be some surprising appearances as well, and Frank Potter was already an early predictor of the correct Top quark mass.

His essay is about Physics possibly being based on Math, where the Monster Group is used as a generator of particle masses, and so on. But it leaves room for another quark family. So is there one? The exquisite symmetries Frank Potter highlights say yes, but we'll have to see if extra quarks show up, or a Higgs boson. But a massively symmetric object like the Monster Group is not the only object Math has to offer.

I had noted similarities between the evolution of form along the edge of the Mandelbrot Set, and the evolutionary epochs of Cosmology, more than 20 years ago. In my theory, M exists outside of space and time, or predates its existence - helping to shape the evolution of the universe. It does offer a nice graphical depiction of symmetry breaking. And the evolution of form around the edge is highly directional. But do mathematical objects serve as attractors in possibility space?

To be specific I think things like the Mandelbrot Set and Monster Group exist independent of our knowledge of them. If that is the case, they may influence the 'shape of the container' the universe is in. But something remains to be seen, and maybe it will show up at the LHC.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 07:11 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Your well thought out essay is, I believe, close to the truth, but there are several aspects of your last comment that do not appear to me to be as close to truth.

My prediction is pretty simple: No New Particles. The C-field explains all current particles, and I see no hint that there are any "vacancies" waiting to be filled. Of course this could be due to a lack...

view entire post





N Nath wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 09:13 GMT
i am compelled to post another comment here, as i feel you and Tejinder Singh 's essays have opened fresh vistas for Physics to grow from a somewhat stagnant status for the past over a decade or two. Fresh thinking and innovation comes from an unbiased free mind, that takes note of what knowledge exists already without getting overwhelmed with any existing emphasis. I feel convinced that quantumm physics has come about more due to limitations of experiments to be able to understand a phenomenon from just a single event study! Probalistic considerations can account for the intelligent and logical components that can only describe the evolution of the Universe in the way it has proceeded. Consciousness is fundamental to increased awareness of humans in order to understand the same. Thus higher & higher levels of consciousness need to be reached through individual consciousness in order to reach cosmic consciousness which is the origin of all that we have in the physical visible world as well as the dark invisible world of ours.

The present physics limited to classical and quantum considerations present the two extreme range of considerations. The early universe mysteries all indicate that there has to be a region in between ' mesamorphic ' called by Tejinder. There hqas to be something where the Planck's constant is neither zero, nor fully effective. In fact i have seen some reports of cosmic measurements of over 12 billion years objects, where the light signals indicate a higher value for the velocity of light and a different value for the fine structure constant too. The indications indicate a possible lower value for planck's constant h and the e/m ratio.

I also seem to agree in an intuitional way that there will not be any Higg's boson. What we may discover may well be heavier family of quarks /gluons . The latter may well be unstable against decay in the stronger nuclear field itself, giving birth to lower quark families. The dark matter may well be constituted by just frozen quarks, non -baryonic, preventing any interaction between the dark and the visible baryonic matter.THUS, early days cosmology has hidden solutions for these issues that only precise and accurate measurements may be able to decipher in the days to come.

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 23:15 GMT
To all,

This is excerpted from a comment I posted to Stefan Weckbach, whose comments on the Platonic world of math (on another essay ) first attracted my attention.

Here I will "assume" my theory is correct. so I can address the consequences for his issues without being distracted by having to justify each point.

He links undecidability to "free will" brilliantly, seemingly...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 23:16 GMT
Continuation of comment from Klingman to Weckbach:

This brings us to your question 5:

"Linking quantum mechanics with consciousness."

Let's reverse the order and try to link consciousness with quantum mechanics. The consciousness field exerts a Lorentz-like force on moving mass (see essay) and this force implicitly includes the "awareness" of the moving particle and the "free will" of the consciousness field. This free will, however weak at the local level, *must* exhibit an unpredictability, which is almost indistinguishable from randomness. But random means "for no reason at all" (if there is a reason, it's not random.)

Thus I am proposing a "generalized" hidden variable interpretation of quantum mechanics with the distinction that Bohm's hidden variable was assumed to be deterministic, whereas the free will aspect of the consciousness field is indeterminate, but *not* random. Hence quantum mechanics is probabilistic at root, due to the inherent unpredictability of free will. That, I believe, is compatible with Weckbach's summary statement: "assume that microcosmic entities can exhibit a tiny bit of self-government."

And further "contemplate the explanation of consciousness by evolutionary theory." If we distinguish between consciousness and intelligence, we see instead that intelligence is driven by evolution; it is the consciousness field that is the driving force. This scheme agrees with Weckbach that "there is no path from abstraction to ultimate reality". I've tried to show a path from reality to abstraction.

The above outline is highly compressed; my essay and scattered comments will fill in some of the blanks

I believe that Weckbach's final conclusion and mine are identical.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 08:25 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

i can now give you a feedback on your essay which i read this morning.

"Because we distinguish awareness from thinking (requiring logical machinery) we can postulate that elementary particles, such as nucleons, may be somewhat ‘aware’ but certainly do not ‘think’."

Yes, that makes sense, also your distinction between intelligence and logic.

"(self-attraction, self-awareness, and ability to act) will forever remain mysterious."

I would make her a distinction. I agree that our human logics has strong mechanical character. Maybe exactly that's the reason for why we humans cannot imagine/logical conclude that there could be intelligence without logics. Means, understanding without logics. Some understanding could really flow out of strong emotions (i would assume that subatomic particles have such emotional-like perceptions). If that's true, we could understand the mysteries you mentioned without logics, but by becoming one with it at some point of our evolution.

I think it is very important to consider a consciousness-field as an alternative to mere mechanical field-equations. I also agree that if one continues to explain ultimate reality via mechanical constructs, something will always be left out in the explanation, last but not least consciousness.

I think it's of elementary importance to consider our universe not as a dumb that randomly had some meaningfull structure. For a dump, it is almost impossible to pretend some intelligence to an observer, but for an intelligent entity it's very easy to pretend stupidness to an observer.

As far as we don't no yet what all the physical entities in their essences are (energy, space, time, forces etc.), it could be that those entities are of the same stuff consicousness is made of. So i have no problem with your connection of the effects of consciousness with the effects of "ordinary" matter.

