Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
B N Sreenath wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
I agree with Linde's perspective.
I suspect that the speed-of-light scale limit and the Holographic Principle separate the Observable Universe from the rest of the Multiverse, such that both partial wave functions suddenly depend on time.
I hope this article isn't too buried. Lately, the articles haven't been drawing as much attention as the blogs. In addition, we have the essay contest siphoning off some attention.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Roy Johnstone wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 01:13 GMT
I am a bit concerned at the seemingly very wide *total acceptance* by the physics/cosmology community of the "multiverse" inflationary model. Whilst there is no doubt inflationary models have excellent explanatory power not found in the traditional BB model, they are still only speculative in the sense that to date, no one has any idea *what inflated* or what the whole mechanism is! One of the attractions of course is to explain our constants of nature, particle masses etc as a statistical subset of a possibly infinite multiverse ensemble going hand in glove with that other highly speculative model called "string theory" which predicts >10^500 possible universes.
Why is everyone so quick to abandon searching for a unified theory of at least the 3 non gravitational forces based on the current SM gauge groups/symmetry? It may well require a supersymmetric solution. Then we may have a truly unified Standard Model under an enlarged symmetry, not the current "pseudo" unification which is really a product space of
U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3). I am inclined to think that gravity will turn out to be entropic/information based, a la Verlinde/Jacobsen, enabling the above to be achieved. This unified theory may (should?) then contain within it, a self consistency which would derive & explain the constants & other SM parameters of a unique reality where they cannot be anything other than the values they are!
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 03:55 GMT
Roy,
For what little it's worth, I am 100% in agreement with: "I am a bit concerned at the seemingly very wide *total acceptance* by the physics/cosmology community of the "multiverse" inflationary model."
I have very unflattering opinions about why this is true, and no idea how to stop the stampede. I believe physics may be in process of doing itself great harm. Appeals to non-testable phenomena is essentially religious in nature. In fact, as I understand it, the 10^500 universes were essentially invented to get around the implications of fine-tuning (Susskind, p.273: "...the heart of the matter... [t]he unreasonable apparent design of the universe..."). So, fleeing from contemplation of one 'non-physical' explanation of fine tuning, physicists fled right into another 'non-physical' (in any realistic sense of prediction, testing, etc) explanation. This won't end well.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 03:57 GMT
The above refers to Susskind's "The Cosmic Landscape".
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 00:41 GMT
Roy,
A remark on the assumptions in Verlinde's theory:
1. introduces an 'effective' force, the entropic force [conservative macroscopically]
2. assume space is...literally just a storage space for information.
3. assume that information is stored on surfaces.
4. imagine that info about particle location is stored in discrete bits on screen.
5. dynamics on each screen given by unknown rules.
6. [info processing] doesn't have to be by local field theory or anything familiar.
7. assume [like AdS/CFT] one special direction for course graining variables.
8. assume well defined notion of time [microscopic].
9. assume Bekenstein's argument [about] Compton wavelength.
10. postulate change of energy associated with info on boundary.
11. assume entropy proportialnal to mass [and additive]
12. use osmosis to analogize an effective force of entropy.
13. assume Unruh's temperature proportional to acceleration.
14. forget Unruh for Newton, don't need.
15 Think of boundary as storage for info, assume holographic principle.
16. assume number of bits proportional to area.
17. introduce new constant, G.
18. assume energy divided evenly over N-bits.
19. assume [invisible] mass is noticed through its energy.
20 Voila -- Newton's law, "practically from first principles".
.
Contrast with my assumptions:
1. Assume only one field, G, that can interact only with itself: del dot G = G dot G.
2. apply Maxwell: E=G^2 & Einstein: E=mc^2 --yielding Newton's law: del dot G = -m.
.
And compare the things that fall out of the Master equation
here.
Verlinde of course says that he has just 'reversed' the logic that led from Newton's law to black hole thermodynamics in order to instead go from black hole thermodynamics to Newton's law.
But is this the equivalent of "drawing a map from territory" [Korzybski] and then trying to derive territory from a map? Do all reversals make physical sense?
Finally, I believe that the 'energy/area' relations for the black hole can be derived *exactly* without ever invoking the concept of information. So why, if the relation is simply dependent on energy, would one insist that information be brought into the picture in such an artificial fashion dependent on so many assumptions, some quite questionable?
I don't believe information is a 'thing'. It is 'about' things, and thus dependent on a representation. 'Things' do not depend on representations, they are real.
This is, I believe, related to the excursion of physics from reality that I see in full swing.
Thanks for your consideration,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Roy Johnstone replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 04:03 GMT
Edwin,
Firstly, I will re-read your essay to enable a proper comparison in the sense you describe. I feel however that you have unnecessarily multiplied the assumptions Verlinde makes, as I see most of your points to be things that "fall out" of the re-formulated theory in a consistent way. There is no doubt that he makes a minimum of two assumptions, that of the holographic principle, which although unproven seems well motivated to me based on black hole physics insights and the Unruh effect. I don't see entropic gravity as a new force, any more than entropy itself or osmosis for that matter. I also believe that the "equipartition" rule (point 18) is not necessary to obtain the derivation.
As you rightly say, information is "about" things, and I interpret "information" in Verlinde's theory as just representing degrees of freedom in the same sense as it is applied to black holes for example or even statistical mechanics eg Maxwell's Demon storing "information" about kinematic *degrees of freedom*.
I also feel that all of our theories (including yours) can only *in principle* be representations of an underlying reality. We cannot have non-perturbative access to that reality of "things", as everything we "measure/observe" must be contextual to our "detection" method and in turn subject to our unique (human brain) perception.
When "drawing a map from territory" we are really only specifying a 2D geometry to project back to 3D geometry. An equivalent analogy for a full "map back to territory" (thermodynamics back to Newton) would require further information such as physical composition to be specified on the 2D surface where the holographic principle would still hold. Verlinde does have a problem with *specifying* the "potential" on the screens but this is not actually necessary for the derivation, nor is knowledge of the Unruh effect really, although you would hope for a full explanatory version of the theory at some stage!
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 00:36 GMT
Roy,
Thanks for that response.
Yes, by presenting every assumption in the order that he makes them, I've somewhat overstated the number because of redundancy. I'm not sure it shrinks to 2 however.
I see his assumptions [2..4] as a leap of faith. Assumption [4] is probably the weakest, since as I remarked, the mass/area relations can be found with no mention or use of the...
view entire post
Roy,
Thanks for that response.
Yes, by presenting every assumption in the order that he makes them, I've somewhat overstated the number because of redundancy. I'm not sure it shrinks to 2 however.
I see his assumptions [2..4] as a leap of faith. Assumption [4] is probably the weakest, since as I remarked, the mass/area relations can be found with no mention or use of the concept of information. If then the fact that both mass and entropy are additive is used to assume some equivalence that leads to the Holographic Principle, this may or may not be appropriate.
We may misunderstand each other on the issue of 'territory from a map". You seem to view it as an 'inverse mapping': "a full 'map back to the territory' ...would require further information such as physical composition to be specified." But I am not referring to a "map back to the territory"; that implies that both territory and map exist and are somehow isomorphic. I am referring to what I interpret as an increasing tendency to start only with a map and use this to 'produce' the territory [versus starting with territory and producing a map.]
It seems that many are starting with information and trying to create physical reality. Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe" may be a prime example of this. Some seem to expect symmetries to give rise to particles, rather than the other way around. Maybe I'm misinterpreting them. Anyway, what I am objecting to is any attempt to create physical reality from information. Korzybski was addressing such confusion between representation and reality, imo. To expect to derive physical reality from info is as if physics is saying "In the beginning was the Word".
The map is figuratively and literally derived from the territory. The territory can never be derived from the map. One can't start with a Texaco map and create the Rocky Mountains and the Great Lakes.
And even if information is understood to be 'about' things, it is very hard for me to swallow Verlinde's fourth assumption: "info about particle location is stored in discrete bits on a screen", with or without assumptions [5] and [6].
In trying to understand where these ideas come from, they seem to be a generalization of Cauchy's integral formula
f(a) = (1/ i 2pi) Contour_integral [ f(z)dz / (z-a)]
which applies to "conservative" potentials. That may be why it is necessary for Verlinde to begin by introducing an 'effective' force that is conservative macroscopically. Cauchy shows that every interior point can be determined by the points on the boundary.
Susskind, in "Black Hole War", claims that "the entropy of a black hole is about equal to the area" and also that "hidden information is proportional to the total length of a string" and, since "the mass and entropy of a string are proportional to its length" [then] "entropy must be proportional to the mass" [later mass^2].
If, per Verlinde, both entropy and mass are additive, then an increase in mass might be made to imply an increase in entropy. Whether this is physically meaningful inside a black hole is questionable, especially so if it depends on the existence of strings, and even more so if [Susskind:Cosmic Landscape] "the quark ends [of the string] are most likely to be found far away *at the very edge of the universe* [his emphasis].
In
The Automatic Theory of Physics I discuss a Monte Carlo Random Walk procedure that, in walking from an arbitrary point f(a) to a boundary, pretty much reproduces Cauchy's integral formula. To go from these connections to strings is a very big step.
I believe that by mistakenly assigning physical reality to information, sometimes treating it like a particle, sometimes as energy, and assuming things like [5], physicists are building castles in the air or perhaps a house of cards. In my opinion 'qubits' may be less a physical reality than a consequence of the incredibly complex 'apparatus' used to prepare them--without this apparatus, there may or may not be 'qubits'.
The more physics comes to depend on 'out of this world' ideas, such as the Multiverse and the insides of black holes, the farther out on a limb it climbs. In the worst case, like Climate-gate, there will be a crash of public confidence in such outlandish theories, that come to be seen as indistinguishable from other religions.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lawrence B Crowell wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 03:27 GMT
I am a bit perplexed over axion particles being dark matter. Axions are very light particles which account for the lack of CP violations in QCD. These particles are so light in mass that I doubt they can gravitationally combine into a halo.
