Text Size

Stardrive

Sep 19

Ghosts In The Machine

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Untagged 

Cap'n Jack Sarfatti Is quantum consciousness a wrong confused idea? Frank Maye SINCE WE ALL HAVE ONE...I GUESS ITS NOT CONFUSED...LOL
'bout 5 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti Frank I don't think you got the point. The question is, can we understand consciousness in terms of quantum physics? The answer is no, with a very high degree of probability in my opinion.
'bout 4 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Frank Maye I think Jack that consciousness in and of itself has never gotten its fair academic research both in funds and diversity..I have been trying to do my part in connecting consciousness to medicine..Life physics , biochem, biophysics, psychoneuroimmunology, Chinese medicine and cosmology all have contributions to what I am doing...BTW Happy New Year and with all my prayers you should be written in the book of life! Even though these days I am quite ecclectic ...I enjoy your posts ...Thanks
'bout 4 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti Your remarks while commendable have nothing whatsoever to do with what I am talking about here.
'bout 3 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Robert A. Cook Would it be more relevant to say that a quantum aspect to consciousness seems implicit in the Copenhagen interpretation, but not necessarily in the Many-Worlds interpretation, Jack? Because that's how it seems to this layman.
'bout one turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti NO! You also miss the point. NO INTERPRETATION of quantum theory can explain consciousness because we need signal nonlocality.
Neither can consciousness explain quantum theory.
55 shots o' rum ago · Arr! · Robert A. Cook I was afraid I missed the point. By the third paragraph, I might as well have been listening to Geordi La Forge explain how a warp core works.
48 shots o' rum ago · Arr! · Andras Laszlo YES
40 shots o' rum ago · Arr! · Frank Maye A good start would be to define consciousness since it tends to be different based on cultures and individual abilities to experience the expanded limits of consciousness..some w/ such experience feel consciousness exists throughout the universe ie sun ,moon,earth....or to its most inward direction at within the cellular level individually....that's why I humbly believe the jury is out....if you then factor information for all material exists before manifestation and evolves back to non material.....so non duality and consciousness are both very interesting...sorry if I am re structuring the conversation...but that's sometime the price for stimulating questions ...
36 shots o' rum ago · Arr! · Jack Sarfatti No, you confound the contents of consciousness with the mechanism that permits consciousness. In other words you are confusing this or that software program with the hardware machine that runs the software. As a physicist I am only interested in the hardware - not which ghost is in the machine.
Got it?
jus' now · Arr! ·

Dear Fred, you wrote:

"Our book presents a version of the 2-slit experiment emphasizing that the experimental observations themselves (without reference to quantum theory) conflict with any reasonable view of physical reality. Any reasonable view? Well, decide for yourself."
http://quantumenigma.com/71/

At least for particles with rest mass, Bohm's quantum potential provides a complete understanding of all double slit experiments one electron or neutron etc. at a time. There are classical continuous trajectories with nonlocal influences from the quantum potential Q. As long as the initial conditions obey the Born probability rule, that rule is conserved and all ensemble measurements agree with the standard statistical predictions of orthodox quantum theory - independent of the informal language interpretation.

Photons needing the super-quantum potential perhaps more troublesome?

I don't see any discussion of consciousness here.


On Sep 18, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Fred Kuttner wrote:

Go to our website www.quantumenigma.com, click on "In a Nutshell," then click on the link "here" after the third paragraph.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: JACK SARFATTI Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:24:34 To: Frederick H Kuttner

Subject: Re: [1009.2404] Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness (and the other way around)

Can you summarize your point here now?

On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Frederick H Kuttner wrote:

Nick et al,

Interesting discussion.  However, there is an experiment that connects consciousness and quantum mechanics, but not in the manner that you and the others are discussing - that is the two-slit experiment.  The manner of the connection is discussed in detail in our book (Quantum Enigma), but most physicists seem to miss our point and think we are talking about the connection you all are discussing.  We will try to make this point clearer in the second edition, out next year.