All the best,

Stefan Weckbach

P.S. I will rate your essay later, because her at my job i haven't the rating-code to do so.

report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 08:30 GMT
additional remark to my last comment:

I am very surprised that in your theory logics emerges out of the emergence of matter. That's in good corespondence with my own consciousness-concept. I think that time is also a consequence of the production of logics and matter.

All the best,

Stefan

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 17:04 GMT
Hello again Edwin,

I thank you for your attention to my response, and to further addressing of the points raised in my essay, Edwin. I also have enjoyed your other comments here and elsewhere. I am humbled by the strength of your logic, and yet I find none of it unsettling to my basic way of looking at things. You might say that I embrace paradox, or live in a sort of superposition where...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 23:03 GMT
Dr. Edwin E Klingman,

Quoting you from a post in Terry Padden's forum:

"Nevertheless, FQXI has opened the gates a crack, realizing that, even if some crackpots sneak in, the net result will be fresh thinking. God bless 'em."

Excellent remark. Thank you for making it.

James

report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 02:24 GMT
Greetings again,

I wanted you to know that I do try to follow the advice of Korzybski, especially the part about not jumping to conclusions. I just want to make it clear that I don't think his views are irreconcilable with a rather Platonic view of Math. Count Alfred recognized the importance of words and maps as symbols - through their power of time-binding otherwise ephemeral concepts. ...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 01:13 GMT
Jonathan,

You say above that "I tend to believe that if we are being absolutely honest, people know that it's illogical to assume that everything in life makes sense."

This appears to support "free will", because, without free will, the end result would be predictable, and therefore "make sense". This is based on the assumption that "random" events are subject (why?) to some...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 01:40 GMT
Jonathan

You state that, "You and Kronecker say integers are basic; Penrose and Rucker think that Imaginary numbers are bits of Math which pre-dated their discovery."

Step into my parlor-- If, as Kronecker says, integers are basic, we should recall that he insisted that God made the integers. Instead, I call upon logical circuits to produce integers, and from there we're off and...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 02:23 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

You say: "But there is a very real sense of moving through levels, or stages of a process, and one is left to wonder if the levels of abstraction themselves have an existence outside of space, time, and the human experience. If so, why not a circle? And once we can draw circles, put dots inside, and count them, we have the natural numbers too. Why not imaginary numbers...

view entire post





Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 21, 2009 @ 23:55 GMT
Thank You Edwin Eugene,

I have no arguments for you, you are exactly right. I agree with you (mostly) and I know it must be confusing that I'm spelling out alternatives. But I only half believe the universe evolved without Math, or Geometry, or Logic, in some form or measure. If, on the other hand, I must choose between implied order and free will, I choose the latter. It is free will...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 00:31 GMT
Hello again,

I wanted to thank you for your good will gestures, having seen that you recommended my paper to others and commended Narendra for doing the same for you. To the extent that I see common ground to explore with other authors here, and don't see you actively engaged in the conversation, I will extend my recommendations of your work. I would also like to extend an invitation to submit for publication in Quantum Biosystems. When I alerted the editor that both Florin M and I - who appeared in QBS 1-1 - are in this contest, he informed me of the call for submissions for an upcoming issue. I think much of your work would be well received by that audience.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 03:41 GMT
Jonathan,

I have enjoyed our back and forth immensely, and appreciate your openness. Few people who have pursued their own path for decades can be easily dislodged, and there are many of us here. The discussions have been stimulating, and I believe that you should now work with a wider audience that will view your top rated essay. If you think of anything new and relevant, I will be happy to hear from you.

It's been fun,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 18:23 GMT
Hello again Edwin Eugene,

Our discussions on this forum have been extremely thought-provoking, and I've just had a flood of thoughts. I really like a lot of what you say, but it makes me think about possible connections to other work. I apologize if this post addresses none of the most recent comments you made (I'm composing off-line), but I hope it will touch on some of the over-arching...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 17:22 GMT
Jonathan,

It's good to provoke a flood of thoughts.

One point you made is that "once the subject of Consciousness is woven into the subject of Physics, it opens the door to all kinds of questions and assumptions - which are a result of how people have viewed these subjects in the past."

That is certainly true, and will probably cause no end of misunderstandings, as people...

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 17:33 GMT
...continuation of Klingman response to Jonathan Dickau:

You state: "Perhaps I was tempted to imagine that the meaning of important concepts that makes the most sense for me - was actually what you are talking about, or is essentially connected. I meant no offense, but was only trying to point out the connections that make sense for me, which I thought you may have overlooked." First,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 19:12 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

Hello again. I have been busy reading these essays. I see you have been having some significant discussions here. I am printing them off and will catch up.

James

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 21:55 GMT
Hi Edwin. How do you see your "primordial field" (as explaining current physics) in comparison to/or in keeping with the following:

The essay that wins this contest should explain/advance the understanding with respect to sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism) IN GENERAL.

I will now prove that how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is THE...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 23:16 GMT
To All,

I made this comment on Jonathan Dickau's page, but will copy it here for your convenience.

In response to another author Dickau states "I just hope you know that part of the theoretical framework you have have adopted with Kaluza-Klein was a brilliant step forward when first proposed, but has been superseded for mostly good reasons."

I would like to point out that, according to Lee Smolin, "Kaluza-Klein applied Einstein's relativity to a 5-dimensional world and found electromagnetism." such that "the charge of the electron is related to the radius of the little circle" in this dimension. In my theory of the gravito-magnetic field, the self-interacting vortex in the field shrinks until the limit of curvature is reached, an event that brings charge and the electromagnetic field into existence. Thus the field would seem to be equivalent to another dimension. But note the following: the Kaluza-Klein dimension is too symmetric, whereas my field solution breaks symmetry as required for nature

Smolin has also remarked: "A property of an extra dimension -- the radius of the extra circle in Kaluza-Klein theory -- can be interpreted as a field varying over the other dimensions." So my construction is, apparently, not fanciful, but feasible. And the field has been shown by Martin Tajmar to exist (and by ongoing NASA experiments.)

So Kaluza-Klein linked the charge of the electron to the radius of the circle in the fifth dimension, whereas my theory links the charge of the electron to the radius of the circle at which the shrinking vortex reaches the limit of curvature of spacetime, just as a black hole is the point at which the gravitational field reaches the limit of curvature of spacetime. But the major difference is that my theory agrees with the reality of broken chiral symmetry, whereas Kaluza-Klein does not.