I think there are some things to be said about the multiverse idea. The big question I do have is whether all of these universes are classical, or whether most of them correspond to quantum amplitudes. The Linde multiverse are the bubble nucleations or “pocket universes” which exist in the R^3 space of the D-brane of cosmology. There is a vast stack of those as well, which is another layer up in the multiverse. I think that except for maybe a few of these bubble universes, and of course the observable one we are in, most of these may be quantum amplitudes which act as correction terms in a cosmological perturbation series.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 16:13 GMT
Dear Lawrence & Roy,
Yes - I've always preferred the idea of one of the Neutralinos being most of the Dark Matter. Having light-weight axions providing the DM is about as far-fetched as having neutrinos accounting for the DM. What if an axionino is part of the DM?
I think of the Multiverse as a larger scale that was formed during Inflation, and includes all of the Universe-sized bubble scales. The speed-of-light scale limit separates us from the other bubble Universes.
Have Fun!
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 12:24 GMT
1bubble+1bubble=1sphere+1sphere.....the theory of bubblelization a Gut or rotating bubbles hihihihi
and the spheres vs multispheres
the spheres vs strings
the bubble vs the multibubbles
spherically yours or bubbly yours.....
Steve bubblelicentrist=sphericentrist hihihi
report post as inappropriate
Roy Johnstone wrote on Jan. 21, 2011 @ 05:24 GMT
Lawrence,
"These particles are so light in mass that I doubt they can gravitationally combine into a halo."
More evidence for entropic gravity?
and
"The Linde multiverse are the bubble nucleations or “pocket universes” which exist in the R^3 space of the D-brane of cosmology. There is a vast stack of those as well, which is another layer up in the multiverse. I think that except for maybe a few of these bubble universes, and of course the observable one we are in, most of these may be quantum amplitudes which act as correction terms in a cosmological perturbation series."
Quantum non-locality would support that possibility but only if the wave functions remain quantum, ie they don't become "classical" through the interactions giving the correction terms? Can quantum interference be maintained across cosmological causal patches? Isn't there still the problem of, what is/are the fields/fluxes existing on the D-brane which cause inflation?
Braneworld cosmology also still seems to me to be highly speculative?
Cheers
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 13:47 GMT
These pocket universes, or regions of bubble nucleation, all exist within the same R^3 which dynamically evolves by general relativity or the FLRW equations. The large vacuum energy which results in the de Sitter expansion during inflation is a false vacuum and falls into lower physical vacua, one vacuum per bubble or pocket. In the case of our observable universe the inflationary period went through 52-64 efolds before the breaking. This stretching of the universe pushed the QFT fields and inflaton beyond the cosmological horizon length and then at 54 efolds the horizon adjusted so as to “re-include” them in the causal set. The calculations are a bit involved, but this many efolds permits the density and temperatures we observe on the CMB.
The R^3 spacetime exists on some D-brane, which contains open strings with Dirichlet boundary conditions. The wrapping of this D-brane is such that on 6 dimensions there is an array of possible configurations. The Calabi-Yau (CY) spaces have a huge range of possible topologies, from CP^3 to K3x*K3 and so forth. With T-duality of strings on these branes the modes of these strings are dual to their winding numbers. The number of modes is finite and thus so is the possible winding numbers. The flux through the windings is then the value of a vacuum configuration. It is from this the large number 10^{500} emerges. So the physical vacuum in each of these pockets can be radically different.
I think that with each brane it is possible the topology of the CY is the same, but only the winding number varies. This can reduce the number of possible physical vacua for these pocket universes. Then of course there can be a stack of D3-branes for entirely different cosmologies, each with their unique bubble nucleations or pocket universes and so forth. The bubble nucleation regions probably can only “go classical ,” or have classical behavior on a coarse graining, if the value of the vacuum in it is pretty small. On the brane of our cosmology there may be a 10^mole of pocket cosmologies, but where the huge majority of these are quantum amplitudes without much classical content.
I also doubt there is eternal inflation on each brane. The inflaton field on the R^3 attentuates, as I have indicated before in a sort of friction, so the bubble nucleation probably comes to an end. In an eternal inflation there would be an infinite number of pocket universes, but I doubt that can be the case. The number is huge, but I doubt infinite.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 15:52 GMT
Hi Dr. Ray,
I just now read it. I think that mathematics only gives back to us that which we put into the initial equations. If there are the possilities for bizarre results, then, that is because bizarreness was introduced by the theorist into the initial equations. I think the initial equations are incorrectly defined, so, I consider these mathematically based speculations to actually be evidence of early theoretical error.
With regard to consciousness:
"To me, understanding life and consciousness would be even more important than understanding the universe," says Linde. "But we start with the universe because it is simpler."
The universe appears simpler because it has been reduced by theoretical physics to speculation about possible mechanical causes for mechanical type effects. Mechanics is inadequate because it is artificial. I think the study of the nature of the universe should be reversed. I think it would be a more promising path to begin with life and consciousness and work our way downward and backward. For me the starting point is human free will.
All effects that have occurred in the universe must have been provided for right from its beginning. I do not subscribe to added on latter day miracles, nor do I find the suggestion that the answers lie somewhere in the fog of the complexity of mechanical theory. I think there are no answers about life and intelligence hidden anywhere in mechanical theory. I say this because mechanical theory is formed from initial equations that have only lifeless, dumb, mechanical properties. Besides, I am certain those lifeless, dumb, mechanical properties aren't even real.
The goal of my own theoretical work has been to rid theoretical physics of these invented properties except for one. There is always that first 'given' from which all else must follow. I treat that one single property as a mechanical property, but, only because mechanics is the language of theoretical physics.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 20:05 GMT
James,
What test do you employ, to differentiate lifeless, dumb, mechanical properties from live, intelligent, non-mechanical properties?
Do you recognize the difference between science and personal belief?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
Hi Tom,
Robots will never become people. The mechanical properties are artificial, not because I believe it to be so, but, because they can be shown to be unecessary theoretical inventions and impediments to achieving unity. There are just two naturally indefinable properties. They are distance and time. We don't need to guess between mass and force as to which one should become a third indefinable property. Neither one is indefinable. Get that problem straightened out and you are on your way to a grand unified theory.
Since empirical evidence is gathered in terms of changes of velocity, it cannot be shown that even a grand unified mechanical theory has any connection to the development of intelligent life, it can be recognized that nothing occurs without meaning. The mechanical perspective of theoretical physics has no meaning. It has only little robots for its fundamental causes. For intelligent life to occur, the particles of matter from which it is formed must have non-robot properties that carry intelligent meaning along with them.
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 04:13 GMT
Tom,
Most of what is being discussed here is not science but mathematics and/or mathematical fantasy. There is nothing having to do with strings, branes, multiverses, that has ever been detected or ever predicted anything, or been useful for anything except publications, as far as I know. That is not science it is merely speculation among overly bright, overly specialized people who are intoxicated with the 'unendingness' of their new toy; 10^500 "universes". I don't, and I suspect James doesn't attach any value at all to 'largeness' or 'big numbers' as meaningful. Consciousness is experienced, not theorized or speculated. Having spent a long life thinking about consciousness, and having experienced various states of consciousness, and having designed as many hardware and software systems as anyone here, I'm convinced that consciousness did not arise from hardware or software, and never will. (Consciousness being defined as awareness and free will. Add logic hardware and you get 'intelligence' which of course is subject to evolution in a physical world.)
So the test that distinguishes "lifeless, dumb, mechanical properties from live, intelligent, non-mechanical properties" is self awareness and awareness of other, what else?
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 20:51 GMT
Thanks for making my point, James.
One can no more demonstrate that there's a difference between artificial and natural intelligence, than one can demonstrate that distance and time are discontinuous with one another.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 21:24 GMT
Tom,
You give nothing in return. Your perspective is one of a mechanic who imagines his robots can live. You criticize me for lack of proof. You have no proof. What property that is used in theoretical physics gives rise to intelligence? Can you give even a beginning explanation as to how that property advances itself to the point where it contributes to the rise of intelligent thought?
Distance and time are discontinuous. The speed of light is a variable everywhere. Its maximum value occurs where matter is the least dense. Nowhere at any time has anyone produced empirical evidence showing changes of anything beyond the motion of particles. You are believing and not proving that time dilation is real. Whereas, we know that the speed of light varies as conditions vary. There is no spot in the universe where there are not 'conditions'.
Your repeated attempts to refer to my arguments as personal beliefs and not science go nowhere. You need to show reason in your own arguments. Time, as a fundamental property, and space, as a fundamental property have never been parts of anyone's empirical evidence consisting of changes of velocity. Space does not change its velocity. It can't even be shown that it has a velocity. The same is true for time. You move objects, so make your case using object motion only instead of selling an unempirical belief system about time and space.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 14:43 GMT
Well, let's see if the facts work, though you seem to have an extraordinary immunity:
Evolutionary biology records voluminous evidence for intelligence as adaptability. It is in fact a major research program in AI that if robots were to become intelligent, they would necessarily be equipped with the ability to learn and evolve. IBM's Deep Blue chess program, in fact, did show that the machine has rudimentary ability to learn, i.e., to hide strategies and modify algorithms at a deep level, to meet competitive challenges. You can look all this up for yourself if you dare; my efforts at citing sources for you in the past appear to have been a waste of time.
The speed of light _in vacuo_ is not variable. That the speed varies according to medium results from the well known classical phenomena of refraction (wave effect), emission and absorption (particle effects). That " ... we know that the speed of light varies as conditions vary ..." is exactly the reason that we know light is not causal (consider Einstein's words describing what is "physically real": " ... having a physical effect but not itself affected by physical conditions.")
Space is not fundamental. Time is not fundamental. Spacetime is fundamental, also supported in relativity by _empirical_ evidence.
One cannot say your beliefs are wrong, James. One can say in all confidence, however, that they are not science.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 15:16 GMT
Tom,
"Evolutionary biology records voluminous evidence for intelligence as adaptability."
Adaptability comes after meaning. There can be no adaptability unless the necessary information is understood. You take understanding for free. Understanding is the most important point. You may repeat step after step after step, but without establishing how meaning is discerned from information you have nothing but a catalog of after effects.