Cheers,

Fred

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:49:59 -0700
nick herbert wrote:
Hi Danko--
The conventional wisdom asserts that
all the various quantum realities
are non-testable--each gives
the same experimental result.
This may or may not be true
as imaginative experiments
of the type you are looking
for might show.
For a time I thought that the
Bedford & Wang thought experiment
(a crude variation on your own proposal)
might do the trick (see Consciousness Post)
but after much thought and discussion
with other reality fans I concluded that
Ordinary quantum calculations showed
that no test for conscious collapse was possible
with the B&W setup and its variants.
Successful variants of your experiment might exist,
Someone on this list might be inspired to think of one.
Your physical setup is a very clever variation on the double-slit
experiment with "which-path" observations cleverly and naturally  built-in.
And more important, it is a real experiment that can easily be done.
One sad fact about the quantum/consciousness connection is that
(like the quantum/gravity connection) despite tons of groundless
speculation and opinion (see the work of Fred Allen Wolf)
there exists not a single experiment that successfully connects  consciousness
with quantum mechanics. (pace Rosenblum & Kuttner and Dean Radin).  Perhaps
this situation will change for the better due to discussions  triggered by your recent paper.
Good luck in your work
Nick Herbert
On Sep 18, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Danko Nikolic wrote:


My criticism is that you choose a system such that quantum  mechanics predicts no interference no matter
what you do to the entangled photons, even including leaving them  forever unobserved, so that your
consciousness postulate is sure to be falsified.



Yes, but is there another system for which this does not hold? Can  one make it different such that the hypothesis is not sure to be  falsified? We could not think of another experimental setup that  would not produce the same outcome.

I had discussions with several experimental quantum physicists from  Vienna--hoping to design and conduct an experiment. We could not  think of a setup. If we could, we would have probably already ran it.

So, perhaps our point is that an experiment of your likings (and  ours), to the best of our knowledge, CANNOT BE DESIGNED.

If someone can be more creative and prove us wrong, great! Let us  go then and run the experiment. I would gladly be a part of it.

With best regards,

Danko Nikolic




Sep 18

Yes, indeed, in geometrodynamics the gravity field is simply another dynamical entity on a global non-dynamical Minkowski spacetime. Therefore, all dynamical "force" (boson) fields are simply local gauge compensating fields from various global symmetries of the dynamical action of all the lepton-quark spinor fermion fields. Geometrodynamics is simply the local gauge theory of the universal space-time symmetry Poincare group (possibly conformal group as well that is spontaneously broken). The equivalence principle is simply the universality of the Poincare group "kinematical" choice.

All spin 1 boson field theories should have only dimensionless couplings and should be renormalizable in t'Hooft's sense. Gravity is such a theory at the "Dirac square root" (metaphorically speaking) tetrad-spin connection level. The non-renormalizable spin 2 argument is simply asking the wrong question - it's a chimera.
The spin 2 description is not at all fundamental and is completely analogous to the old Fermi 4-fermion model prior to the SU2 W-Boson model with parity violation and the Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous vacuum symmetry breaking.

Why have all the Pundits missed this obvious idea? Does the Emperor really have no clothes?

In addition the emergence of the classical tetrad-spin connection c-number fields is similar to the "Aristotelian dynamic"

v ~ Gradient of the action

in de Broglie dynamics and also in superfluid helium

with the quantum gravity noise described as I say above.

Sep 18

I agree with Nick's argument below. However, it was not Fred Alan Wolf who first suggested that consciousness collapses the wave function, I think it started with Fritz London, John Von Neumann, Eugene Wigner on to Henry Stapp & Roger Penrose (with his "orch" modification that is vague, but I think is equivalent to "signal nonlocality" violating "no-cloning" , "unitarity" et-al i.e. P =/= |Psi|^2 aka "sub-quantal non-equilibrium").


David Deutsch also argues no consciousness in orthodox quantum theory - Penrose's of course is not "orthodox". However, none of these people, in my opinion, have asked the right question in regard to the physical nature of consciousness. For that we must go to P.W. Anderson's "More is different" aka spontaneous symmetry breakdown of the ground state e.g. Vitiello's mind model.