My approach to consciousness is based on the interpretation of a real field, initially proposed by Maxwell on the basis of symmetry, and later investigated by Heaviside, Lorentz, and Einstein. They all missed a critical fact, that the field interacts with its own mass-energy and eventually dropped the field as physically insignificant. My recent interpretation of this field as the "carrier of consciousness" and Tajmar's measurement of unexpected strength of field, should bring the field back to the forefront of physics. Further, I would point out that the field has physical significance at the particle level of physics, as explained above, where, for all practical purposes, the consciousness aspects can be ignored. But at the biological, and apparently cosmological levels of reality, the consciousness aspects are paramount.

What a joy it is to communicate with the well informed essayists in this forum.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Frank Martin DiMeglio,

You ask, how I see my "primordial field" as advancing understanding with respect to sensory experience including gravity and electromagnetism. You then describe how you believe that space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy is the central and most valuable physical idea, claiming that the reduction in the range and extensiveness of feeling (of the body) while dreaming/sleeping is very relevant.

Rather than repeat or attempt to rephrase your ideas about dreaming as significant for physics, I will answer your first question.

The primordial consciousness field is the "carrier of consciousness" defined as awareness plus volition or free will. This is as opposed to the current consensus that consciousness is an artefactual phenomena arising from the way in which material is organized in brains.

Further, the equations that I present describe the interaction of the field with mass. Specifically, the field equation describes the effect on the C-field from changing mass and changing gravitational field, while the Lorentz-like force equation describes the effect on moving mass from the consciousness field. Please note that these equations do *not* describe either awareness per se or free will per se -- only their interaction with mass.

Because the body-brain is full of moving mass, blood flow, vesicles and proteins in cells, ions flowing in nerve cells, vesicles across synapses, etc, the field is conscious of the body and its transmission of signals along neural axons and across synapses, and in this way keeps track of sensory inputs and logical operations of the brain. These form the "ideas", "thoughts", etc that we are customarily aware of.

For evolutionary reasons the body 'shuts down' much of the sensory/effector circuitry during sleep, but many of the various flows continue during sleep, therefore the brain is still interacting with the local consciousness field. But with the sensory signals reduced, the 'connection' to the outside world is diminished, and the experience of dreams is therefore less tied to physical reality.

I know that this is not your interpretation of dreams, but you asked for my interpretation.

I hope that this contributes something to your ideas, as the topic of consciousness is very important to physics.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 17:14 GMT
Hi Edwin.

You say:

"The primordial consciousness field is the "carrier of consciousness" defined as awareness plus volition or free will."

You need to consider that the following is central to any proper and complete understanding of both thought and experience in general:

Desire consists of both intention and concern, thereby including interest as well.

When you write:

"Because the body-brain is full of moving mass, blood flow, vesicles and proteins in cells, ions flowing in nerve cells, vesicles across synapses, etc, the field is conscious of the body and its transmission of signals along neural axons and across synapses, and in this way keeps track of sensory inputs and logical operations of the brain. These form the "ideas", "thoughts", etc that we are customarily aware of."

...Make sure that the integrated extensiveness of the picture (and your thinking as well) is not overly complicated, compromised, fragmented, and reduced by putting so many different, unclear, and various words/concepts together like that.

How do you think that memory is possible Edwin?: By making thought more like sensory experience in general. Dreams are much like memory. But an expanded definition/understanding of memory and dreams is at hand. Memory integrates experience -- that is HUGE.

Now, I will give you great, valuable, useful, meaningful, and original definitions/understandings of both memory and dreams:

Memory integrates experience and is necessary for the improved integration of a greater totality of experience; and here lies its connection with the advancement of consciousness and genius. Memory increases (or adds to) the extensiveness, desirability, predictability, and intentionality of experience. Memory is an aid with regard to the extensiveness of intentionality in regard to experience. The loss (or reduction) in both memory and the intentionality of experience that occurs in the dream helps to explain why we are basically (or significantly) without the use of our body therein.

Dreams involve a fundamental integration and spreading of being and experience at the [gravitational] mid-range of feeling between thought and sense. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general (including gravity and electromagnetism).

I encourage your efforts regarding the interactive nature of being and experience. Do you have any questions for me?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that there is not much that you can learn from me though, really.

Have a nice day.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Oct. 25, 2009 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

My work is still developing at an elementary level. I took a historical approach to redevelop theory. So, you are far ahead of me, both in knowledge and progress. I find your discussions about physics and consciousness very enlightening. At this time I have a question just about your theory. Since it is hard for me at this point to not view your work through the lens of my own, where I move as far away from Relativity theory as I can, I am wondering about your view of Einstein's theory of relativity. I do not mean this in the sense of having you explain his theory. I am wondering to what extent you embrace his work? For example, you mention 'Lorentz fashion' and you introduce and use Enstein's energy equation in your essay. I am not challenging the Lorentz force equation. I recognize the proven utility of Lorentz type mathematics and the huge apparent success of Relativity theory. Does your theory include both length contraction and time dilation? Or perhaps, it would be better if you simply wrote something about the role that time plays in your theory?

Regardless of how much your view may differ from mine, I view your work as exceptional. I have posted a message in my forum directing visitors to your essay and forum.

James

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 14:17 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

I decided to supersede the above message with a more general one. Your theory includes consciousness and still reproduces properties consistent with modern physics theory. What I am wondering is: There are other essays and conversations that dwell on exotic ideas such as extra dimensions and hyperspace. Does your theory develop along this type of path? If so, what are some implications for an involved consciouness?

James

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 17:21 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

The more I read your essay, the more my self-induced fog is clearing away. On page two, you compare the Lorentz force equation to an expanded form of Newton's force equation. This is where you are introducing the concept of replacing charge-based physics with mass-based physics. I was tending to read through that section too shallowly. It seemed at first to be developing two analogous type equations that could perhaps be partnered up. You are not partnering them up. You are, at that early point, replacing one with the other.

James

report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokošar wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 21:06 GMT
Dear Dr. Clingman.

I am glad that we have some similar views about consciousness.

