Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff invite you to publish in a special

edition of the Journal of Cosmology:

Consciousness in the Universe

Edited by:

Sir Roger Penrose, Ph.D., University of Oxford

Stuart Hameroff M.D. University of Arizona*Is consciousness an epiphenomenal happenstance of this particularuniverse? Or does the very concept of a universe depend upon its presence? Doesconsciousness merely perceive reality, or does reality depend upon it? Didconsciousness simply emerge as an effect of evolution? Or was it, in somesense, always "out there" in the world?*

If we are post-selected back from the future hologram images from our future event horizon then the cosmic computer on the horizon must be conscious. In that sense, as in Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point consciousness is the substrate of material reality.

Entropy is trace of density matrix x log of the density matrix

The trace of any quantum bit object is invariant under a unitary transformation

That unitarity should work at all even between measurements in a closed system is very peculiar if one thinks about it. Throw ice in boiling water seal off the system and the entropy increases even though it's closed. I really don't see why everyone is so hung up on unitarity to begin with. That is works at all is the miracle. In any case, with creative evolution the emergence of new order is paid for by an increase in total Bekenstein-Hawking area-entropy of our future post-selected de Sitter dark energy horizon hologram, which in our observable universe is shown by Tamara Davis's PhD Figs 1.1 & 5.1

Of course unitarity U = exp(iH/hbar) works for dead matter and gives the linear Schrodinger eq. The question is whether linear unitary quantum theory with signal locality is only a limiting case of a more fundamental nonlinear non-unitary post-quantum theory with signal nonlocality that applies on our future dark energy event horizon that Seth Lloyd at MIT's work suggests to my mind a holographic cosmic conscious computer - P.K. Dick's VALIS, I.J. Good's "GOD(D)", Hawking's "Mind of God."

*Dear Colleagues,We are pleased to announce that Sir Roger Penrose of the University of Oxford,and Dr. Stuart Hameroff of the University of Arizona, will be serving asExecutive Editors of the April 2011 edition of the online, open access,Journal of Cosmology, the theme of which is "Consciousness in the Universe."Dr. Penrose shared the "Wolf Prize" in physics with Stephen Hawking, and isrenowned world-wide for his work in general relativity, quantum mechanics,geometry and consciousness. He is the author of many important papersand books including The Emperors New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, The Road toReality, and his latest Cycles of Time, which proposes serial universes.Dr Stuart Hameroff, of the University of Arizona, is an anesthesiologist,consciousness researcher and organizer of the conference series Toward aScience of Consciousness.Drs. Penrose and Hameroff invite you to submit a scientific article, up to3,000 words in length, in this special issue. Articles will be peer reviewed andmust be received by March 1, 2011.Reviews, speculation, theory, or research findings related to the followingthemes are invited:1) Evolution and origin of consciousness2) Consciousness and quantum measurement3) Brain, biology and consciousness4) Altered states, dreams and near-death experiences5) Free will, causality, determinism, and time-symmetric physics6) The role of quantum information, entanglement, and non-locality7) The anthropic principle in speculative and fundamental physics8) Consciousness and reality in Eastern and Western philosophy9) Consciousness in sexual reproduction as an evolutionary drive10) Non-human consciousnessAll articles will be peer reviewed and must be written for a broad range ofscientists who are not experts in your field. Please see the Journal ofCosmology for manuscript specifications.http://journalofcosmology.com/ManuscriptPreparation.htmlAll processing and publication fees are waved for this special edition.All articles will be published online within days of acceptance, andalso bound in a hardback book edition, edited by Dr. Penrose and Dr. Hameroff,and published by Cosmology Science Publishers.The Journal of Cosmology is also proud to sponsor the conference:Toward A Science of ConsciousnessBrain, Mind and RealityAula Magna HallStockholm, Sweden, May 2-8, 2011www.consciousness.arizona.eduConsciousness in the Universe will be a featured conference theme,including a Keynote talk by Sir Roger Penrose, along with plenary andconcurrent sessions on the topic.In addition to a paper for the Journal of Cosmology special edition, you arealso invited to attend and submit an abstract related to Consciousness in theUniverse for the Stockholm conference. Abstracts must be submitted by December31, 2010.JOC is free, online, open access, and averages over 500,000 Hits a month. TheOctober edition featured 50 articles written by over 120 top scientists and 4astronauts (two who walked on the Moon). Dozens of news articles have appearedabout articles in JOC, including in the Los Angeles Times, Wired, DiscoveryNews, MSNBC, Associated Press, ABC TV, etc.JOC is abstracted by NASA Astrophysical Data Systema, Google Scholar,Open J-Gate, Polymer Library, ProQuest, ResearchGATE, adsabs.Harvard...*