The conscious mind field is a macro-quantum coherent ground state order parameter of the living body in which some kind of either quasi-particle or collective mode (poles of single-particle & pair propagators respectively) of an underlying dynamics, e.g. ions, dipoles in microtubules et-al are in effect Bose-Einstein condensed i.e. Penrose-Onsager ODLRO (macroscopic eigenvalues of low order density matrices).

The effective c-number field order parameter dynamics is non-unitary, nonlinear (Landau-Ginzburg) with signal nonlocality - living systems are not in thermal equilibrium - the effective low energy Bohm macro-quantum coherent potential is local in ordinary 3D space though it has the nonlocal influence from the boundary conditions discussed e.g. at beginning of Bohm & Hiley's Undivided Universe for the single particle problem - intensity independence, context dependence etc.



On Sep 18, 2010, at 10:49 AM, nick herbert wrote:

Hi Danko--

The conventional wisdom asserts that
all the various quantum realities
are non-testable--each gives the same experimental result.

This may or may not be true
as imaginative experiments of the type you are looking for might show.

For a time I thought that the
Bedford & Wang thought experiment
(a crude variation on your own proposal)
might do the trick (see Consciousness Post)
but after much thought and discussion with other reality fans I concluded that Ordinary quantum calculations showed that no test for conscious collapse was possible
with the B&W setup and its variants.

Successful variants of your experiment might exist,
Someone on this list might be inspired to think of one.

Your physical setup is a very clever variation on the double-slit experiment with "which-path" observations cleverly and naturally built-in.
And more important, it is a real experiment that can easily be done.

One sad fact about the quantum/consciousness connection is that (like the quantum/gravity connection) despite tons of groundless speculation and opinion (see the work of Fred Allen Wolf) there exists not a single experiment that successfully connects consciousness with quantum mechanics. (pace Rosenblum & Kuttner and Dean Radin). Perhaps this situation will change for the better due to discussions triggered by your recent paper.

Good luck in your work
Nick Herbert On Sep 18, 2010, at 4:59 AM, Danko Nikolic wrote:



My criticism is that you choose a system such that quantum mechanics predicts no interference no matter what you do to the entangled photons, even including leaving them forever unobserved, so that your consciousness postulate is sure to be falsified.
Yes, but is there another system for which this does not hold? Can one make it different such that the hypothesis is not sure to be falsified? We could not think of another experimental setup that would not produce the same outcome.

I had discussions with several experimental quantum physicists from Vienna--hoping to design and conduct an experiment. We could not think of a setup. If we could, we would have probably already ran it.

So, perhaps our point is that an experiment of your likings (and ours), to the best of our knowledge, CANNOT BE DESIGNED.

If someone can be more creative and prove us wrong, great! Let us go then and run the experiment. I would gladly be a part of it.

With best regards,

Danko Nikolic


Now that he had effectively stood down on the race for Mayor---McCabe was overcome by a mind-bending, time-twisting sensation on the nature of causality and becoming that had afflicted him since his earliest unshackled memories---final causation and reverse causality—feedback from the future affecting the present---he couldn’t make an egg out of an omelette nor return a cappuccino to the coffee plant and the cow’s udder—but the laws of physics were dragging him, no matter how much he might protest and believe in “free will” toward his fate---something that both Aristotle, 333 BC and St. Thomas Aquinas,1270 AD had posed---reconfigured in his own lifetime at the fringes of modern physics-----between two apparently identical particles with different fates, the difference found only in the future---Zeno’s arrows of time flying backward and forward-—were not the men and women of Greek fable and myth pulled toward an inexorable fate no matter how much they ignored it---character was fate---it was a question of whether your character was cognizant that there was a fate---and intuitively lived with that self-recognition—Achilles had not ---nor Helen of Troy---but had Ulysses?

