Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

ari saaput: on 7/17/18 at 16:15pm UTC, wrote 10. Bawang Putih Sebagai bumbu dapurObat Kencing Nanah yang tak pernah...

Darryl Leiter: on 10/30/09 at 17:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Kokosar, Thank you for your interest in my essay. You have asked...

Edwin Klingman: on 10/30/09 at 1:09am UTC, wrote Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia, I too enjoy a discussion on the relation...

Edwin Klingman: on 10/30/09 at 0:38am UTC, wrote Dear Janko, You say: "1. One difference between our theories is that I...

Janko Kokošar: on 10/29/09 at 15:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Klingman 1. One difference between our theories is that I think...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 10/27/09 at 20:47pm UTC, wrote Hi Edwin and Janko: I will clarify the significance/meaning of the word...

Edwin Klingman: on 10/27/09 at 20:17pm UTC, wrote Dear Janko Kokosar, You state "Your theory begins in macro-physics and go...

Frank Martin DiMeglio: on 10/27/09 at 5:03am UTC, wrote Hi Janko: Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 22, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: What is Ultimately Possible in Physics, Completeness of Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Gravity, and Consciousness by Janko Kokosar [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 16:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

Firstly, the completeness of quantum mechanics (QM), which is one of the basic limitations of physics, is given under a new judgement. The absence of quantum gravity theory confirms that QM is incomplete. The author asserts that mass is an urgent building block of space-time, and, that foundations of space-time should still be searched - for instance wormholes. So also the speed of light as the maximal speed is no more sure. QM is incomplete also because consciousness is not yet explained. Arguments for quantum nature of consciousness are given. It is shown, how the formalism of QM can be changed if consciousness is included. At the same time the energy law is no more sure if the formalism of QM is so changed.

Author Bio

I am a bachelor of science in physics from 1989. I work in Research & Development Department in an iron plant. I work on improving of quality of steel, I do statistical analyses, I am programming in Excel, I am doing measurements, calculating simulations of cooling of steel and other things. Privately, I am occupied with foundations of physics, so with quantum gravity, but also with biology and consciousness. I had competed also in chess until age of 20 years.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Uncle Al wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 23:25 GMT
"With the above arguments we can prove a connection between QM and consciousness"

Insanity, retardation, autism, genius, prodigous ability. While each and all of these may be facile to model within your proosal , I challenge you to create any mathematical formalism that accurately models what goes through a woman's head.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 08:45 GMT
Dear Janko Kokosar,

i like your essay for it does include consciousness into the realm of reality and not handle it as an "epiphenomenon".

Your essay fits well into my own considerations with the title "To be or not to be strictly deterministic?" in the current essay contest.

Feel free to check out my paper for additional thoughts on your results.

Best,

Stefan Weckbach

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 4, 2009 @ 06:37 GMT
Uncle AI:

This sentence in quotation marks is really unprecisely written. It describes 2. and 4. sections, but there it is omitted any model for quantum consciousness. So it should be written something like: "these arguments show that quantum consciousness should be taken more seriously."

A mathematical formalism is really not ended, but it is close to formulas and it is concrete.

"Insanity, retardation..":

It is written something: about atomization, about memory and ego, about that logic is not the same as consciousness...

But this is dependent also from better researd of brain working. Research of brain is also possible by cheaper and mass analysis of DNA, by autopsy of brains of dead peoples... A possibilites are large.

"Prodigous ability"

it needs a better model for QG, so better model for nature of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokosar wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 06:31 GMT
FQXi is a good new approach to ineffectiveness of physical reviews to select an useful and correct QG and consciousness theory.

But it would be more fair that any given community score is grounded by enough comment and that scores are given as succesion of places of authors of essays.

The next proposion is that the rewarded essays will be published in one good physical review, for instance, "Foundations of Physics".

Quality of these rewarded easays is dependent of quality of community scores and in that case alternative theories will have greater impact one new physical theories.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 10:32 GMT
Dear Janko

I see gravity and consciousness close together. Both are carried by cosmic space. I define consciousness as a basic frequency of quanta of space QS that build up cosmic space.

QS have a volume of Planck and they change electrical charge from positive to negative in a Plansk time. This is only math description of consciousness that one can fully experience by awakening the observer in himself.

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 01:11 GMT
Dear Janko Kokosar,

I agree with your 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."

But you also say:

"So we obtain a panpsychism, where consciousness is everywhere. If consciousness

is a quantum phenomenon, it should really exist everywhere."

This is the approach that I have 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 you say 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"

For an outline of a theory of a consciousness field, I invite you to read my essay and leave me any comment you might have.

Thanks for your insistence that consciousness must be part of physical reality. We agree there.

Also, I was very interested in your following statement:

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

As you will see in my essay, I separate logic (machinery) from conscious awareness and volition, for the very reason that you state. 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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokošar wrote on Oct. 26, 2009 @ 21:04 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.

JK

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 05:03 GMT
Hi Janko:

Schroedinger was puzzled by life enough to suggest "a new type of physical law." -- p. 258 -- See Paul Davies book The Fifth Miracle. Also see De Duve: "Life and mind emerge...as natural manifestations of matter, written into the fabric of the universe." -- p.252 thereof. And Darwin: "The principle of life will hereafter be shown to be a part, or consequence, of some general law" -- p.252 hereof. Look at the words "GENERAL law"!

These quotes are very relevant to an accurate and complete understanding of consciousness. Do you agree?