But your theory dissagrees with some my views. I hope that I will describe them properly:

1. Your theory begins in macro–physics and go something also toward quantum physics. I more like Feynman's approach in »QED: the strange theory of matter and light«, where he starts at micro-physics and number of assumptions is small.

2. You assume background space, but space is a consequence of matter. (http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=17) For explanation of fundamental physics it is neccessary to explain, how space arises. Gravity, masses of particles and dimensionless coupling constants are necessary for origination of space, not only fields.

3. Of course, QED also gives that fields are more elementary than particles. The same is also given by Higg's boson, tested in CERN, its mass do not need gravity. (I do not believe) Who knows, we will see, if I am wrong.

4. So it seems that according to Occam's razor, your theory is not proper to my intuition.

5. Foundations of physics are close to our reach, consciousness is in foundations of physics and the only sense of matter (and space-time) is consciousness. Matter, as such, still ever need some background. I say that this background is consciousness. But your theory is not closer to this physics without background.

Of course, if you convince me, I will believe you. But the main goal of our discusion is to find new cognitions, so I should a little critisize also my supporters. And, I hope for a constructive debate also after 6. november.

Best regards.

Janko Kokošar

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 05:37 GMT
Dear James Arthur Putnam,

You ask what I have to say about special relativity. I generally accept it "as is" and depend upon the E=mc^2 relation for my theory. As for length contraction and time dilation, most of the problems I have solved do not require these concepts, but I have not rejected them, I have rather ignored them.

I have not had the time or reason to investigate...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 06:11 GMT
Dear Janko Kokosar,

You state "Your theory begins in macro-physics and go something also toward quantum physics. I more like Feynman's approach in QED: the strange theory of matter and light, where he starts at micro-physics and number of assumptions is small."

Janko, I'm not sure how you can have fewer assumptions than my Master equation, whose solution immediately leads to the quantum flow condition (generalized Heisenberg principle). Beginning with gravity, we immediately get a quantum condition on observables. I believe that Einstein wished to begin with the field and proceed to the quantum, but I may be mistaken.

You note that I assume background space, but "space is a consequence of matter."

And you say that "For explanation of fundamental physics it is necessary to explain, how space arises."

I am not sure that this is true. I am conscious of space, and I'm not convinced that there is any more basic approach to spacetime than that.

You also state: "Gravity, masses of particles and dimensionless coupling constants are necessary for origination of space, not only fields."

I disagree with this. There is no need for particles. In my theory we begin with the gravity field. First, this *implies* space, since a field distributes energy over points in space. And second, the energy of the field itself has equivalent mass, and does not require particles. In my theory the field vortex 'condenses' into particles, but they are not there initially.

Because my theory describes mass and charge without the Higgs, I predict that the Higgs does not exist (nor does SUSY, right-handed neutrinos, axions, etc). We will know whether this is true within a year or two.

As for Occam's razor, further study of my essay might change your mind, but I realize that time is precious, and it's hard to comprehend a theory based on a ten page essay. Nevertheless, I do not believe that you have understood the key points of my theory yet.

I'm not sure that I understand your 5th point, but I do agree with you that "consciousness is in foundations of physics and the only sense of matter (and space-time) is consciousness". I am pleased that you are one who insists that physics must address consciousness, and hope that you find the opportunity to review my essay again. I believe that you will find some of your concerns vanish with better understanding.

Thanks for your response, and please let me know of any other comments you might have. I hope my response has somewhat clarified things.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




James Putnam wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 13:34 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

Thank you for those clarifications. I will back up, slow down, and study it again. Plus, I will begin to read your other publications.

James

report post as inappropriate


Peter Cowburn wrote on Oct. 28, 2009 @ 12:37 GMT
Dear Edwin

A brilliant essay that stands out, and much underrated. I would maybe have some issues with falsifiability, but I've also just read Peter Jacksons essay Perfect Symmetry, which unifies the field and conciousness in an entirely falsifiable way, you really need to read it - but get down to the real thing as the top few layers are just a test (which most have failed!) and which I don't want to spoil. (I may be doing so here, but perhaps all part of the experiment).

It seems we have a very exciting future! Best wishes.

Peter C

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 02:23 GMT
Hi Edwin:

You wrote:

"In my theory we begin with the gravity field. First, this *implies* space, since a field distributes energy over points in space. And second, the energy of the field itself has equivalent mass, and does not require particles. In my theory the field vortex 'condenses' into particles, but they are not there initially."

You also state that "physics must...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 06:14 GMT
Peter Cowburn,

Thanks for your very kind words.

You state: "I've just read Peter Jackson's essay Perfect Symmetry, which unifies the field and consciousness in an entirely falsifiable way."

Jackson states: "The one thing which almost all great physicists agreed on was that we would probably need a 'new way of thinking' to make new progress." and "The logic of claiming that all good theory will get noticed and rise to the fore is flawed in our present system. There is no proof the answer wasn't there 150 years ago and subdued.... But the greater likelihood is that the 'new' theory would be hocked around, maybe not even read, subdued again and never even become a statistic."

Elsewhere in these comments I have remarked that Rutherford, in 1929, proposed a magnetic-like character for nuclear force, but was a few years too soon. When Yukawa proposed an electric-like nuclear force, and the muon showed up and was mistaken for the pion, then physics was locked into the wrong path for 80 years.

Jackson quotes the phrase "physics won't change till the old physicists die." It was Planck that made this claim, at a time when only a few hundred physicists stood in the way of new thinking. Today the number is closer to 100,000 physicists, which means effectively that they will *never* die.

I believe that the best chance for new thinking will occur when the LHC has been in operation a year or so without finding the Higgs, the axion, WIMPs, CHAMPS, SUSY, or three right handed neutrinos, or a fourth quark family -- that is *no new particles*. And even then, the professors of the major paradigm will simply look for a 'fix' rather than a new theory. They have too much invested to do otherwise.

You mention falsifiability -- the appearance of any of these particles will falsify my theory!

In addition to such 'negative' predictions, my theory makes specific 'positive' predictions, such as that the decay of the b quark to the d quark is accompanied by two gammas, rather than the single gamma currently reported.

There are also cosmological consequences of my theory, but I have focused more closely on particle physics because I have more faith in the reported particle values. I am constantly reading that "our galaxy is twice as 'thick' as believed" and since I have no way of knowing which numbers to trust, I am hesitant to go too far out on a limb with my own predictions in this area.

