Search FQXi

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

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

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help

January 18, 2018

ARTICLE: Chaos, Consciousness, and the Cosmos [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

B N Sreenath wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
Is it physics or phantasy?

report post as inappropriate

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!


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 03:55 GMT

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

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

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

"These particles are so light in mass that I doubt they can gravitationally combine into a halo."

More evidence for entropic gravity?


"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?


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.


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 20:05 GMT

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?


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.


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 26, 2011 @ 04:13 GMT

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.


report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 22, 2011 @ 21:24 GMT

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.


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.


report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 23, 2011 @ 15:16 GMT

"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.


report post as inappropriate

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

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

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 ( 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.


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 28, 2011 @ 23:06 GMT

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 wrote on Jan. 27, 2011 @ 18:27 GMT

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.


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'.


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?


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.


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.


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

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.


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

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.


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?


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 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?


report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 20:10 GMT

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.


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.


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

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...


report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 1, 2011 @ 01:12 GMT

[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.


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.


report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Feb. 2, 2011 @ 17:31 GMT

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.


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 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?

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 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

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 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 :


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.


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.



report post as inappropriate

AL wrote on Nov. 28, 2011 @ 20:46 GMT
The persuit is "over". (must see)

report post as inappropriate

gregorylent wrote on Dec. 3, 2011 @ 17:36 GMT
talk to mystics like ... 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

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


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.

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