*This is an excellent opportunity to present your work to a large community of*

scientists in a new and exciting field, and publish in the prestigious

Penrose-Hameroff edition Consciousness in the Universe. As an invited paper,

there are no processing or publication charges.

Coauthors are welcome and you may share this invitation with your colleagues.

scientists in a new and exciting field, and publish in the prestigious

Penrose-Hameroff edition Consciousness in the Universe. As an invited paper,

there are no processing or publication charges.

Coauthors are welcome and you may share this invitation with your colleagues.

*Sincerely,*

Rudy Schild, Ph.D.

Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian

Editor-in-Chief

Journal of Cosmology

Rudy Schild, Ph.D.

Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian

Editor-in-Chief

Journal of Cosmology

Consciousness Requires Retro-Causal Signal Nonlocality Violation of Quantum Unitarity

(second draft typo-corrected prefex "non" before "locality" deleted in two places)

Jack Sarfatti

Internet Science Education

San Francisco

Abstract

Henry Stapp makes the distinction into intrinsically thoughtlike and rocklike objects in theoretical physics. This is in accord with David Chalmers criteria for a theory of qualia that solves the binding problem and the hard problem. I use the Bohm ontology where the quantum potential is thoughtlike and the spinor particles and boson classical field hidden variables are rocklike. The unitarity axiom of quantum theory is that information is conserved. This seems to blatantly violate the Second Law of thermodynamics because entropy and information are two sides of the same coin. The idea of collapse of the quantum state in a measurement is invoked to avoid the conflict. The entropy increase is swept under the rug in the non-unitary collapse. Information is then only conserved between measurements on a closed system. This is not good enough because living matter is an open system continually being measured as well as pumped with energy flux. Our accelerating expanding observable universe sandwiched between past and future horizons, is also not closed for the matter fields that are pumped by the geometrodynamical fields. Linear unitarity is used to prove the no-cloning a quantum theorem that precludes the use of entanglement as a stand alone communication channel not requiring a classical signal key to unlock the delocalized entangled message. Abner Shimony has called this “passion at a distance” and others call it “signal locality”. Quantum cryptography is built upon the quicksand of signal locality. Even Yakir Aharonov’s post-selected back-from-the-future flow of time assumes signal locality as does John Cramer’s “transaction” based on Wheeler-Feynman’s classical retrocausality-without-retrocausality “future total absorber.” The fly in the ointment are the presponse experiments of Ben Libet independently replicated by Dean Radin, Dick Bierman, Daryl Bem and by the controversial Puthoff and Targ in their CIA precognitive remote viewing tests of the Chinese nuclear weapons program. Indeed, there is more data here than there is for string theory. Josephson and Pallikari and independently myself have suggested theoretical explanations for signal nonlocality at the Tucson conferences in the mid-90’s as has Antony Valentini more recently since 2002. Progress in these ideas are the topic of this paper.

On Nov 22, 2010, at 12:48 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

As I said, the paper to my mind seems totally off the wall - the night thoughts of a mad mathematician.

It totally eludes me what his point is? Paper seems to be obscure metaphors + probably correct math.

To my way of thinking the emergence of consciousness (qualia) requires only two physics ideas

1) Wheeler-Feynman ---> Aharonov post-selection e.g. end of November 2010 Physics Today article

2) Signal nonlocality (starting with my Tucson II 1996 Bohm back-reaction talk & abstract & Josephson's paper with Pallikari - more recently Valentini's papers)

3) The experiments of Libet, Radin, Bierman on presponse.