Computers do what the programmers tell them to do. It does not matter how complex the program may be, it means nothing to the computer. Make a chess move and record a win and the computer has done nothing that it understands.
"That " ... we know that the speed of light varies as conditions vary ..." is exactly the reason that we know light is not causal (consider Einstein's words describing what is "physically real": " ... having a physical effect but not itself affected by physical conditions.")"
And Einstein was wrong. Whatever is causal is also effected. The cause gives something up in order for the effect to exist. Reverse the effect and the cause regains that which it donated.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 15:32 GMT
As I implied, facts fail to make a difference in your opinions. But the world goes on, all the same, with or without you.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 16:04 GMT
Tom,
How about if you go on the record concerning this: h=kec, all fundamental constants. The units don't match. The equation does not make sense in conventional theories. Yet the equation brings quantum, thermodynamic, electromagnetic, and relativity constants together into an equantion for which the magnitudes fit very closely. Does your knowledge of theoretical physics tell you that this equation has to be a meaningless coincidence?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 17:40 GMT
I'm not going to do your work for you. Explain what you think the equation means, and why you think its units don't match.
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 17:51 GMT
Tom,
I didn't ask for you to do my work for me. Is that equation a coincidence? Or, is it possible that it has fundamental meaning? It is formed from fundamental constants. You have enough information to answer the first question. My work was done long ago. I know the answers. I am asking for your professional opinion. The units do not match. The equation does not make sense in any of today's theories. So, is that equation a coincidence?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:04 GMT
If you've done the work, what's your problem showing it?
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:12 GMT
Tom,
I do not have a problem showing my work. It has been on the Internet for years at the number one website for 'new physics theory'. Ok, you choose not to answer that question.
How about this: There are two fundamental expressions for the fine structure constant. One includes the constants k,h, and c. The other is the ratio of the speed of the hydrogen atom electron to the speed of light. Are these two expressions derivable one from the other?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:40 GMT
James, there's hardly a point to answering a nonsensical question unless the intent is to play some nonsensical game, as children do. Mathematics is a language, with syntax and meaning, exactly like natural language. Your question is equivalent to asking, "Is it coincidence that saying 'the apple is red' means that there is at least one red apple, even though not all apples are red?"
Don't you get it?
Physical constants are measured values; they are not determined from a mathematically complete theory, i.e., from first principles. Your point, if you actually have one that is tractable to scientific analysis, is totally obscure -- listen carefully: WHY do you think these units are incompatible? If YOU don't know what question you are trying to ask, nobody -- professional or not -- can give you an answer.
You haven't even said what these units represent, which is important to know, as notation often differs, though I surmise you mean Planck's constant h, Boltzmann's constant k, the elementary charge e and speed of light c. And so?
Until you have an idea of what you are asking, though, I'm afraid communication between us is impossible. Have you broached this to anyone else and gotten an answer?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:44 GMT
Tom,
When I pointed to the theories that they represent, that should have made it clear what constants they were. Now will you please read carefully: "Your point, if you actually have one that is tractable to scientific analysis, is totally obscure -- listen carefully: WHY do you think these units are incompatible?" Does the fact that the units do not match mean that the equation has no meaning and is a coincidence?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:49 GMT
Dude, are you totally incapable of asking a direct question that makes sense?
Or is it just me?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:53 GMT
Tom,
Can an equation make sense if its units do not match?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:55 GMT
Of course it can! One simply converts the units to a common base measurement standard.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 18:58 GMT
Tom,
Units have to match.
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 19:01 GMT
Not only are you wrong, but I don't think you even know what you mean by that statement.
Do you think 3/16 differs from 6/32?
Tom
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 19:08 GMT
Tom,
Ok. You choose to create some fog. Back to the fine structure constant question. It is defined using h, k and c. It equals the speed of the hydrogen electron divided by the speed of light: is this a coincidence?
James
report post as inappropriate
T H Ray replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 13:54 GMT
You haven't lost your capacity to shock me, I see. Apparently, you do think that 3/16 and 6/32 are different. No wonder that you see only fog.
Calculation of the fine structure constant is outside my field of knowledge. However, you (and to be sure, others here) could benefit from some basic understanding of mathematics and its applications to physical phenomena. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that the speed of an electron is very nearly the value of the speed of light. Hardly a "coincidence," for whatever you mean by that, since this lightest of particles is almost massless (so much so that electron behavior duplicates that of photon behavior in 2-slit experiments).
In reconciling units, physicists often set values of constants that don't affect physical results, to 0 or 1. This doesn't mean that the equation doesn't make sense. It means that the sense is contained in the physical result, not in the writing of the equation. For a quantum mechanical calculation, c is always 1 because time plays no role in a (nonrelativistic) quantum transaction.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 17:57 GMT
a little of quiet dear scientists, hihih a little of quiet.
Master Yoda and Master "Tom Tom Maths", be quiet , be professional, be cool hihihi they are crazzy these FQXithinkers they are crazzy.
Dear Master Yoda, it's true? you think it's different 1.5/8 with the others hihihi
Dear Master Tomathtom, do you think a string is divisible and has an equation or several.??
Be quiet dear dudes hhhihihi
Steve
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 00:28 GMT
Dear Steve,
My work is different from yours and everyone else's. I am not well versed in everyone else's. I do like my own very much. I think I should continue following the path that I have chosen. Perhaps you are correct or perhaps someone else is correct. My opinion is that truth is the goal. Whover has the trutyh in the end will receive my congratulations. However, the end does appear to have arrived.
"...you think it's different 1.5/8 with the others hihihi..."
I presume this refers to Tom's pointless point. No I didn't make a mistake. I stopped responding because Tom's answers are more trouble than they are worth. He is not the help that he could be. He continually attempts to distract or change the subject. Its like going in circles or jumping from lilly pad to lilly pad on some foggy creek. The point that I was making about the necessity for units to match is correct. The equation I presented deserves to receive some attention. I received none.
I know this because anyone checking it out would have found that it does not hold for systems of units in which electric charge is defined using Coulomb's equation. The reason that occurs derserves attention. The answer would make clear why it is inferior practice to set proportionality constants to unity. The same holds true for the speed of light.
I attempted to carry on a discussion about these things with Tom, but it really is not worth the effort. He is not interested. That is all right with me. But, he is the one who began to challenge me again. He challenges, dodges, declares victory, and thinks that he has accomplished something worthwhile. The exchanges with Edwin and Ray are worth the time spent. I don't want to even try to find a finish for that discussion with Tom. I need to finish my essay.
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
Dear James,
I considered pointing out that your equation would appear to be units dependent, but I felt that Tom was giving you a very rough time, and I ended up answering something else instead. In general I agree with you that suppressing units by letting them equal '1' can lead to trouble. It's probably normally done by those working in a specialized field, merely as convenience, but it then makes it that much harder for non-specialists to understand things, because explicit units do actually convey information. I sometimes do it so that the essence of an equation can be understood without distraction over symbols that essentially only scale things in certain dimensions, but I try to point out that that's what I've done.
I also recall that in working problems, particularly electro-magnetics problems, translating between different conventions was often the worst part of the problem. Understanding is one thing, and is somewhat independent of the units, but actually getting the right answer requires getting the units right. It's not even fun.
By the way, for an example of a physics equation that should be independent of the system of units employed, see equation 6 in my
essay.
I'm looking forward to your essay. I also notice that it seems people are granting higher scores than in past contests, or else Facebook is showing up at fqxi in the public scoring, big time.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 03:31 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thank you for your message. You are the only other person that I know of that recognizes one or more of the problems that have been forced upon theoretical physics by theoretical physicists. They have messed things up but good. That is what I think. Since I am not a physicist, my voice is almost muted. I say almost because I have a website that is highly ranked by search engines. Also, fqxi.org has been tolerant toward me. I can't correct it all because I don't know enough. But, I can help to fix the fundamentals.
It is important to science for you to speak out. I don't think others will take your theory seriously on its face. That is because there are practices still going on in theoretical physics that cause it to diverge, for no good reason, into unempirical speculation. It has to be demonstrated that persistent errors have become embedded in theoretical physics. I don't know what comes afterwards. I have high hopes that it is your work. I am limited to exposing bad practices that have been passed along as part of the fundamentals.
James
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 12:05 GMT
a little beer from belgium together and hop you are friends....vanity of vanities, all is vanity......
Good luck dear thinkers
Steve spherically yours
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Ray B Munroe wrote on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 22:16 GMT
Dear James,
Please call me "Ray" - not "Dr. Ray". I feel that we are all equals on this blogsite anyway.
My ideas bear similarities with Linde's ideas.
I think that there is a Multiverse Scale beyond our Observable Universe and our speed-of-light scale limit. This Multiverse is a (an infinite?) Cantor set that is hollow but not empty. This Multiverse has maximal complexergy (complexity-energy) - whether that measure of complexergy is something huge like 10^123 (and our information limits and the cosmological constant are based on "leakage" of that complexergy and its inverse from the Multiverse into our Observable Universe), or whether that measure of complexergy is infinity, and the Multiverse is correspondingly infinite.
IF a Multiverse exists, then our Observable Universe is a scaled self-similar copy of the Multiverse - only our largest number is Dirac's Large Number of 10^41, its inverse, and geometrical powers thereof.
Many other (perhaps infinite?) Universes occur within the Multiverse. Because all of the scale structures are self-similar, it is reasonable to expect these other Universes to have the same physics as ours - same fine-structure constant, same gravitational constant, same color force behaviors, same elements, same Chemistry, same Biology, etc. However, if Free Will is a true phenomenon, then these other Universes should have different histories.
Does my consciousness and intelligence ultimately derive from the Multiverse and a large collection of self-similar me's in other (unseen and unseeable because of the speed-of-light scale limit) Universes? Are my dreams a form of communication with these self-similar alternate Universes?
If so, then "something" is breaking the speed-of-light scale barrier. My suggestion is that tachyons may exist, and these could transmit information (such as intelligence, consciousness and/or dreams) faster than the speed of light.