Since he had made up his mind about the campaign and done the clean deed as it were---cause and effect would ripple back in time unless there was some sort of indeterminate quantum Buddhist-curve ball---barring that---it would seem teleologically that McCabe’s purpose---assuring an outcome on the mayoral election---at least as to himself---would now work backwards---from the November election to the the present ---particularly since not prevailing was normally the easiest outcome to assure in terms of probabilities. His inchoate understanding of quantum future unfolding---subconsciously decoding future quantum pulses from an intelligent universe--- and as he aged, catching ever stronger glimpses of that obscure message---accorded with his vague sense that he was, with every atom and sub-atomic element in the cosmos---a product of intentional design from a designer living in the far future---creating itself and therefore perhaps partially evolved from us---in which the universe(s) had a set destiny---a cosmos with set final conditions in place---its fate therefore influencing the past---what had not yet happened combining with what has---to shape the present---rather than the normal time sense of past-to-future Big Bang as the beginning measure of sequential events moving toward higher progressively ordered arrangement. Why else would the cosmos appear so conducive to life---and it would explain how life arose---everything having its origin in the future. It was why he doubted Existentialism---believing instead that the weave of our lives was sown in the future---looked at front-to-back rather than back-to-front---and it was with this in mind that McCabe was alert to meaningful coincidence and synchronicity --- which when he witnessed it---or thought he had---confirmed his suspicions of the manner in which the universe moved and imprinted his own life.
McCabe--Chap 19, Tony Gantner (based on communications with me)

Sep 13

IV. ACCELERATION FROM THE ENTROPY AND SURFACE TERMS
We consider the least additional assumption is that general relativity is correct, and that
it can be easily understood and derived from a variational principle using the action. The
ingredient that is usually neglected is the surface term. We show that, under reasonable
assumptions, this surface term leads to an acceleration term in the Friedmann-Lema^tre
equations. There is a solution to the acceleration equation that evolves from a decelerating
to an accelerating phase.


Entropic Accelerating Universe
Damien A. Easson, Paul H. Frampton and George F. Smoot

They get the same result I got,

We now adopt a different approach, with no dark energy, where instead the central role is
played by the ideas of information and holography, entropy and temperature.


The first and only assumption is holography, by which we understand that all the information about the universe is encoded on a screen, here taken as the two-dimensional surface of the universe.

At this horizon, there is a horizon temperature, T, which we can estimate as

T ~ c^2/(Horizon Area)^1/2

Such a temperature is closely related to the de Sitter temperature. More relevant to the
central question is the fact that the temperature of the horizon screen leads to the concomitant entropic force and resultant acceleration of the horizon given by the Unruh [5]
relationship
...


When T is used in Eq. (7), we arrive at a cosmic acceleration essentially in agreement with
the observation.

From this viewpoint, the dark energy is non-existent. Instead there is an entropic force
acting at the horizon and pulling outward towards the horizon to create the appearance of a dark energy component.


But the pull is retro-causal from our future event horizon.

Bottom line - the price of locality is slavery, no free will. Free will is maximized in the nonlocal universe seems to be the conclusion of this paper.

Jonathan Barrett
H. H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TL, U.K.
Nicolas Gisin
Group of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, 1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
(Dated: August 24, 2010)


If nonlocality is to be inferred from a violation of Bell’s inequality, an important assumption is that the measurement settings are freely chosen by the observers, or alternatively, that they are random and uncorrelated with the hypothetical local variables. We study the case where this assumption is weakened, so that measurement settings and local variables can be at least partially correlated. We demonstrate a connection between this type of model and classical communication models, and a connection with models that exploit the detection efficiency loophole. We show that even if Bob enjoys full free will, if Alice lacks a single bit of free will - in the sense that the mutual information between local variables and her measurement setting is one bit - then all correlations obtained from projective measurements on a singlet can be reproduced by local means.