Finally, I have some ideas for testing the consciousness aspects of the theory, but I am not ready to announce them.

In short, the LHC offers the best immediate test of my predictions, so that's what I am focusing on.

Thanks again,

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 06:46 GMT
Frank,

I admit that I do not understand your theory. I find some of your description poetic and beautiful, but I don't understand all of your physics.

You ask if i agree with the following?:

"In relation to the increased transparency/invisibility of space in astronomical/telescopic observations (that makes these observations possible), is there not a uniformity of gravity/acceleration (that would provide an additional binding energy) regarding the outer stars accelerating more than they should be (in, say, spiral galaxies)?"

If I understand what you are talking about, then it is Fritz Zwicky's "flat rotation curves" wherein the outer stars in spiral galaxies travel too fast for Newton's gravity, leading to MOND and other attempts to modify Newton's theory. I have, in "Gene Man's World" worked out the application of the C-field to this problem and find that the behavior is exactly as predicted by my theory, since the Lorentz-like force of the (axial) C-field augments the gravitational pull holding the stars in orbit. In addition, it works out that the velocity is independent of distance (the meaning of "flat" rotation curves). Therefore, since my theory explains these effects perfectly, I've little incentive to try hard to understand how your theory applies to this.

That is why, specifically, I respond in this way.

I do enjoy your comments.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Janko Kokošar wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 18:24 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman

1. One difference between our theories is that I think that consciousness is QM and QM is everywhere. You defined special field for consciousness, so it is not everywhere.

2. Let us concentrate on your 3. and 4. equations (Lorentz force equation and

‘GEM’ force equation). For instance, symmetry between electrostatic and gravitational force. But, in...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 01:19 GMT
Dear Janko,

You say: "1. One difference between our theories is that I think that consciousness is QM and QM is everywhere. You defined special field for consciousness, so it is not everywhere."

I don't understand your "consciousness is QM" or why you think that the gravitational field is not everywhere. The C-field is everywhere that there is moving mass (or changing gravity), and...

view entire post





Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 00:57 GMT
Edwin, in reply to your last post to me:

1) My explanation as to dreams unifying gravity and electromagnetism/light is simple and clear.

2) When considering the blackness of outer space, the space must be increasingly transparent/invisible in order for astronomical/telescopic observations to be possible (to see farther). DID YOU KNOW THIS? -- YES OR NO EDWIN?

report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

I read your essay, which is interesting, and makes courageous connections. It seems that much of the arguments and explanations required to understand your essay can be find in your books.

Regarding the idea of postulating another force, which plays in relation to the gravity the same role the magnetic force plays in relation to electric force, I first remember reading this in another courageous book Gravitation (in fact I red the 1982 Romanian original version). The author of that book named the other force "vortex", and the combined force "gravitovortex". His idea tried, among other things, to explain the galactic rotations.

Congratulations and good luck with your research,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 16:27 GMT
Dear Christi,

Thanks for reading the essay and commenting.

Your information on "gravi-vortex" is new to me and very interesting. Rather than explaining galactic rotations, I find that the C-field explains "flat rotation curves", the fact that the outer stars in galaxies (and galaxies in clusters) travel faster than allowed by Newton's gravity and with speed independent of distance from the center (the 'flatness'). The key is that the strength of the field is stronger than Maxwell and others believed, since they derived the equations based purely on symmetry, with no logical or physical reason for assuming such, only aesthetic.

Based on other reasoning, I assumed that the force *must* be non-trivial, and then worked to find the implications of such. When Martin Tajmar claimed to have measured the thirty-one order of magnitude stronger force than expected, and this agreed with my calculations, I began taking the theory seriously. And the farther I looked, the more was explained, from the force of inflation to particle families and particle decay paths. That's why I feel confident in making predictions that no one else is making.

Thanks again for your comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 20:08 GMT
Hello again,

I thank you E.E. for your detailed and thoughtful replies to my questions and/or comments above. It is worthwhile to read your comments, and the perspective is helpful. The fact that you have taken the time to understand and made the effort to reply thoughtfully, is noted.

Sadly; not everyone in this contest has displayed respect and decorum, but you have dealt with every objector in a forthright and respectful manner. That is to be appreciated. I believe we do have a lot to agree on, and plenty to discuss, so I will look forward to continuing some level of correspondence even after the contest is completed.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 23:52 GMT
Jonathan,

I've enjoyed all your comments, and your general attitude, and look forward to continuing conversations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 11:15 GMT
i Kam again at your site, a bit surprised that the community has yet to appreciate the depth of your essay. First impression i got was that you consider consciousness field as fundamentally arising from movement of masses. I also note that lately you are equating it to Quantum field. Physics currently is finding difficulty in associating gravity with quantum mechanics. The latter is centred on uncertainties in measurement of conjugate physical quantities like space/mometum, time/energy. Also, it is based on degree of coherence in a process. I do not envisage 'consciousness' to possess such limitations at all. May be i do not understand your presentation in some fundamental way. Kindly elucidate, if you have time! My voting on your essay is already over in a positive way.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 23:02 GMT
Dear Narendra Nath,

Thanks for your very kind remarks. The highest score essay may denote the emotional appeal to a group of physicists who are perhaps disturbed by the fact that no new particles are showing up.

But I'm not surprised at my own ranking. Four years ago I would not have granted much credit to a "Fundamental Physics of Consciousness" that claimed equations relating...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 23:12 GMT
Continuation of Edwin Eugene Klingman Comment ---

Perhaps I should have shown the intermediate step in deriving the Quantum Flow Principle (the generalized Heisenberg relation) from the Master equation. The solution to the Master equation is G = 1/r and hence ( G r )**2 = 1. When the time derivative of this is taken, and the energy of the field replaces G**2 and then mass replaces the...

view entire post





Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 03:02 GMT
Greetings,

I have just read the author's comments to Narendra. I must say that I'm impressed with what has been said, and that it does make sense. I'm not exactly sure how this will fit with or displace other thoughts I have about what is real, but it should be interesting exploring.