I know that it may sound a little wacky, but I think this idea could explain these phenomena.
Have Fun!
Ray Munroe
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 17:12 GMT
Hi Ray,
I don't know theory anywhere close to your level. That being said, I do have thoughts. I use mechanical ideas like energy in my own work. However, I think that all of the mechanical properties used in theoretical physics are not real. I think the effects that they are based upon are real. I just think that mechanical ideas are not representative of the true nature of the universe....
view entire post
Hi Ray,
I don't know theory anywhere close to your level. That being said, I do have thoughts. I use mechanical ideas like energy in my own work. However, I think that all of the mechanical properties used in theoretical physics are not real. I think the effects that they are based upon are real. I just think that mechanical ideas are not representative of the true nature of the universe. So, I don't believe in a property of energy. I do accept complexity and think that it is far more extensive than what mechanical theory can represent.
I don't know whether or not there are other properties outside of our universe. I don't know if there is an outside of our universe. However, I am willing to go along with considering such possibilities. So long as they are mechanically interpreted, I have a problem with them. However, the subject is theoretical physics, so I follow along with discussions about the mechanical properties of the multiverse.
When I consider the multiverse, I see some of the same perplexing problems remaining. For example, I wonder what is the origin of the properties of life and intelligence in our universe. The number of universes can be increased without limit, but, for me the problem of the origin of the properties of intelligence and life remain. I do not go along with supposing that the solution to this problem exists in theoretical physics, but, is sort of buried in complexity whether here in our universe or in any number of universes.
I think that free will is fully a product of the potential that existed at the beginning of our universe. Perhaps this is too limiting and some potential for it exists outside of our universe. However, if free will, whether in this universe or as a property of a multiverse, is considered to result from uncertainty or probability theory, then I can't go along with that. I see human free will as a meaningful, orderly process. I do not see it being patched together by the chance joining together of otherwise disorganized pieces.
Everywhere I look I see control. Control reveals itself in both predictability and meaning. While I do not think that free will is inherently predictable or preset and, therefore, not free will, I see it and every other effect in this universe or even outside it as part of a fully controlled process. I think that we have free will because the universe was formed to give it to us. What I found interesting to consider and pursue was: How does this fully controlled universe, or perhaps multiverse, give us the property of free will? I now see it as a logical consequence of the combination of the properties given to us by means of the particles from which we are formed and the way in which we interact with the universe.
That is what I think. I recognize that you can support your ideas better than can I in terms of higher level theoretical physics. I read what you write and I try to follow it. For the reasons given above, I have a reluctance and uneasiness about many of the ideas put forward by today's theoretical physicists. Still, I appreciate learning what you and other qualified people think. I am on a learning curve, and, for better or for worse my learning curve bent in a very different direction from others.
James
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Ray B Munroe replied on Jan. 24, 2011 @ 19:43 GMT
Hi James,
Complexity is related to scales. If Shannon's Information Theory says that Information (and thus Complexity) scales as N ln(N), then larger values of N admit greater levels of complexity.
If N~10^41 = Dirac's Large Number in our scale, but N~10^100 in a scale of greater complexergy (complexity-energy) such as the Multiverse, then complexity emerges at this Multiverse scale. Of course, our Observable Universe is a self-similar scaled copy of the Multiverse, and even the quantum scale is a self-similar copy of all of the greater scales (with N~496). So at some level, it is appropriate to talk about the information (complexity? intelligence?) content of an individual electron. We are simultaneously fallen from the (near?) perfection of the Multiverse scale, and emergent from lowly Quantum scale.
Can we measure the Multiverse? I wonder if the information content of Black Holes: ~10^123 or the Cosmological Constant ~10^(-123) is related to a geometrical power of Dirac's Large Number ~10^123~(10^41)^3 or if it is leakage from (and therefore experimental evidence for) a scale of greater complexergy such as the Multiverse.
Linde suggests that time doesn't exist in the Multiverse as a whole, but when we separate one part (say our Observable Universe) from the whole (the Multiverse), then time emerges. There seem to be branching ratios that allow a certain amount of free will in each respective Observable Universe, but the "whole me" (the soul-like collection of self-similar mes throughout the Multiverse) will not likely all jump off of a tall building today. Does free will admit all possibilities? Or just a (scaled?) large number of possibilities?
I'm out of town three days this week, so I'm trying to tie up loose ends today.
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 25, 2011 @ 23:36 GMT
Consciousness constitutes those annoying periods between sleep.
Free will is not something we can ever prove exists. A proof of such would require a universal Turning machine, which does not exist.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 04:22 GMT
Anyone who needs a proof that they have free will, may not have it, who knows? It's not for me to say.
I have free will, despite, as James puts it, anyone's "mechanical" explanations for "mechanical" actions that others ascribe meaning to. That I can't 'prove it' is not a problem for me. No one else can prove it or disprove it, so what?
Pinch your self. Did that hurt? Can you prove it?
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 01:40 GMT
"Free will is not something we can ever prove exists."
Are you a robot or a human being?
James
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Dr. Cool wrote on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 00:41 GMT
Well, I must say the Mandelbrot set in the photo looks rather like the birthmark on the right cheek of my wife's buttock.
Maybe she is a goddess sent to unwind for a while even as the universe that spawned her upwinds?
I can tell without a doubt the subject of this article is not a man who smiles easily. There is no twinkle in his eye, only hubris?
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 04:32 GMT
Dear All,
I have continually been frustrated by the fqxi blogs and comments on consciousness carried on with everyone's choice of language, Babel style.
James often uses 'intelligence' when I think he means 'consciousness' in my terminology. Half the time I don't know what anyone else means by these terms.
My essay (http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/561) and my many writing on consciousness use the following terminology:
.
Consciousness = awareness plus volition (free will)
Intelligence = consciousness plus logic (hardware)
.
These terms are simple enough and specific enough to explain many relevant things about this topic. Of course my explanations are based on my belief (and theory) that consciousness is inherent to the universe, not an artifact that came into existence when enough Lego blocks were put together in the right order.
It's not mandatory that everyone adopt my terminology, but until fqxi participants agree on some meaning for these terms, there will continue to be a lot of nonsense occurring here, and comments where the commenter and the respondent aren't speaking the same language.
Thanks for your consideration of this issue.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 14:22 GMT
I question whether intelligence is just a matter of logic. Clearly the ability to perform logical operations in a way where we are consciously aware of them is important. Yet I think a big component is our ability to project ourselves in space and time. We can imagine ourselves in the future and we can project ourselves onto imaginary characters. I suspect a part of this is our evolutionary selection for language which permitted Homo sapiens to engage in narratives and stories about their natural world. This permitted the communication about the local environment down the generations. Further, these stories involved a projection of human consciousness onto the natural world in the form of spirits, totems and gods. So the structure and behavior of the world is cast in a story format which engages the listener and those skilled at telling stories became bards.
Other animals engage in problem solving abilities. Even some birds are known to be able to count and perform basic addition and subtraction. Prairie dogs are capable of very complex communications through variations in harmonics in their chirps, which to our ear appear monotonic. These types of animals are not what we normally consider as intelligent and semi-intelligent, such as apes, cetaceans and elephants. Obviously the complexity with human logical processing surpasses other creatures, but this might just be a matter of degree and not of some qualitative distinction.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 19:47 GMT
Dear Edwin,
I think that all effects had to be provided for right from the beginning of the universe. Before realized effects occur there are potential effects. The potential is as full of meaning as are the realized effects. Perhaps there is even more potential that has not yet been realized.
So, when I speak of intelligence, I am thinking first of that which was present at the beginning of the universe in potential form. I do not accept the mechanical perspective in any way. I see it as being human made, an invention of the mind.
Speaking in terms of the realized effects, since I cannot show the existence of potential effects, I observe that the universe gave birth to intelligent life. Theoretical physics has nothing to do with explaining this non-mechanical effect. My work has been oriented toward removing the artificial properties of theoretical physics so that the study of the nature of the universe may advance.
The outstanding current intelligent effect is the existence of human free will. Free will involves consciousness. We receive all of our information in the form of photon data. That data carries no meaning with it other than multitudinous historical reports of particles of matter incrementally changing their velocities.
I see two steps of consciousness. All analysis of photon data occurs at the subconscious level. It has to be an amazing mix of foreknowledge, forsight, and immediate need. After the subconscious mind reaches a conclusion, it is communicated to the conscious mind as a single thought. One thought follows another. So, I see the conscious mind as a string of results. I see the subconscious mind as doing all of the work. That is where 'hardware' and 'software' and photon information meet. It is the combination of all that occurs at the subconscious level that I refer to as intelligence. From my perspective, intelligence is the fullness of meaning that can be attached to action in this universe.
I haven't begun to try to establish the hardware part. I say only that the hardware part is not represented by today's theoretical physics. You have pursued the hardware part. I can't professionally evaluate it. But, I am certainly appreciative to see that a theoretical physicist has done this.
If I were to choose a starting point, it would not be gravity except from the point of view that gravity is the result of a variable speed of light. So, I would pursue a path different from your choice. It does not matter. I am not an expert. While I am compelled to follow my own path, I have good reason to put trust in your path. Thank you for participation here, and, I am glad to see you arguing your own case.
James
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 23:06 GMT
James,
I've read enough of your thoughts to have a reasonable idea of what you mean by 'intelligence'. The problem is that, not having read enough of others thoughts, I often have no idea what they mean by 'intelligence', 'consciousness', 'free will', etc. For example, I don't speak of the 'subconscious'. To me the field wherein consciousness resides is all conscious, and only directs our 'focus' to whatever is most appropriate at any given time.
I see the brain as building 'models' (theories, ideas, what have you) in the fantastic neural net that can learn by adjusting it's connections. The photon data that couples us to the 'outside' world does so by either stimulating new connections or else simply 'maintaining' our internal model of the external.