Quantum nonlocality, whereby particles appear to in- fluence one another instantaneously even though they are widely separated in space, is one of the most remarkable phenomena known to modern science [1–3]. Historically, this peculiar prediction of quantum theory triggered many debates and even doubts about its validity [4]. Today, it is a well established experimental fact [5], although the profound implications for our world view remain controversial. In order to demonstrate quantum nonlocality, measurements are performed on separated entangled quantum systems, and it is shown that the measurement outcomes are correlated in a manner that cannot be accounted for by local variables. In order to conclude that nonlocality is exhibited, it is crucial for the analysis that the choices of which measurement to perform are freely made by the experimenters. Indeed, it is well known that if the measurement settings are not freely chosen, but depend on the hypothetical local variables, then all correlations can be reproduced. Here we reverse the argument. We take for granted that quantum correlations can be produced and ask, how much free will must the experimenters be assumed to have in order to rule out an explanation in terms of local variables [6]? We prove that if an experimenter Alice misses one single bit of free will - that is if the mutual information between her choice and the local variables is one bit - then correlations between two qubits in a singlet state can be reproduced by local variables, and no demonstration of nonlocality is possible. ...

This is a truly remarkable result. It means that if Al- ice is lacking “a single bit of free will”, then all correlations from projective measurements on a singlet state can be explained with local variables. If Alice delegates the choices of her inputs to a random number generator, this implies that if the random number generator has only a slight correlation to the hypothetical local variable λ, then a demonstration of nonlocality using a singlet state is impossible. ...

Let us emphasize the change in paradigm since the old EPR paper [4]. If, contrary to EPR, one accepts non- locality as a fact, then not only can one develop pow- erful applications in quantum information science, like device-independent quantum key distribution [12] and random number generators [21], but moreover one can upper bound the lack of free will of the players ! Conversely, if one player lacks a single bit of free will, then no demonstration of nonlocality with projective measurements on the singlet state is possible.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.3612

Sep 12


On Sep 11, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

Yes it is a very basic example, but it serves to show that there need not be anything mysterious about the physics inside a volume being "encoded" in the physics occurring at an enclosing boundary. In the case of the divergence theorem, the key is a simple conservation principle. My general point here is that once it is recognized that the gravitational vacuum is a physical system with objective physical properties, it is no suprise that such properties include thermodynamic ones. Once that is admitted, then there is no reason why a thermodynamic holographic principle should  not be understood in terms of some more basic intuitively transparent principle, as in the simple example of the divergence theorem in fluid mechanics.

Yes, I agree, however on the cosmic scale the important boundary is in our future not our past! This is what is missing from all the papers in the field.
On Sep 11, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Exactly.
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Brian Josephson wrote:
--On 11 September 2010 13:48:14 -0700 Paul Zielinski wrote:
Naive question: Is Gauss' Theorem (Divergence Theorem) a holographic
principle?

Naive answer: there's something called Green's theorem which tells you the potential in the interior of a region if you know it on the boundary, assuming Laplace's eqn. applies.  So you might surmise that the holographic principle might apply in any sufficiently constrained situation.  Is there more to it than that?

Brian
* * * * * * *    Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification *   voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
*   Project   *       WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *

Clearly, Gauss's theorem etc is related to the hologram principle, it is the poor boy's version.

The more general theorem is in terms of Cartan's generalized Stoke's theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes'_theorem

 (dw|W) = (w|&W)

where little omega w is a p-form, d^2 = 0, d(little omega) is a p+1 form, BIG Omega W is a p+1 co-form (domain of integration or "chain)

&(BIG Omega) is the p-coform boundary of BIG Omega. d & are dual.

The quasi-Dirac (BRA|KET) is the de Rham integral.

Quite, obviously if little omega w is a geometrodynamical field like a gravitational tetrad 1-form then d(tetrad) is something like a torsion field 2-form.

However, we need to use the "covariant" BIG D (in spite of what the Captain of the Pinafore sings ;-) ).

HMS Pinafore by W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan
Jun 4, 2005 ... I never, never use, Whatever the emergency; Though "bother it" I may. Occasionally say, I never use a big, big D —. Chorus. What, never? ...
math.boisestate.edu

D = d + (spin connection)/

D^2 =/= 0 even though d^2 = 0.