4) The Bekenstein-Hawking thermodynamics of horizons plus discovery of dark energy's future event horizon + Seth Lloyd's computer as horizon does suggest the hologram conjecture that we are retro-causal computed images back from the future post-selected computer. Signal nonlocality gets over the Penrose non-computability objection in my opinion.

I think we need the non-unitary post-quantum bit. That information is conserved seems to my mind the stupidest idea to ever enter physics. Down with unitarity!

:-)

On Nov 22, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Jonathan Post wrote:

Your point is well taken, Jack, that mere Philosophy without the right

equations does not add to our Physicists' paradigm. I'd posted the

abstract and arXiv link on Facebook, where I've had two discussions

going on whether or not the Brain is analog or digital, and whether

Reality is analog or digital. I've contended that either claim, in

either case, is a Philosophical Category Error. What are your thoughts

on that, and is there a connection to the paper in question, AND with

the Einstein field equations?

On Facebook, the responses to the arXiv paper include:

Jonny Cache

?

“These are the forms of time, which imitates eternity and revolves

according to a law of number.”

Plato, “Timaeus”, Benjamin Jowett (trans.), in Edith Hamilton and

Huntington Cairns (ed.), ''The Collected Dialogues of Plato, Including

the Letters'', Bollingen Series LXXI, Pantheon, New York, NY, 1961.

(p. 1167).

Jonny Cache ? See “Verities Of Likely Stories” —

? http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2003-August/thread.html#713

Ay?e Mermutlu What about Berkeley and Hume?..

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 9:28 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

I really don't get it.

If this paper is a physics paper, then the author should show the emergence of Einstein's field equations, quantum field theory etc from some more fundamental mathematical structure. I don't see anything like that, but I did not spend a lot of time on it. What am I missing? I don't see the point of this paper.

On Nov 21, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:

Supports my claim that reality and the brain are neither analog nor digital:

More than discrete or continuous: a bird's view

Authors: Marius Buliga

(Submitted on 19 Nov 2010)

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4485

Abstract: I try to give mathematical evidence to the following

equivalence, which is based on ideas from Plato (Timaeus): reality

emerges from a more primitive, non-geometrical, reality in the same

way as the brain construct (understands, simulates, transforms,

encodes or decodes) the image of reality, starting from intensive

properties (like a bunch of spiking signals sent by receptors in the

retina), without any use of extensive (i.e. spatial or geometric)

properties.

Subjects: Metric Geometry (math.MG); Neurons and Cognition (q-bio.NC)

Cite as: arXiv:1011.4485v1 [math.MG]

Submission history

From: Marius Buliga [view email]

[v1] Fri, 19 Nov 2010 17:54:41 GMT (13kb)

On Nov 22, 2010, at 1:50 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

Let me clarify, unitarity works for dead matter in the domain of validity of quantum theory where S-Matrix theory can be applied.

I am questioning its application to living forms of matter (the sub-quantal non-equilibrium region of the "hidden variables" where approach to equilibrium is prevented by an external pump like in a laser or the metabolism of a biological entity). Whether we can treat pixelated horizon hologram computers completely in terms of S-Matrix theory is still an open issue in my opinion - I could be wrong. I mean more precisely that we may need to include vacuum condensate terms explicitly into the S-Matrix formalism analogous to the way Gorkov did for superconductors - and also not assume thermal equilibrium.

Basically in terms of second quantization for the gravity degrees of freedom

tetrad = c-number condensate term + second quantized operator term

On Nov 22, 2010, at 1:34 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:

Jack, I like your 4 points addressing the Hard Problem of Qualia with

Wheeler-Feynman as modified by Aharonov; signal nonlocality via

Sarfatti-Bohm-Josephson-Pallikariri; Libet el al (which won me a

fiction award when I contextualized it in narrative about the Space

program's need to do teleoperation at distances where speed-of-light

lag might be compensated for by signal extraction of intent for

muscular action in the brain in the 200 milliseconds before one can be

consciously aware of those intentions); and Bekestein-Hawking-Lloyd.

Great!