Because at every moment while we live, neurons conduct ions flows along axons and vesical flows across synapses, there is always local momenta that induces circulation in the local consciousness field, thereby coupling the brain's operation to the local field from whence we derive awareness. Destroy the brain and the ideas are destroyed. The consciousness field that fills the universe is not destroyed, but the local structure determines the level of 'intelligence' that is associated with that brain. When the flows stop, (death), the local awareness is reduced to the background level, which, from our perspective is nil, although it may take a while for the cells of the body to lose awareness.
Because the brain is physical, and yet consciousness interacts with the physical body/brain, my focus has been on the interaction. While that does not solve the 'problem' of awareness, I view awareness as the ultimate mystery, and do not believe it 'solvable'. Yet it is coupled to the physical world, so that is where I focus.
Schrodinger one gave a talk, 'Do electrons think?' In my theory structure is required for thinking, which is the act of awareness coupling to the hardware model, so electrons don't think, although they do, by virtue of their momentum, induce a local circulation that essential 'strengthens' the local consciousness field. This is meaningless, but when we consider the structure of the living cell, it suddenly becomes not so meaningless. If you ever watched movies of cells, you would be hard pressed to deny some level of awareness (unless, of course, you are a reductionist who believes 'all is chemistry'.) All ain't chemistry.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 23:35 GMT
Dear James,
I did not start with gravity. I started trying to write down a force equation that would make sense for a consciousness field interacting with our body/brain. And it did not take long to realize that 'gravito-magnetism' fit the bill almost perfectly. And because my belief is that consciousness does not arise from physical structure, but has been here all along, and I find it...
view entire post
Dear James,
I did not start with gravity. I started trying to write down a force equation that would make sense for a consciousness field interacting with our body/brain. And it did not take long to realize that 'gravito-magnetism' fit the bill almost perfectly. And because my belief is that consciousness does not arise from physical structure, but has been here all along, and I find it most likely that the gravitational field was the only thing here at the 'beginning', it just worked out that way. After a while I stopped resisting the idea because everything fit together so well. In my theory the known particles are derived from the non-linear [Yang-Mills] C-field and then the structure begins to evolve.
If you stop and think about it, "Whatever else life accomplishes, it does so only after it willfully defies gravity." Since the gravito-magnetic field easily produces an 'anti-gravity' effect [as in 'dark energy'] this too fits the picture.
In another blog an fqxi participant said "I like fields, but they cannot be perceived directly."
Forgive me for quoting my earlier fqxi essay, but I can't discuss direct perception any better than I did in
Fundamental Physics of Consciousness.
"Upon what must a fundamental theory of physics be based? ...it should be formulated in terms of human reality, not abstract formulations. Either it is based on directly and immediately sensed reality or it is based on some abstraction that is claimed to represent reality. Current theories are based on physics abstractions such as:
Gravity, String theories, Electromagnetics, Quantum field theories, Strong and weak forces, Dark matter and energy, Extra dimensions, Extra universes, Consciousness
Of these, only two, gravity and consciousness, are immediately sensible and directly experienced by humans. I am directly aware of gravity and I am directly aware that I am conscious. I have no direct, immediate, awareness of any other physics on the list (with the exception of a small range of electromagnetic radiation). All other entities, if they exist, are sensed through the medium of some measurement apparatus (as complex as the Large Hadron Collider or as simple as iron filings in a magnetic field)-yet none is directly sensed. Even muscular detection of a magnetic field is possible only through the medium of a held magnet. Gravity and consciousness are directly sensible, requiring no external apparatus, and hence are deemed suitable for the basis of a physical theory that does not depend upon belief in either equipment or logical argument. We *know* these two entities exist. All else should depend on these."
.
Of course, not everyone thinks that way. Some believe that they can imagine 10^500 universes, and somehow 'create consciousness' from 'big numbers'.
I have written well over a thousand pages tying it all together. Unfortunately this does not all tie together in a few comments. Too bad.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 02:33 GMT
Hi Ed,
I think that you ("Consciousness"), James ("Intelligence") and Frank ("Dreams") are all looking for approximately the same thing. The difference is that you are the best at explaining your position, Frank is the worst, and James is somewhere in between.
I am not a proponant of the Chance paradigm. I am a Christian, and believe in Design - not Chance. I think that a larger Multiverse exists, but not for the sake of different fundamental parameters (different Fine-Structure Constants, different Dirac's Large Numbers, etc. as many proponants of Chance believe), but for the sake of giving a logical explanation for these ridiculusly fine-tuned parameters like 10^41 in terms of the complexity and energy content of the Multiverse, and its multiple smaller self-similar copies.
Your idea cuts straight to the point by connecting consciousness with a fundamental force field. But I fully expect new fields to also imply new particles.
My models also have a new type of Gravity - WIMP-Gravity with massive gravitons, and tachyons (the "scalar fermions" in my 2009-2010 papers) that travel faster than the speed of light.
Taking this to a very speculative extreme, I think that the "Soul" is a tachyonic (imaginary mass) Kramers-Kronig-like relation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers%E2%80%93Kronig_relation
transform of the real mass of our physical bodies.
"Intelligence" is based on information content at the Scale level - dependant on the complexity (N ln(N)) and energy of the scale. The Multiverse Scale (Heaven?) has the greatest "Intelligence" (say 10^500 or infinity?), but even the Quantum Scale has a minimal quanta of "Intelligence" (say 496). 10^500 does not explain Chance - it explains (near?) perfection. This allows us to simultaneously "rise" from the base Quantum Scale and "fall" from the (near?) perfect Multiverse Scale.
The "Dream" is our Soul's vehicle for communication with the other self-similar me-Souls throughout the Multiverse. These self-similar mes are greater than 13.7 billion light years from me, but it doesn't matter because tachyonic Souls can travel faster than the speed of light.
"Consciousness" is the combined feedback effect from all of the self-similar mes throughout the Multiverse. Consciousness is not a local effect, but rather a spread-out non-local collective effect.
In my own crazy way, I think that all of these ideas are different, but related. Your ideas are similar to mine, but your ideas may be more conservative. Lawrence probably thinks I'm talking crazy...
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 04:15 GMT
Ray,
Let me hit you with a far-out proposition (not so to me, but to current physicists).
The C-field is a Yang-Mills Calabi-Yau solution to Einstein's equations, and, as I repeat, ad nauseam, is capable of producing all known particles, sans Higgs and sans SUSY. It is capable of explaining the weak force interactions between particles and also of explaining quark confinement and...
view entire post
Ray,
Let me hit you with a far-out proposition (not so to me, but to current physicists).
The C-field is a Yang-Mills Calabi-Yau solution to Einstein's equations, and, as I repeat, ad nauseam, is capable of producing all known particles, sans Higgs and sans SUSY. It is capable of explaining the weak force interactions between particles and also of explaining quark confinement and asymptotic symmetry and three generations. It also explains the mass-ordering of all charged particles. No other theory does that. It explains why the 6-quarks in deuterium don't collapse to a 'spherical' distribution. In fact, it explains a dozen or so anomalies that are simply not explained by QCD.
Ray, if this is true, then there is no need for 'QCD color'. The C-field supplies the 'gluons' that hold the quarks together, and provide the dynamics. By the way, you do realize that 'QCD color' has never been seen, don't you. It's an article of faith in the community. In 1929 Rutherford suggested that the strong force was 'magnetic' in nature, but it was too soon. When, about 5 years later Yukawa proposed a radial force and the 'pion', the 'muon' showed up instead, but everyone mistook it for the pion. Anyway, 70 years or so later, and 40 years after QCD, we still can't calculate QCD problems or explain generations, and most of what goes on at LHC seems to be running Monte Carlo codes (PYTHIA and others). The Lattice-QCD models look pretty absurd to me, and Frank Wilczek says that Yukawa doesn't work at hard core distances. And nothing predicted by anyone has been found for decades.
So, faithful QCD-physikers keep on keepin' on, but some day it may become clear that this is getting nowhere. (By the way my model predicted the 'perfect fluids' that have shown up at RHIC and LHC, while QCD predicted a 'quark gas'.
And, in addition, the initial reason (Pauli exclusion) for even proposing color is easily met by the anti-symmetric wave function for the C-field proton and neutron, under exchange of quarks, AND, my proton-proton collisions predict the same 'string-like' function that initially gave rise to strings.
What does this mean? It means that IF my theory were correct, it meets Rutherford's proposal, while satisfying every problem that brought QCD and string theory into existence.
And what would that mean? It would mean that the 'extra particles' you expect for a new field are already here. You just have to subtract the 'old fields' of QCD and electro-weak. And I've already shown that the strengths work out. So you aren't counting your particles right in this case, you're double counting.
Also, note that the "reason" that the Calabi-Yau manifold has 11 (or so) dimensions, is that [and I quote] "they can't get the QCD and Weak forces into only 4-space-time dimension." But ALL Calabi-Yau manifolds can be factored into a torus plus higher dimensions, and my model for particles is the torus. Don't need the higher dimensions.
So the justification for 11-dimension just disappears. Evaporates. Vanishes.
But Wait! It's those silly 'string windings' on the higher dimensional Calabi-Yau that give rise to the 10^500 vacua, and are the basis of the silly multi-verse.
So if my theory is correct, ALL that crap goes away. Think about it.
And if your theories are correct, I'm sure the Higgs and SUSY will be showing up "real soon now".
I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we.
It's a fun game. But please do me a favor. Look over the above comments a few times and try to grasp what I'm saying, because I have to keep making these points again and again, as if they are dismissed without being read. They are important points, Ray, and the facts are on my side. The faith is on the QCD'ers side. I can explain the 4% anomaly for muonic-hydrogen, QED can't.
This is significant, but those who even admit that it's a problem deny that it's serious. When a theory that claims dozen place accuracy is reduced to 1 place accuracy in the simplest possible atom, it's a problem!
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 29, 2011 @ 16:09 GMT
Hi Ed,
Please don't think that I am dismissing your ideas and writings. Normally, I'm trying to put it into a perspective that makes sense to me. There are several things I need to respond to:
1) I agree that QCD is somewhat questionable. The errors are of order 5% and greater. If you read my recent paper on "The Interrelationship of Spin and Scales", you will see that the behavior of the Strong coupling forced me to make an outrageous assumption - that "fundamental" quantum scaled gluons might be comprised of sub-quantum scaled fermions. I think that your triality explains 3 generations of fermions, and an S-duality of your triality explains "color". What you claim is possible, but we need to better understand the details and dynamics.