All the Best,

Jonathan

report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 04:20 GMT
What a beautiful narration you have provided to my query on consciousness as a real field. It is related to our awareness, intelligence and what not? I believe that consciousness is a property that helps the entire range of capabilities a human being can demonstarte utilizing his body, of which brain in just an organ. In our ancient literature there exists a mention that one can fly in air with a vehicle run by the power of consciousness field. But that 'technology'/ methodology, rare to some enlightened humans stands lost, as it was never put into narration/ language. It was just attained and then experienced and even demonstrated to one and all!

At this stage i will not like to go into further thoughts but would prefer to contemplate further on your detailed narration, i thank you most sincerely for the same. Kindly do go through the additional post on my site that attaches a mss ' Relevance of Consciousness in Sciences'. i do not remember now if you have already read and commented on it!

report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 07:14 GMT
i just a further addition to my last posting. Perhaps, i wantede to come soon without giving myself the time. It was wrong to desire such a thing and so universal consciousnss has made that posting go. i need to live with it for now.

report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Nov. 5, 2009 @ 17:33 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

I might mention that I find your conversations here very worthwhile. I read and print them and save them for further study.

James

report post as inappropriate


Ray B Munroe wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 14:16 GMT
This was posted on Frank DiMeglio's and Edwin Eugene Klingman's blog sites.

Dear Frank,

I know that you are familiar with Edwin Eugene Klingman's essay that unites Gravity and Consciousness. His ideas are as original as yours that unify the Dream, Gravity and Electromagnetism. In my opinion, you are both appealing to a Consciousness/ Dream/ Mind/ Soul that may actually be more complicated and less understood than the Gravitational phenomena you are trying to describe. The important distinction is that EE is using models and mathematics to build a framework to support his ideas. On originality of concept, you both deserve an "A". On follow-though and model-building, EE deserves a "Nobel effort". This is where your idea lacks detail. The problem with both ideas is that falsification does not seem possible. How do we measure EE's "C" consciousness field? How do we analyze the Dream? With new theories/ models/ ideas there is a higher probability that the model is incorrect rather than correct. If a theory/ model/ idea cannot be proven or disproven, then it is really difficult to call it science.

I consider myself a physicist and a mathematician. Admittedly, I try to keep my philosophy as separate as possible (although I agree with Petkov's essay that the two must be integrated), and I don't normally put psychology in the same category, but I understand your background and emphasis. My TOE model may also have problems with falsification. I would appeal to two expectations: 1) my model uses existing lattice symmetries such as tetrahedral (FCC), octahedral, icosahedral, Gosset and Leech, and 2) I expect a new class of particles at the 10 4 TeV scale that cosmic rays may be able to analyze (see my book).

The advantage of a contest like this is that we have the opportunity to read other intelligent and interesting people's ideas and build relationships and alliances with those people. Lawrence Crowell and I have been sharing ideas for the past few months. I expect it to be mutually beneficial. You could learn a lot from people such as EE…

Dear Edwin Eugene,

I also once worked with NASA as an American Society for Engineering Education Summer Faculty Fellow at the Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA – Huntsville, Alabama) during the Summers of '97 and '98. I ran GEANT event simulation studies on their Scintillating Optical Fiber Calorimeter (SOFCAL) Cosmic Ray detector – thus my nickname "Dr. Cosmic Ray". These days, I am more of a business man than a physicist. At least I get to play with physics as a hobby.

Your ideas are probably too original. I like your modeling and mathematics, but ultimately, don't know if your ideas can be falsified. Thus, I don't know how to score your paper. Do you have any responses that may help me in my deliberation?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear Ray,

I certainly appreciate your gracious comment. There are in essence two aspects of my theory, the consciousness aspects and the purely physical aspects, both cosmological and particle physics. As I state above, the consciousness aspects can effectively be ignored at the particle physics level, therefore the problems are essentially separable.

Although I have some ideas about testing the consciousness aspects, it is premature to present them here as there may be patents involved in the instrumentation, so let me address the physical aspects of the C-field. Certain of my predictions, such as the two gamma b-to-d decay would go a long way toward falsifying or confirming my particle model,and should be easily accomplished, since the two gammas are currently simply filtered out of the data on the assumption that they represent pi-zero decays. Also, the detection of "new" particles at the LHC will falsify my theory unless I find a new mechanism of particle production that I do not now see.

But, as the measure of a theory, there are other considerations than falsification. For example, I received my 16 Oct 2009 issue of Physical Review Letters, 103 in the mail yesterday and noted a paper (162001) concerning a "hadron molecule" interpretation of X(3872). The idea is that the X(3872) particle is a hadron molecule formed from the D-zero and znti-D-zero particles. The problem is that the binding is so weak, approximately 0.25 MeV, that no one can understand how the X can appear so promptly in the high energy collision environment.

Think of a snowflake in a welding torch flame.

The Standard Model assumes that the D-zeros, produced in a !.76 TeV proton-anti-proton collision, are created separately, then must somehow bind weakly into a "molecule", almost immediately.

But my theory's particle creation model, based on the C-field vortex and described in great detail in "Chromodynamics War" easily explains the X(3872) being created in the weakly coupled state in an intuitively simple fashion.

For at least the last year I have been finding such examples in Phys Rev Lett, that is, reported results that do not make sense in the Standard Model but that are easily interpreted in my model. I have not calculated the X(3872) cross section, but the PRL paper only uses Standard Model Monte Carlo programs "tuned" to match the data, so I'm not highly impressed by their calculations.

I hope that the above somewhat addresses the issues you raised.

Thanks again for your wonderful words.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Ray B Munroe wrote on Nov. 6, 2009 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,

My thesis involved Monte Carlo simulations, so I am familiar with their strengths and weaknesses. It is a shame that we don't have better methods to relate Experiment to Theory and vice versa.

OK - So I need to read your books to get more details...

I have the same problem. There is only so much that you can pack into a 10 page essay. I supplied another paper and a free partial preview of my book on my blog site.

Your ideas seem very radical to me, but well-presented.

Good Luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 05:47 GMT
The contest is over in the materialistic sense but the philosophical aspect continues in all our minds. It is a healthy plateform for us all nahing a variety in our mindsets. let us develop our respective ones further, in order to carry Physics further.