Here is a summary of some thoughts of mine on Computational

Metaphysics relating to "Theory of Everything" -- which is a Term of

Art, a phrase with a special meaning to those "in the club" -- but

that I have metaphysically questioned whether there can even BE such a

theory. In my scholarly publications and in the blogosphere I have

raised metaphysical questions about any putative Theory of Everything

(ToE).

Let me compress some of these into a few telegraphic sentences.

(1) If a ToE is a PHYSICAL THEORY then it falls within the set of

ALL POSSIBLE PHYSICAL THEORIES.

(2) This set is itself a proper subset of what Astronomer/Philosopher

Fritz Zwicky called the IDEOCOSM: the space of all possible ideas.

(3) Specifically, if we restrict ourselves to THE SPACE OF ALL

POSSIBLE MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS THEORIES, then we are faced with a

question that I keep asking:

(4) Is there a hyperplane or hypersurface that separates the SPACE OF

ALL POSSIBLE PHYSICAL THEORIES from the SPACE OF ALL MATHEMATICAL

THEORIES MANY OF WHICH ARE "UNPHYSICAL"?

(5) Suppose we try to avoid paradoxes that stem from such spaces of

theories being infinite, and further restrict ourselves to THE SPACE

OF ALL FINITELY GENERATED MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL THEORIES.

(6) this includes, therefore, all MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL THEORIES

represented in some LANGUAGE which has a finite number of symbols from

a finite alphabet, and thus a finite number of syntactic terms, is

based upon a finite set of axioms, and derives from those by a finite

set of rules of inference.

(7) We need to be extremely careful about whether we have

recursively-defined axioms, recursively-defined rules of inference,

and the like.

(8) we try to make no a priori assumptions about structure, finiteness

and the like, of EXPERIMENTALLY true observations in the PHENOMENOLOGY

of this SPACE OF ALL FINITELY GENERATED MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL

THEORIES. INDEED, WE EXPECT THIS PHENOMENOLOGY TO HAVE INFINITE

POSSIBLE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

(9) NOW WE ARE LEFT WITH VERY SUBTLE META-QUESTIONS ABOUT

*completeness* AND *consistency.*

(10) GIVEN GODEL'S RESULTS, WE SUSPECT THAT A CONSISTENCY PROOF OF THE

SPACE OF ALL FINITELY-GENERATED MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL THEORIES IS NOT

POSSIBLE FROM WITHIN THAT SPACE.

(11) BUT WHERE DO WE LIVE? WE HUMANS WITH OUR SCIENCE, OUR EQUIPMENT,

OUR LOGIC -- ARE WE MADE OF MATTER AND ENERGY AND INFORMATION THAT CAN

BE DESCRIBED BY A PUTATIVE THEORY OF EVERYTHING? GODEL'S METHODS ARE

CONSTRUCTIVE, NOT NEEDING TRANSFINITE INDUCTION AND OTHER SUCH

SUPER-METHODS.

(12) IF NO SINGLE SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL THEORY OF MATHEMATICS EXISTS

(PER GODEL) THEN IT SEEMS THAT NO SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL SINGLE THEORY

OF MATHEMATICAL PHYSICS EXISTS.

(13) THIS IS LIKELY EVEN IF DIFFERENT UNIVERSES IN THE METAVERSE EACH

HAVE THEIR OWN THEORY OF EVERYTHING, OR EVEN IF OUR UNIVERSE, THOUGH

FINITELY-GENERATED, HAS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF "LAWS" THAT OPERATE AT

DIFFERENT ENERGY LEVELS OR COMBINATORICS OF INITIAL CONDITIONS AND

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS.

(14) In this metatheoretical sense, I question that there is any

"Ultimate Reality" -- and am thus unable to answer Einstein's question

(I paraphrase) "Did God have a choice when he created the physical

laws of the universe?"

(15) I discussed this a number of times with my mentor, Richard

Feynman. Each day he seemed to have a different take on this.

Does anyone here have any constructive comments? Is this worth

expanding into a draft paper for the Penrose-Hammeroff issue? Is there

a clear way to combine this with Jack's lovely 4 points on the

preconditions for Qualia?

Thank you in advance.