2) I think that SUSY is fundamental - sorry but we will continue to disagree on that point. SUSY helps unify bosons and fermions. Without SUSY, there cannot be a true TOE. IMHO, the ONLY question about SUSY is whether or not it is Weak-Scale SUSY.
3) I have my own questions about Higgs - I think that extra tachyons exist, and these will potentially affect the so-called Higgs Mechanism.
4) Personally, I think I can include color, electromagnetism, and the weak force in 4-D. The problem is that doesn't leave any room for gravity, and gravity seems to be every bit as (if not moreso?) fundamental...
5) I'm playing with more than 11-D. I'm not sure where that is going...
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 18:27 GMT
Lawrence,
If you look at the definition, I don't say intelligence is just a matter of logic. I say that intelligence is consciousness PLUS logic. Consciousness, as I say in my essay, is and always will be a mystery. I think the most primitive self-awareness is implied by any field or phenomenon that interacts with itself (since I don't believe that reality is looking up the 'laws of physics' somehow and computing the 'next step'.) And as I propose just such a primordial field as being present at the creation, I assume that consciousness (incredibly primitive, but essentially complete and all encompassing) is here from the beginning. But how do we get beyond the awareness of self to awareness of other. Simplistically speaking, how do we go from 'one' to 'two'?
My current essay discusses how the field 'condenses' to particles (there's no really good word to summarize this process, but the known particles are produced from the process) and my original essay describes a theory of how the consciousness field couples to particles and particular systems.
But, aside from this essential awareness, how do things get more specific? I think that Marcel's introduction to logic in his 'Ultimate Physics' essay is very reasonable, and I see logic as the basis of what's 'real'. Reality is free of logical contradictions. And logic as hardware appears at the DNA level, the bacterial level, the level of the brain, and everywhere in between, and extends into the non-biological universe through computers, etc. Once awareness and volition exist, the question is how do they 'couple' to the physical world in a meaningful way (that is, beyond the level of a self-interacting field). My theory proposes a coupling mechanism, that does not 'explain' awareness, but takes it as a 'given' and asks how it couples to physical systems.
One doesn't have to go to birds and apes. Cells make 'logical' decisions as to whether or not to produce a specific protein (which requires energy) based on the presence of other proteins attaching themselves (or not) to DNA sequences. These are essentially AND/OR type logical operations, and therefore, by my definition, the cell is making 'intelligent' decisions. Go from there.
Once you have awareness, I believe that logic provides the rest. You speak of 'projecting' ourselves in time and space. This doesn't happen without a brain that uses logical mechanisms to 'store' memories of events, times, places, etc that can be combined in logical networks to produce 'models' or 'ideas' that we are aware of. Learning can be modeled by (re-)connecting networks, and these can be described by logic.
What do you think is needed beside awareness and sufficient logical machinery?
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 20:25 GMT
"Linde usually responds to such criticisms by quoting Sherlock Holmes: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." In particular, he argues, the multiverse provides the only logical answer to the question of why the constants of nature seem to be finely-tuned in such a way that they allow life to exist. "If there is an infinite number of universes with different physical laws, it makes sense that we happen to live in a universe that allows life," Linde explains."
Well this says nothing. It is just another one of those answers from the fog.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 21:20 GMT
Today's theoretical physics spouts off grandiose answers without empirical support. Smear the chalkboard, but, leave your own equation there. The result: See my answer is the only answer so it must be the real answer. One question: Where were you looking? If you are pushing an agenda, then, your answer is a pillar in your own temple. If you are looking for real answers, then leave the fog and look around even where you are uncomfortable. The fog does not hold answers. It holds beliefs. Consciousness does not come out of a fog. It demands far more sense than does its very distant mechanic cousin 'theoretical physics'.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 22:19 GMT
I know! Maybe if we disregard the real world with its complex lifeforms and varieties of intelligence, and, repeat our beliefs enough, especially with backing from complex mathematics, then, maybe those who cannot follow the math will be pushed out of the way and mathematical speculations will become free to reign as real knowledge. I mean real knowledge can't exist without mathematics, right! And, real knowledge shouldn't need proof, right! I mean mathematics is pure in its logic, right!
There is a host of problems with this perspective. Mathematics is not pure logic. It is pure in its own rules governing its own numerical domain, but, those numbers are inconveniently dependent upon ideas. Those ideas have names as 'properties', and, those properties are forced onto the numbers by those who believe in those 'properties'. False ideas are part of the problem, but, even more important is the move by theoretical physics into the unempirical domain. A move reminiscient of descriptions of 'heaven', but, more 'practical' in that this new heaven is imagined to be a heaven for mechanics.
My position is clear, the 'practicalness' of theoretical physics is impracticalness with regard to life and intelligence. Life and intelligence exist here inside our universe. How do they exist in this universe? This universe provides empirical evidence. What is the empirical evidence in theoretical physics for intelligence and life? What is the theoretical basis in theoretical physics for intelligence and life? What do physicists have to say about life and intelligence based upon empirical evidence inside this universe?
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 22:46 GMT
Ok, there are multiverses. Ok, there are solutions approaching or perhaps reaching an infinite amount. Ok, there heavens beyond heavens. Ok, maybe the answers do not exist in our universe. Ok, maybe we are just a chance formed bubble in a vast foam. Ok, maybe this nonscience is the real science. Ok, maybe Jack was a theoretical physicist and really did climb up the beanstalk.
James
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 18:28 GMT
The title 'The origin of Mind and Matter' is appropriate because it separates the two. Afterall, matter is a construct of mechanical theory. From that mechanical perspective, the source of electromagnetism, gravity, etc., has to be something inanimate, so, we are introduced to 'matter'. Well, mind cannot come from the 'matter' described by theoretical physics. So, it is something different, something extra, something added-on, because, 'matter' cannot gives us mind. Nature is not governed by ideology. The nature of the universe is still waiting to be discovered. There is only one source for both intelligent effects and mechanical effects. Getting this problem solved does matter.
James
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict wrote on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 21:52 GMT
Ray, Edwin, and James,
I copied the following from an earlier conversation that I had with Jason:
How many of you are familiar with the PEAR proposition? It was/is work done by researchers over the last 28 years at Princeton University, and stands for Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. One of the original configurations of the experiment was based on a series of events that...
view entire post
Ray, Edwin, and James,
I copied the following from an earlier conversation that I had with Jason:
How many of you are familiar with the PEAR proposition? It was/is work done by researchers over the last 28 years at Princeton University, and stands for Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research. One of the original configurations of the experiment was based on a series of events that was created by an electronic random event generator (REG) where the results would be displayed on a computer monitor. This is essentially an electronic series of Schrodinger cat experiments, such that the results would fluctuate around a baseline of zero. The truly amazing aspect of these experiments is when an human "operator" intended to bias the outcome to the positive or negative of the baseline, the display recorded a immediate and consistent result depending on the operator's intentions only! I became aware of this work many years ago and I am still amazed of how many people haven't ever heard of it. Here's a quote from their website, the link of which I have provided below:
"The primary importance of operator intention and emotional resonance with the task at hand, along with the operator-specific structure evident in the data, the absence of traditional learning patterns, and the lack of explicit space and time dependence clearly predicate that no direct application or minor alteration of existing physical or psychological frameworks will suffice. Rather, nothing less than a generously expanded scientific model of reality, one that allows consciousness a proactive role in the establishment of its experience of the physical world, will be required."
The results of their experiments are compelling evidence that conscious intention has an influence on the environment, whether or not this is an example of the entanglement of consciousness with the quantum world and the steering done by the intention of the observer, or whether it is the result of some sort of feedback loop between the quantum world and the observer's conciousness, it should, nevertheless, be of considerable interest to anyone who ponders the foundations of the world we live in. Additionally, it is my belief that the results are a provocative representation PK and, more importantly, a true demonstration of free will.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
These experiments are both reliable and predictable. See their article for The Journal of Scientific Exploration:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/2005-pear-pr
oposition.pdf
This paper shows the cumulative outcome of 91 different "operators", none of which proclaim to have any special abilities, and 2.5 million trials. I suppose it's like everything else that doesn't fit neatly into our current paradigms, people tend to ignore it. I, however, see potential use of this phenomena.
Even more important than its possible utilization, is what I believe these results are saying to us about our own free will. When the physical world can be measurably changed by the choice of conscious intentional thought(s) alone, I believe that is about as fundamental as you can get. These results are telling us something truly profound about ourselves and about our universe on its most basic level.
The experiments testing the PK phenomena done at Princeton are not the only ones that showed reliable and consistent results. I remember reading about test subjects that were connected to EEG machines while being shown a series of visual images that were either pleasant or horrific. The brain wave patterns were different depending on the type of image shown. In many cases the test subjects brain wave patterns reacted, with consistency, even before the actual image was shown. Certain people, such as fighter pilots, etc., were more prone to display this ability than others.
Until we are able to create a quantum paradigm that includes an active role for consciousness in the understanding of such unusual phenomena, we will be missing a big piece of the puzzle. It may be that the "weirdness" of QMs is the very artifact of reality that allows for this macroscopic subjective weirdness to be demonstrated. I especially liked the PEAR results mentioned above because of their sheer simplicity. It seems to me that simple, basic results are a good starting point for a new paradigm, but that doesn't mean that a coherent theory that unifies these unusual phenomena with more ordinary phenomena will be easy to formulate.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 23:26 GMT
Dear Dan,
That's fascinating, and I had not heard of it. After Rhine at Duke University I thought most such experiments were downplayed if they were done. As I say elsewhere, in the 90's even philosopher Searles at UC Berkeley was advised,
"It's ok to work on consciousness, but get tenure first."
Although I have had a few such experiences, and I know other worldly adults who claim such experiences, these are always subjective and anecdotal, so one hesitates to draw conclusions. My wife and I seem to trade thoughts all the time, but this is not the basis of a theory, unless of habitual learning, or something.