So we have something like a HOLOGRAM SURFACE 2-form D(gravity tetrad) with an interior BULK 3-form D^2(gravity tetrad) =/= 0 because of the SPIN CONNECTION. This looks something like a hologram principle for geometrodynamics?

However, not any Damn boundary surface will do the trick. It must be a causal horizon in curved spacetime with pixelated thermodynamics area/entropy & conjugate Hawking temperature as in Tamara Davis's Fig 1.1 (2004 PhD online).

All the pseudo-physics nonsense of using holography in 5D and more seems silly to me unless they actually explain some real data in particle physics that cannot be explained otherwise - if so I will eat my words and change my opinion.

1) Ansatz – quantum waves, more precisely, the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave (Quantum Potential) is intrinsically "mental" i.e. "thoughtlike" in sense of Henry Stapp & David Chalmers (Scientific American 1995).

2) Forget "collapse" i.e. Bohm's ontology.

3) No consciousness in quantum theory because of "passion at a distance" or "signal locality" even though entanglement can be nonlocal. No-cloning theorem precludes "qualia". Sub-quantal heat death (no back-reaction) means no life of any kind.

4) Signal nonlocality is necessary for qualia i.e. our conscious experiences. This can be pictured as either Valentini's "sub-quantal non-equilibrium" or my direct back reaction of the classical dynamical degrees of freedom on their pilot quantum potential (or super-potential).

5) "More is different" P.W. Anderson – our conscious physical mind field is a macro-quantum coherent ground state of certain brain collective modes as defined precisely for example in the technical papers of G. Vitiello.

Therefore, that Cal Tech physics prof on Larry King has tunnel vision on this issue and is unfamiliar with the field of physical modeling of consciousness.

Cap'n Jack Sarfatti I am surprised that Stephen cites M-Theory as the basis for his current book because M-Theory is not a real physics theory. Even M-Theorists admit it is merely a hope they have faith in. For the issues see Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics." Lee is himself an M-Theorist. M-Theory is simply string non-theory with an extra dimension 11 instead of 10.
Stephen's co-author is seriously ignorant when he says there is no physics of consciousness.
Deepak and the Jesuit have won the debate as it were in my opinion.

I do agree with Stephen, however, on the politics and the need of space-exploration.

More details on how Grand Design is much too limited can be found at http://stardrive.org/

Stephen Hawking: Now and Then
larrykinglive.blogs.cnn.com
By Michael Watts LKL Producer I’ve been a producer on “Larry King Live” for almost 12 years, and I’m frequently asked, “what’s your coolest experience?” The stock answer: producing Stephen Hawking.
'bout 11 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Weigh in · Arr! · Blabber t' yer mates
Robert A. Cook, Marcus Verwiebe and Sheila Williams be eyin' this with pleasure.


Nur Mohammed Kamu Not being expert in this field, i strongly advocate this type of book to popularize science & physics , shaking the world to learn honoring the opiniön of scientist rather than .... Whatever degree of mistakes there in-
'bout 9 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · 


John Gribbin But there are so many better books! Try Paul Davies or Martin Rees.
'bout 6 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · 


Eric M Hodge Dr. Sarfatti: You say in your post that "Even M-Theorists admit it is merely a hope they have faith in". Which M-Theorists say that? Are you quoting Lee Smolin alone, or is there a consensus among M-Theorists that M-Theory isn't really a theory?

Further question: What makes it not really a theory? Is it the lack of directly observable evidence? From what I am reading of Duff and Witten it seems sound on a mathematical level, but I am just a layman.

'bout 6 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · 


Robert A. Cook I'm not a physicist either, but I wondered the same thing when I saw that Stephen Hawking had apparently endorsed M-theory.

Eric, technically, it's a hypothesis, not a theory. I wish people (especially scientists) would use the correct terms, because confusing the vocabulary only gives ammunition to fundamentalists who say, "Evolution is just a theory."

Theories are PROVEN. Hypotheses aren't.