The report in The Phys. letters re. a particulate weakly bound structure found in high energy interations seems really like seeing a snow flake in a torch flame! What i think is important from the experimental point of view is to reduce the senser/detector response time to the smallest possible and mysteries will shine like anything. However, the problem msy continue to bedevil us as to what is actually happening at an instant, as no measurement seems possible in 'no' time. Let us work on solving this impossible appearing job!!One can also think of doing experments with extremely short burst of ion beams in an accelerator and then vary this burst furation to see how the pictures eveolve with time. it may prove significant in such difficult searches!

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 22:45 GMT
Hi Edwin. How would your essay ideas account for/refute the following?

The core theoretical/actual application and manifestation of the wave/particle duality is evident when thought is more like sensory experience in general. Wave/particle duality occurs in dreams. Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general.

Reality must be understood (in varying degrees, of course) as pertaining to what is the integrated extensiveness of being, thought, and experience. Consider this carefully in relation to both astronomical/telescopic observations and dream experience. Consider that dreams and telescopic/astronomical observations are both interactive creations of thought, to a significant extent. (Importantly, my essay talks more about this.) Now consider all of this post in keeping with the fact that waking experience (including that of the stars at night) is significantly different in comparison with BOTH dream experience and astronomical/telescopic observations. Dreams have SIGNIFICANT AND VERY IMPORTANT similarities with astronomical/telescopic observations.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 25, 2009 @ 22:58 GMT
Edwin, did you know that....

since dreams make thought more like sensory experience (including gravity and electromagnetism/light) in general, the idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is not only demonstrated in dreams (as I have shown), but this idea is then ALSO understood to be NECESSARILY central to an improved understanding of physics/experience in general.

Consider this closely in keeping with my prior post.

According to Jonathan Dickau, my idea of "how space manifests as electromagnetic/gravitational energy" is "right on" as a central and valuable idea/concept in physics.

I am looking forward to your fully responsive reply. Thanks.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 12, 2009 @ 16:23 GMT
Hi Edwin. How do you account for the following fundamental physics of consciousness? Please reply to my prior post as well. Thanks.

Do you understand the GIGANTIC significance of the following three statements taken together?:

1) The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

2) Dreams involve a fundamental integration AND spreading of being, experience, and thought at the [gravitational and electromagnetic] MID-RANGE of feeling BETWEEN thought AND sense.

3) Dreams make thought more like sensory experience IN GENERAL (including gravity and electromagnetism).

Now, also consider the following:

These are the essential parameters/requirements regarding the demonstration/proof of what is ultimately possible in physics.

1) Making thought more like sensory experience in general.

2) Space manifesting as gravitational/electromagnetic energy.

3) Balancing/uniting scale.

4) Exhibiting/demonstrating particle/wave.

5) Repulsive/attractive.

What is ultimately possible in physics cannot (and should not) be properly/fully understood apart from this great truth:

The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sensory experience.

report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 26, 2009 @ 22:14 GMT
Hi Edwin: How would your essay ideas account for/address the following?

This goes to the core of cosmology. Indeed, this cuts to the very core of human experience/thought/physics. Thanks. Frank

The increased invisibility/transparency of space is a requirement of these astronomical/telescopic observations. Importantly, there is a "telescoping"/narrowing of vision in dreams too. (Dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general, including gravity and electromagnetism/light.) Astronomical/telescopic observations have significant similarities with dream vision. Dream vision is constantly active/shifting/variable. Similarly, telescopic/astronomical observations are "activating " what would otherwise be the [basically] unmoving stars at night (as seen by the unaided eye). Astronomical/telescopic observations are interactive creations of thought to a significant extent. Red borders black and transparent. Supernovas and the red sun both only last so long, as well. Witness the clear space around the red [larger] setting sun. Telescopes are known to function as a sort of "big eye". Note the clear and black parts of the eye. Astronomical/telescopic observations make objects larger, or they could not be seen. Yet they are in a smaller space, and dreams are in/involve a smaller space. The earth may also be considered to be in a smaller (and transparent) space. THINK! Dreams involve how a larger space is made smaller, and also how a smaller space is made larger.

Essay Author Frank Martin DiMeglio

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 4, 2010 @ 23:29 GMT
Dear All,

I posted this on Ray Munroe's thread as part of an ongoing conversation. I copy it here for convenience of my readers.

Ray, thanks for the additional material on the genesis of your book, "New Approaches Towards A Grand Unified Theory". I hope you do release a third edition with the additional explanatory introduction and overview. That would significantly expand the...

view entire post





Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 6, 2010 @ 01:29 GMT
Dear All,

I have left the following comments on Marcel-Marie LeBel's thread. I am much impressed by his essay, and wish to relate it to mine as follows:

I recently saw some of Marcel's comments on Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" thread, that caused me to study his essay, which naturally divides into two parts: natural philosophy and physics.

The treatment of natural...

view entire post





Anonymous wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 04:59 GMT
Dr Klingman,

I have read your essay. Maybe its me, but there is like too much in it. One or two aspects driven and demonstrated could have been enough for now. I am not familiar with quite a few concepts in there, so it makes the reading difficult. I still think you have something good going here. You end by saying that we will never know gravity. Yes, this is the limit of physics, but it is also the beginning of metaphysics. Magnetic, electric and gravitation are all aspect of a single substance; the explosive passage of time. No matters how true my metaphysics is, we will have to use it to formulate some physics of equivalence if we want to make something useful out of it. Your theory/approach is possibly such a principle of equivalence.

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 00:15 GMT
Dear Marcel-Marie LeBel,

Thanks for reading and commenting. As I've said elsewhere, it is very difficult for those rare individuals who have developed a unique way of seeing things, to see things in a new way. This affects all of us in the essay contest. That is why I find it so rewarding that many here make the effort to understand others theories. So thanks again. I will continue to review yours.

I have not found your email address yet. If you're interested in further details that far exceed the essay's ten page limit, let me know at klingman@geneman.com

Edwin Eugene Klingman




James Putnam wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 17:02 GMT
Dr.Klingman,

Thank you for the message you posted last in my forum. I did not see it until today; because, I neglected to check my forum in weeks. I looked for the possible reference you mentioned with regard to Tegmark's paper but did not find it. I will stay in touch.