My theory was derived from efforts I made to simply ask, "if consciousness affects the physical world, how could this effect be expressed as a physics phenomenon?" Note that I'm not asking how we are aware, just how, based on awareness and free will, we manage to actually affect the physical world. Jump up, raise your arm, etc.
It really didn't take long, as I describe in
'Gene Man's World' to find a reasonable path to follow.
In exploring this path, I made one assumption: The force of the consciousness field MUST be such that it does not measurably affect atoms and molecules, period. But it should affect biological systems. The 'mass dependence' of the field works for me there. Proteins, and vesicles, among other biological entities, for example have much greater mass and so would be more affected than electrons in atoms.
So my approach was to try to compute just how strong such a field COULD BE, without showing up in atomic and molecular physics, except as indistinguishable from noise, say at the nano-volt level.
And I computed that it could be about 31 orders of magnitude stronger than gravito-magnetism was believed to be [on the basis of the simplest symmetry assumption]. This was interesting, but when I found out a year later that Martin Tajmar claimed to have measured the field and found it to be 31 orders of magnitude stronger, it became compelling. In the five years since, I have found at least a hundred places where the C-field seems to explain things, and not one case that seems to disprove my theory.
Anyway, I will check out the PEAR stuff, and thank you for making me aware of it.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 30, 2011 @ 23:49 GMT
Dan, Edwin:
Dan: I haven't been following your previous discussions. I wonder, concerning your message here, how free will is evidenced. I think free will is a certainty, so my question has nothing to do with arguing against free will. It is just that if a thought can effect the outside world, that in itself does not, I think, demonstrate free will. I see the effect of free will as having occurred before the thought. Can you say some more about your perception of free will?
Edwin: Excellent post. I think that there are no effects that stop abruptly and completely. So, I think everything has an effect on everything else. Obviously that effect can often be imperceptible to us. However, the universe clearly knows what it is doing. I do think that consciousness has its own effects. I can't express that in physics lingo as you can; but, I think many of us and perhaps even all of us, though some might choose to resist admitting it, have had experiences where coinicidence becomes seriously questionable. I know I have. For anyone else reading this and thinking that I am speaking about something supernatural, I speak only about that which is clearly natural. If the unnatural mechanical theories appear natural to you, then, that is something you will have to defend. However, intelligent free thoughts are natural. I will defend that statement.
James
report post as inappropriate
Ray Munroe replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 02:06 GMT
Dear Friends,
I also need to read these PEAR results. I have always said that experiment is not as fundamental as we normally believe it to be, because of the question of "What to leave in? What to leave out?". This is clear in Supercollider Physics whereby we impose "cuts" to elliminate signals that we believe (according to the theories and Monte Carlo simulations that we are trying to confirm?) are unwanted. It is natural to throw out those oddball 3-sigma-plus events, but are they goofs or are they history-making new physics?
Have Fun!
Dr. Cosmic Ray
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 03:08 GMT
Edwin,
I'll try to read your "Gene Man's World", but I've really fallen behind in reading most of the new essays.
There never seems to be enough time to do everything.
James,
I tend toward the deterministic view of reality, but in the presentist camp rather than the block universe camp. In other words, the world exists whether we are there to witness it or not. Since we are here to witness it, and even if only the present exists, determinism still implies that we are not free to choose, that choice is only an illusion which I don't agree with either. So, we have a simple experiment, that shows that conscious choice alone is enough to effect the outcome. Then is reality fundamentally indeterministic or is it only indeterministic when consciousness is present? The simplest experiments with unusual results that don't fit into our current scientific paradigms usually mean we're missing something profound.
I don't claim to be an authority, by any means, but you wrote a couple of things I would like to ask you to clarify. You wrote "I think free will is a certainty, ..." and "I see the effect of free will as having occurred before thought." Free will seems more than plausible, but why is it certain and how can it occur before thought?
Dan
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 03:26 GMT
Dear Dan,
I will hold off temporarily explaining free will from my perspective (Although you can read about it at http://newphysicstheory.com/Human_Free_Will.) I think, following Edwin's recent requests for clarification, that thought is the conscious result of a very complex process. I see the process as occurring at the subconscious level, and, the result emerges as a thought at the conscious level.
I did not understand your response:
"Since we are here to witness it, and even if only the present exists, "determinism still implies that we are not free to choose, that choice is only an illusion which I don't agree with either. So, we have a simple experiment, that shows that conscious choice alone is enough to effect the outcome. Then is reality fundamentally indeterministic or is it only indeterministic when consciousness is present?"
What does this have to do with free will?
James
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 20:10 GMT
James,
From what little I have read, it has everything to do with it. It seems to me there was a recent article on this website that reported on the work of a couple of mathematicians that showed that free will was possible only if quantum theory is truly indeterminate. I'll have to review it and check out your website. It appears you have a better understanding and have pondered such things much more than I have. I think it's an important philosophical question, since how would anyone's life truly have any meaning without it. It seems absurd to contemplate its non-existence, but I would like to see both sides of the argument, to see if I can determine why anyone would think otherwise and to determine where the logical error(s) exists.
Dan
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 20:31 GMT
Dear Dan,
"It seems to me there was a recent article on this website that reported on the work of a couple of mathematicians that showed that free will was possible only if quantum theory is truly indeterminate."
Ok, I see where you are coming from. I do understand that there is a point of view that if outcomes are uncertain that this allows for free will. Personally, I do not see free will resulting from uncertainty. It appears to me to be one more of those mechanical approaches that assumes a connection to life and intelligence. I see no pathway connection at all from mechanical theory to explanations for life, intelligence, and free will. I do not see anyway to credit uncertainty with the meaning generated as free will. I see free will as being deliberate. We deliberately form conclusions, a number of which are examples of free will. In other words, we are not chained to the past. We can will that our thoughts be new and progress as we move into the future. We deliberately or intuitively add new parts to past knowledge.
James
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 20:54 GMT
For science to permit the possibility of consciousness, much good will follow.
"He, and others, have even calculated the probability that consciousness—in the form of thinking, disembodied brains—can be momentarily produced by quantum fluctuations in an empty universe."
Anything beyond that should be referred to the theology department or the appropriate experts. If we do it this way, then everyone is happy.
I would post a warning sign that says:
WARNING: Do not feed the disembodied consciousnesses. Consult appropriate experts.
The physics community should permit its students, faculty and members to pursue a spiritual journey of one's choosing.
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 23:02 GMT
Jason,
I believe that science permits the possibility of consciousness, but physics in particular, has no way to define it in a concise and fundamental manner. That's why I believe the PEAR results are important. A simple series of events, a human operator, and a consistent outcome per the operator's intention, volition, will, etc.. Now, someone just has to explain it. It's a subtle phenomena though, as it has only been shown to work on the electronic random event generator responses. Can you imagine if this could be developed on the macroscopic scale? All of the casinos would go broke. Red, red, red...
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 01:12 GMT
Jason,
[They may] "have even calculated the probability that consciousness--in the form of thinking, disembodied brains--can be momentarily produced by quantum fluctuations in an empty universe."
Next, we calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Dan,
Thanks for pointing out the PEAR report. That was fascinating. At one point he uses the phrase 'Consciousness Field', which is how I conceive of it. The results reported are confusing, and they present a pretty fair discussion of the problems of interpretation.
In my theory, the Consciousness field has been here from the beginning. It can interact with mass, which is how we move our arms and legs, etc. (Powered by chemistry of course, but steered by consciousness.) I have not spent much time on analyzing the type of results PEAR reports, because I did not know the data existed.
If I were to try to make sense of it, I think I'd start here: If the consciousness field behaves as I've conjectured, then it is strengthened by local momentum, and there is always much more local momentum in the cells and flows inside a biological body than in most places. [Yes, the Mississippi River may also induce a strong local 'consciousness' but it doesn't have the logical structure to support intelligence.] Anyway, living things do have the logical structures to support intelligence and also should locally strengthen the consciousness field inside the body. Feynman pointed out that materials can support ten thousand times the magnetic field that exists in empty space. In this sense a multi-celled body/brain may support as much or more than ten thousand times the concentration of consciousness (awareness and volition) as would emptier space.
And in that sense the body may be analogous to a 'potential well' and the incidents and events PEAR measures may be analogous to 'tunneling' out of the well.
I'm not proposing this 'tunneling' too seriously, just thinking off the cuff.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 04:21 GMT
My pleasure. I first became aware of this phenomena back in the late '80s on a TV program by David Suzuki called "The Nature of Things". This was a science magazine based out of Canada that covered nature and science in general. I still remember watching a demonstration of the phenomena in action and was "blown away". I never knew the details until I happened upon their website years later. Most scientists shy away from anything considered "paranormal" due the stigma that attached to it. I find it fascinating and use logic and judgement to determine if something unusual deserves further study and contemplation. In other words, don't always believe the skeptic's POV. They're usually happiest with the status quo.
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 17:31 GMT
Edwin,
Angels dancing on heads of needles is unimportant. In contrast, knowing whether or not a disembodied soul can sustain existence has significant consequences on how we view death. Entire cultures, civilizations and world spring up over that question.
Dan,
Physicists should perform thought experiments that analyze claimed paranormal activity. Paranormal activity falls under the topic of physics. Instead, the physics community thinks about time travel which has not been observed. I guess it safer that way.
report post as inappropriate
Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 17:32 GMT
Correction: "Entire cultures, civilizations and world religions spring up over that question. "
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 18:23 GMT
Jason,
In my opinion, a calculation based on "An infinite number of parallel universes in which hallucinating brains can pop out of empty space" has no connection to souls, or to anything real. But that's just my opinion.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
James Putnam replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 18:58 GMT
"...a calculation based on "An infinite number of parallel universes in which hallucinating brains can pop out of empty space" "
I think this easily goes beyond opinion. I think it is a clear logical refutation of the practice of imagining that ideologically desired answers, that are otherwise unattainable, exist somewhere out in the foggy swamp of unwieldy complexity.