Can you rate and leave comments and questions under my essay? It is the fourth from the top. Thanks. Please read my posts under the essay as well.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 20:17 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 hope my response has somewhat clarified things.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 27, 2009 @ 20:47 GMT
Hi Edwin and Janko:

I will clarify the significance/meaning of the word "consciousness" in order to facilitate the advancement of understanding and discussion(s):

1) Consciousness and language involve the ability to represent, form, and experience comprehensive approximations of experience in general; and this includes art and music as well.

2) Consciousness involves the extent to which the experience and expressiveness of the self comprehensively approximate to reality.

In keeping with the above, the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general

The ability of thought to describe or reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense. This relates to genius, memory, and dreams.

It is my pleasure to be of assistance. Frank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Janko Kokošar wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 15:09 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 quantum world, these two forces are not symmetric. Gravity describe space, electrostatic force is important at photon and charged particles (not absolutely true). Screening of charge is different than screening of gravitational mass.

It also seems to me that your theory does not describe how the space emerge from nothing.

Key for this description is hidden in (dimensionless) gravitational coupling constants.

About my point 5:

All physical quantities should be connected between themselves and explained. Even space, matter and consciusness. This I thought in point 5.

»Foundations of physics are close to our reach«

I thought that TOE should be short and clear. Every step to much is disturbing.

Your wrote:

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

F. Markopoulou has approach where space is emergent (fqxi contest from last year). I support it. Number of three dimensions is consequence of some logic, Brukner (my reference) wrote about this.

Space-time also do not exist without matter. This can be visible also in 0-dimensionality of gravitational coupling constants. If all particles would be twice heavier, but gravitational coupling constants stay the same, the physics would stay the same.

What is sense of space and time. Sense of time is consciousness, sense of distance is time used for it.

You wrote:

»I do not believe that you have understood the key points of my theory yet.«

I concentrated on equations 3 and 4, but we can go further.

So for now.

Regards Janko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 00:38 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


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 01:09 GMT
Dear Gagandeep Singh Bhatia,

I too enjoy a discussion on the relation between counting and measurement.

You assume that "there is one physical property that cannot be quantized. Now say the property takes all values within a finite real range [a,b] for a system. Irrespective of the scale or unit of measurement, or the size of the range, there will be uncountable values of the property, containing both rational and irrational(subset of real) number multiples of the chosen unit. These irrational values (or real) will always remain independent of the choices."

I accept the premise, but you are describing the physical property only. There must also be a measurement apparatus. And such measurement apparatus must, in the final analysis, be constructed/composed of some physical entity. If you can use a single electron or even a neutrino as the measuring device, this is still a discrete phenomenon. And to actually meaningfully count events will take more than one. Even if the count is based on 'exposed' atoms of film, there is a minimum discrete unit of exposure, ie, one atom. In most cases, there is a threshold event which 'triggers' a counter, and the counts are discrete, leading to the question, "Why would one insist that measurement is not based on integer multiples of the most smallest measurable unit?"

You say because -

"Measurement is discrete if a single value is concerned as we can always define a new scale to avoid irrational values. If we consider an entire continuous range above, we are bound to encounter irrational values, that cannot be expressed discretely as they have uncountable non-cyclic digits. This is where approximation/extrapolation play the practical role and equations/symbolism play the theoretical role."

I believe that this too ignores the discreteness imposed by the measurement apparatus. The postulated existence of the continuous physical property does not imply the ability to measure such using real physical apparatus. Until one begins to mathematically manipulate multiple measurements, I do not believe that one can encounter real/irrational numbers. Thus I continue to believe that physics is based on counting, and 'counter logic' produces integers and, per Kronecker, past this point, math comes from man. This is not an argument about whether actual continuous physical entities/properties exist, so much as an argument about the origin of mathematics and its relation to physics.

I hope this clarifies my position somewhat,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 17:26 GMT
Dear Dr. Kokosar,

Thank you for your interest in my essay.

You have asked two important key questions, namely:

(1) How is MC-QED different from Wheeler-Feynman Theory and

(2) How does MC-QED relate to Cramer's Tranactional Interpretation of QM

The answers to these questions are as follows:

ANSWER TO QUESTION (1) Even though "self-measurement" is operationally prohibited by the Measurement Color symmetry when it is applied to both the

electron-positron operator fields and the electromagnetic operator fields in MC-QED, the resultant theory is not equivalent to the Wheeler-Feynman theory since the electromagnetic field operators are still dynamic variables and have not been eliminated from the formalism.

ANSWER TO QUESTION (2) Since Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of QM involves a generalization of the Wheeler-Feynman formalism it is not equivalent to MC-QED by virtue of the answe to question (1). However since

MC-QED is a non-local quantum field theory there may be some nonlocal-in-time phenomena predicted by MC-QED which are similar in nature to those predicted by Cramer's version of QM theory.

Finaly note that a generalization of MC-QED into the a Measurement Color version of the Standard Model is possible. In this more general spontaneous CPT violating formalism, the arrow of time would be carried by a) the massless photon, b) all of the massive vector bosons, and c) the Higgs particle, since they would all have a negative parity under Wigner Time Reversal in this formalism.

Dr. Darryl Leiter

attachments: 2_LeiterFQXi_ESSAY.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


ari putri saaput wrote on Jul. 17, 2018 @ 16:15 GMT
10. Bawang Putih

Sebagai bumbu dapurObat Kencing Nanah yang tak pernah terlewatkan untuk dipakai setiap kali memasak, bawang putih juga bermanfaat sebagai obat gonore. Bawang putih sebagai penurun kolesterol tinggi serta baik dalam mengatasi penyakit jantung, sakit gigi, serta tekanan darah tinggi sudah bukan rahasia lagi. Namun daftar manfaat bawang putih bisa ditambah satu lagi, yaitu...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.