My understanding of M-theo... er, the M-hypothesis... is that it's quite elegant. Apparently it has a shot at Grand Unification: something that physicists have been searching for since Einstein. Mathematically, it reportedly works. It ties everything up in a neat little bundle, whereas there had been debate over which of several sets of equations using only ten dimensions were correct. But, the M-hypothesis has yet to be experimentally proven.

Did I get that right, Jack?

'bout 4 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · 


Justin Smith You can give a very mechanistic definition of consciousness: tendency to respond to stimuli, internal or external. Of course, this doesn't capture our experience of consciousness, but is useful for some physical arguments. For instance, in the many worlds version of QM, this explains why one isn't consciousness of all the "other" portions of oneself in "other worlds": their influence is below the threshold of human neurons.
'bout 4 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! ·  1 pirate · 


Robert A. Cook I don't buy mechanistic explanations for consciousness. They're as faith-based as any other doctrine. I have no doubt that physical, chemical and electrical processes in the brain mirror the "spookier" realm of awareness, but saying that they PRODUCE awareness is quite a different matter. "As above, so below" -- it's not just a concept for moonbats and tinfoil-hatters; it is simply common sense.
'bout 4 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · 


Justin Smith I didn't say consciousness is mechanical. For the sake of discussions in physics, one can give a mechanical definition.

As for what I actually believe: I believe consciousness is a fundamental property of everything that exists (a la the Seth Material).

'bout 4 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! ·  1 pirate · 


Robert A. Cook Same here, Justin. Actually, I didn't think you were saying it was mechanical. I was agreeing and reinforcing what you said, not arguing. I could have phrased my response better, though. Just putting the word "either" at the end of my first sentence would've helped.
'bout 3 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · 


Nur Mohammed Kamu Gribbin sir, with very high respect towards Paul Davies , Martin and you , the truth is that people care most Hawkins . This populist approach is very good for everybody and blessing in disguise t hough he may not "Very good in it" M-theory cant be able to cross the boundary of hypothesis criterion. Extension of string, 10 or 11 dimensions may be faith or may be calculated by pure mathematical physics but the physical interpretation and essence is acceptable to the inquisitive minds throughout the world. Thanks to Smolin and all other scientist.
If anything is below the neuron of human that does not proof any non existence. M-hypothesis is "More " than theory now a days
I am afraid scientist are becoming like priest of middle age or Imams of present decades who fight among themselves on small scale rather than broader aspects? Where are the hopes ? Hawking is a new start of new century - he may be credited for that in broader scale of mankind
'bout 3 turn o' yer hourglass ago · Arr! · 


Jack Sarfatti Feynman said that the most beautiful mathematical theory is murdered by an ugly fact. M/string theory is pseudo-physics. It is interesting as pure mathematics of course. Perhaps some of M/string theory will survive. M/string theory makes no real predictions. It is unfalsifiable, therefore it is pseudo-physics. It's claim to unify gravity with the other forces is unjustified in my opinion. As far as I am aware M/string theory does not have a clear limiting case to the battle-tested standard model of elementary particles of quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, with parity violation and the Higgs-Goldstone spontaneous breakdown of vacuum symmetries. Loop quantum gravity is just as bad in this regard. There are claims that the thermal properties of horizons in curved spacetime are tangled strings, so that is one potential contact with future experiments. This is in contrast to real physics, i.e. quantum field theory and general relativity.

The quest to unify gravity with the electro-weak-strong forces is wrong headed because gravity is not a force in the same sense as the others are. Indeed, philosophically all the interactions are already unified by the local gauge invariance principle. The electro-weak-strong forces come from locally gauging compact internal symmetry groups U1, SU2, SU3. Einstein's curved spacetime comes from locally gauging the non-compact space-time translation group universally for all matter fields. Special relativity is simply the limit where the local gauging is global so that the Poincare group is the universal symmetry group. The electro-weak-strong symmetry groups are not universal - an essential difference with gravity.

Furthermore, gravity seems to be an emergent low energy effective macro-quantum coherent vacuum c-number field - a collective mode so to speak of the electro-weak-strong forces similar to the emergence of elastic sound waves in a crystal.
3 shots o' rum ago · Arr! ·