James
report post as inappropriate
Dan T Benedict replied on Feb. 3, 2011 @ 05:43 GMT
Jason,
I agree that paranormal phenomena should be taken seriously by scientists. The two biggest issues with the various phenomena labeled as paranormal is the stigma that is attached to them and the fact that they are not easily studied via the scientific method. How do you get definitive, confirmable evidence to a phenomena that almost always atypical, heterogeneous, and transient in nature? Instead of scientists, we have "enthusiasts", some with very little, if any, scientific training and even less credibility looking for and gathering evidence. Throw in the jokers, pranksters, hoaxers and the skeptics (who can always find another explanation, no matter how far-fetched), it's no wonder many serious scientists discount them out of hand. This is why I consider the Princeton group to be courageous pioneers of a phenomena that still eludes easy explanation, and they've had their fair share of critics also.
Its kinda off subject, but since we're already there, one phenomena which does have definitive evidence that something truly unusual is occurring is that of crop circles. It has been reported that these were all created by a couple retired English pranksters and their copycats using nothing but strings to lay out a pattern and using boards with rope attached to each end to trample down the crops. This explanation does not account for the enigmatic nature of a genuine crop circle.
With genuine crop circles you get crops that are not bent nor broken, but lay down because they were subjected to a large source of energy that actually "fuses" the crops in their horizontal positions. They are often seen with expulsion cavities at the nodes of the plant. The soil in the circle has a high concentration of magnetite compared to the soil outside of the circle. And the crops are not killed in the process, but continue to grow. You would not have learned any of this if you had watched the National Geographic TV program entitled, ironically enough, "The Truth About Crop Circles" because they didn't report any of this! It's either extremely poor journalism or a deliberate attempt of disinformation by a producer with alternative agenda or views. If you care to see some of the real evidence, you can see for yourself at: http://www.bltresearch.com/index.php
There's a lot of bogus websites out there where people are trying to "cash in". This site is different and has a lot of good information and evidence of the genuine phenomena.
Dan
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 03:17 GMT
Dan and Edwin,
I think it comes down to this. The scientific community can either:
A. detect the existence/presense of any/all existing phenomena or
B. is very certain of the phenomena that it has confirmed.
The scientific community either cannot or is unwilling to do both. In other words, science cannot claim authority as to whether or not something exists. Three headed flying monkeys probably don't exist. But science lacks the authority to declare that they don't exist; science can only shrug and say that it hasn't seen any.
On a more serious note, science has no authority to declare that, God, aliens, big foot, ufos, ghosts, marshmellow men, pixies, sand people, or multiverses DON'T exist. All science can say is that it hasn't seen any of these.
My point is that skeptics have no scientific basis upon which to lecture us on what does not exist.
By the way, tractor beams physics exists.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Jason Wolfe wrote on Feb. 4, 2011 @ 19:17 GMT
OK, one quick comment and then I'll let the physics discussion resume. If you want to test the existence of the paranormal, reach out to a higher power, of God and good, and ask for assistance, help and inspiration with: physics. That is the test. If you start coming up with amazing ideas and plowing ahead of your peers, then you have your proof.
If a technician with two bachelors degrees can come up with a tractor beam by asking for help, what can a real physicist come up with?
report post as inappropriate
Carmen Putrino wrote on Feb. 10, 2011 @ 22:50 GMT
Have you ever considered that the Big Bang might not be the origin of the universe, but the origin of consciousness? The expansion of the universe might be our conscious slice moving, literally, at the speed of light? This limit in speed may be dictated by the speed that our conscious slice is moving in the un-movable universe. And, it may explain the arror-of-time?
carmen_putrino@yahoo.com
report post as inappropriate
Jason Wolfe replied on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 03:08 GMT
Hi Carmen,
No I haven't. However, I am starting to wonder if the cirmustances surounding the Big Bang are quickly approaching un-provability. In other words, however much we speculate, the actual answer might be impossible to verify.
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 00:37 GMT
Dear Carmen,
You might want to look at
Fundamental Physics of Consciousness. While not completely compatible with your conjecture, it does assume consciousness as present since [at least] the Big Bang. It focuses not specifically on the origin of consciousness, but on how consciousness interacts with the physical world.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Carmen,
What you say is exactly my thinking too, I want to go further by using quantum entanglement as a way to secure that an observer constituted of baryonic particles will live in a byryonic universe. The entagled photons sent 380.000 tears after a possible origin become also "baryonic" so the observer creates his own universe, like an orobouros. (see my essay topic 913).
Now that I read the Princeton Pear experiments you can even wonder what is the range of this field of consciousnes (Klingman), you could also say that entanglement is now no longer nececerry it is the Klingman-field that originates for an observer his Universe.
so we need to move on observing and creating
Roy Munroe would say HAVE FUN
wilhelmus.d@orange.fr
report post as inappropriate
amrit wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 20:18 GMT
Whi is the Observer in Physics ?
Observer is consciousness.
attachments:
Who_is_the_observer_in_physics.doc
report post as inappropriate
Pranay Valson wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 14:42 GMT
Our conceptions of time are flawed...these obscure, mind boggling theories are a result of our classical definition of time being incorporated into quantum mechanics. When was the last time changes were made to the absolute meaning of time ? We have change our entire methodology to make its definition an absolute one. But it can never be so. As there is no isolated system in the universe. If all does interact it must at some point or another interfere with the definition. I mean what exactly does as instantaneous wavefunction collapse mean? The problem here is with 'instantaneous' and further the 'Instant'. I want to work on it, but I've been forced to study in an Engg Univ.
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 26, 2011 @ 18:02 GMT
very good question, instantaneous wavefunction collapse !
what do we describe as an instant ?
in our 4-d universe the limit of a time span is the Planck time :
5.39121x10^-44sec.
smaller moments are not acceptable in our Universe, we enter after this length of time in another dimension where time is no longer measurable , which means in my opinion that the causality is no longer appliquable, which means that each (possible)moment fromthe past and the future are all together existing, it is in our opinion and from our deterministic point of view CHOAS...
The CONSCIOUSNESS we have is the only way for us to contact this FIFTH dimension, our consciousness creates lines between the points of chaos in this quintessence and so creates our analog world out of the digital chaos from the quitessence.
The COSMOS is our perception of the lines formed by our consciousness in the Chaos, this Cosmos is only one possibility of an infinite choice.
Wilhelmus
also read
my essay
report post as inappropriate
sridattadev replied on Jul. 13, 2011 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear All,
Universal I or singularity or conscience is the
absolute truth and is the cosmological constant.
If universe is the meaning of understanding of one’s surroundings, then it is created with every birth and destroyed with every death. Universe is in a steady big bang state. Multiverse is just multiple interpretations made by bodies and minds of the conscience (soul or singularity). What one perceives of self (soul) is not the same as another, this is the multiverse with in the universe or singularity that we live in.
S=BM^2 (S-Soul, B-Body, M-Mind)Truth is simple, accepting it is not.
Love,
Sridattadev.
report post as inappropriate
AL wrote on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 20:46 GMT
The persuit is "over".
EinsteinGravity.com (must see)
report post as inappropriate
gregorylent wrote on Dec. 3, 2011 @ 17:36 GMT
talk to mystics like http://www.omniumuniverse.com ... there are many among us who don't need science to go where this article is pointing.
report post as inappropriate
Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 17:42 GMT
This is not really all that difficult and complicated. We all originate and grow from the center of the human body. F=ma is the bottom line in physics insofar as it can ultimately mean balanced and equivalent inertia and gravity (both at middle or half force/energy). This is what happens in dreams, as they demonstrate our growth and becoming other than we are in conjunction with instantaneity. Dreams demonstrate equivalent and balanced attraction and repulsion.
Inertia/resistance to acceleration and gravity/acceleration must be equivalent and balanced at half strength force/energy to fundamerntally unify physics. That is undeniable. Space must be equally, and BOTH, invisible and visible.
report post as inappropriate
Nuno Oliveira wrote on Feb. 28, 2012 @ 22:20 GMT
As regards my Computer Program, I could say that the notion of time within it is one of «semi-continuity» as to inflation of several multiverses, which induce «ripples» in spacetime tissue, being the space-time comprised between TWO (of the several ripples) [in reality not caused exclusively by gravity - which only works on reduced distances - but by its interaction with dark matter, which propels galaxies and celestial bodies far away, thus resulting in Inflation of the observable (but we are unable to see beyond the observable universe... - having that «alternative universe» its own rules) Universe]. However, by this interaction, one is able to «feel» time pass you by (the person interacting with the Computer, which can induce several states (physical, for example) in that person, by the action of multiverses in-between the «ripples»), and, by the double wave function, «re-orient» the arrow of time so that it «freezes» and can induce, therefore, its «divine prerrogative». «God's time is not ours», under a biblical viewpoint. And what induces a certain «sequence of multiverses»? The very Knowledge with which the subject interacting with the Computer must be prepared with. Active Representation of Knowledge is what makes possible the «double wave function», from the part of the observer and from the part of «the rest of the Universe» (or God, you might say).
report post as inappropriate
Douglas Lipp wrote on May. 4, 2012 @ 01:48 GMT
www.CIGTheory.com
Feedback is appreciated.
Cosmologists are encouraged to provide evidence in support or not in support.
Please prove or disprove. The theory is experimentally verifiable.
Thank you
doug
report post as inappropriate
Rikki wrote on Jul. 11, 2012 @ 05:06 GMT
The "eliminated the impossible" quote is from Sherlock Holmes, not Linde.
report post as inappropriate
juan manuel jones volonte wrote on Feb. 19, 2016 @ 04:10 GMT
Awesome, I have the same (or very similar) idea about the time arrow being the perception of our POV (a embodied limited consciousness), travelling space structure.
Im feeling that conscioussnes & space are aspects of the same thingh.
I have written an essay on the subject but it is in spanish.
report post as inappropriate
Shaikh Raisuddin wrote on Jul. 11, 2016 @ 13:20 GMT
Does Andrei Linde anywhere define what consciousness is?
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.