James

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 19, 2010 @ 19:27 GMT
Dear James,

Tegmark's paper was not one of the recent essays; it's at:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/42

Ed




Thom wrote on Feb. 16, 2010 @ 17:47 GMT
You want $99.00 for The Gene Man Theory from Amazon ,, OUCH !

report post as inappropriate

Author Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 21, 2010 @ 21:46 GMT
Thom,

Thanks for looking it up. "Gene Man Theory" is the first presentation of the theory, targeted at PhD physicists, who normally pay more than this for a technical book. (And normally don't use their own money.) Pricing is also a way to discourage broad sales of a very specialized book, that will appeal to only a narrow market.

For the best treatment of consciousness in physics (the topic of my essay) I recommend: "Gene Man's World: A Theory of Everything"

For the best treatment of particle physics in this framework, presented in a narrative format with Socratic dialogue, I recommend "The Chromodynamics War".

All of the above books are highly mathematical. For a non-mathematical treatment of consciousness, see "The Atheist and the God Particle"

Thanks again for your interest.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Adam S wrote on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 23:16 GMT
Dr. Klingman,

For a while now, I've regarded two things in the universe as fundamental, beyond any deeper explanation for what actually consitutues either. Those two being gravity and consciousness. An offhand search last evening lead me here. I never suspected anyone would have thought along these lines enough to formulate reasonable physical theory. I've been a computer programmer for a decade, and am just now starting a degree in mathematics with an eye towards physics/cosmology or cognitive science. The details of your theory will elude me until I further my education, but the principles are enough to get me excited that such things are even being considered. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the posts on this forum as well. I look forward to future insights and potential experiments along these lines.

report post as inappropriate


Author Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 18:33 GMT
Adam,

Thanks for your comment. Your intuition agrees completely with my conclusion, and I am happy that you enjoyed my essay. With your background, you might find 'Gene Man's World' to be of interest. I wish you well in your career.

Edwin Eugene Klingman




Adam S wrote on Jul. 10, 2010 @ 23:25 GMT
Thanks for the reply. I wasn't sure if you were still present on this forum. I have a few questions on my mind if you'll humor them.

To people who have reduced consciousness to an emergent property of brains and perhaps other sufficiently complex information processing systems, how do you convince them that awareness + volition are vital properties of the c-field. If the mathematics present the c-field in such a way that it's an unpredictable (but non-random) force acting upon mass, why are aspects of consciousness necessary to describe it?

If it's possible to determine the way the c-field interacts with matter, should it not be possible to create an experiment arranging matter in such a way that it is especially sensitive to c-field forces? I could be completely off the mark here to the point of sounding ridiculous, but perhaps something like a physical cellular automation composed of an ultrathin fluid and bits of interacting particles cascading in collapse from superposition.

Do the details of your theory have anything to say about the recent measurement of protons turning out to be 4% smaller than the expected amount? A bit of a problem for QED.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 11, 2010 @ 05:40 GMT
Adam,

You ask: "... how do you convince (people who have reduced consciousness to an emergent property of brains) that awareness and volition are vital properties of the c-field. If the mathematics present the c-field in such a way that it's an unpredictable (but non-random) force acting upon mass, why are aspects of consciousness necessary to describe it?"

An excellent question. In general, it's impossible to convince people who *believe* that consciousness is an emergent property. The fact that over a century of effort has failed to propose any credible explanation is not sufficient to dispel their belief. That's one reason "Chromodynamics War" doesn't mention consciousness. At the particle level the aspects of awareness and volition are minimal, while other significant effects can be understood based on the field equations alone. Non-random but unpredictable volition *is* needed to re-interpret the alternative to the Copenhagen 'collapse of the wave function'. At the non-quark level, the Schrodinger equation is the same for all theories -- only the interpretation differs. The C-field is more necessary for understanding entanglement phenomena, but I haven't written much on that yet. For a consistent C-field re-interpretation of the wave-function, volition is needed.

The C-field theory of flux tube quark confinement does not really require a consciousness interpretation -- wave-functions are not the primary focus of QCD.

Because the C-field interacts with mass, the interaction with proteins and cells is millions and trillions of time greater than with electrons, and hence the consciousness effects should be far more significant. And for the brain, even more so.

I am in process of filing a few patents for C-field experimentation, but they differ from what you have suggested above (mine are simpler). I am sure that there are many such approaches to experimentation that I have not thought of and I encourage you to think in this manner. There is almost certainly much "low-hanging" fruit to be harvested in C-field theory and experiment.

As for the 4% difference in proton size, the calculations for the C-field quark model are non-linear and I can not yet reach that level of accuracy. (Neither can QCD after 40 years of effort.)

Thanks for the questions. If you have more, we can continue here or, if you would like to continue this offline, my email address is in the essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


anon wrote on Jul. 14, 2010 @ 13:14 GMT
Hello.

This essay is a very difficult read for the layman. Could there be anything to this outside of the mainstream ambitious posit? One's confidence is diminished somewhat by the author's misspelling of "minuscule".

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jul. 15, 2010 @ 03:13 GMT
min·is·cule (mĭn'ĭ-skyōōl')

adj. Variant of minuscule.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miniscule

report post as inappropriate

Barry Tilles replied on Jul. 16, 2010 @ 15:46 GMT
Good morning.

I stand corrected, but being sort of a noodge...

"usage The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error."

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/miniscule

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/minuscule

It's a very common spelling on-line and in print journalism. I think the most commonly abused word on the 'net is "loser", which people often write as "looser" as in "you are a looser" detracting from the writer's assertion!

Anyway, keep up the good work.

Barry

report post as inappropriate


Valentin Koulikov wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 22:41 GMT
Thank you Edwin for the great essay!

By the way, I especially liked really good criticism of modern physics in it's current state. Regarding the idea of self-acting nonlinear fundamental field - I share your point here totally - it inevitably leads to consciousness and self-awareness of some kind. What we really need to investigate in much deeper manner is the hierarchy of consciousnesses, from the primitive one, like the self-interaction of the gravity field to the human kind and even to some hypothetical supreme one. Some thoughts on this matter which I call "perspective of consciousnesses" you may find in my work on subjective space-time in Philica.

I want to bring your attention also to one extremely important fact that gravity is actually not the only universal fundamental physical interaction. It works via graviton exchange, but there is also so-called "exchange interaction" in QT that is not less universal than gravity and do not even need any "third party" like graviton. In my essay I actually interpret exchange interaction as the significant part of gravity, the straightforward result of "time interaction" producing changes in matter.

Valentin Koulikov

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.