Spin Chronicles Part 33: Consciousness and conscious choices

 Once upon a time, guided by a whisper of intuition—or perhaps a playful nudge from fate—we set out on a journey. At first, our quest seemed clear: to uncover the mysteries of the enigmatic spinors. We had a map (or so we thought) and a destination in mind. But as we wandered deeper into the unknown, the wide road faded into a meandering trail, and the trail became a wisp of a path. Before we knew it, we were in a forest—dense, shadowy, and alive with secrets.

The forest wasn’t on the map, but here we were. And while our grand quest felt like a distant memory, the forest itself had other lessons to teach. At first, we worried: how would we ever find our way? But then we noticed the sweetness in the air, the earthy scent of moss, and the rustling leaves whispering ancient songs. We saw plump berries, glistening with dew—some delicious, others mysterious. And then, as if out of a dream, a gentle roe deer emerged, its soft eyes urging us to follow. It led us to a crystal-clear lake, where the water was cool and refreshing, as though the forest itself offered us a blessing.

... the forest itself offered us a blessing.

Forests, after all, are not just places to get lost; they are places to be found. They nourish the soul, if only we stop to look. So we paused, took a deep breath, and began to notice both the towering trees and the soft carpet of the forest floor. In this moment of stillness, we remembered our original quest. Yes, we were here to understand spinors, but perhaps the forest—the journey—was as important as the destination.

This particular forest is called Geometric Algebra A. It is a simple land, yet rich with wonder. To truly know it, we must not just walk its trails but see its beauty, smell its air, touch its textures, and listen to its tales. Some stories are soft whispers; others roar like waterfalls. This is one of those stories, told by the forest itself.

So, dear traveler, let us begin.

We are in geometric algebra A. It is simple, but it has a rich structure. We need to feel this structure by sight, by smell and by touch. We need to be able to hear the stories it says to us, sometimes silently, sometimes in a really loud voice. So this is on of these stories.

A is simple. In algebra saying this has a precise meaning: an algebra is simple if it has no non-trivial two-sided ideals. A two-sided ideal is a subalgebra that is at the same time left and right ideal. We did not consider two-sided ideals yet (and we will not in the future), but it is not difficult to show that A is indeed simple. But we did consider left ideals, and those of a particular form. To construct such an ideal we select a direction (unit vector) n in V, from this we construct p, with p=p*=pp:

p=(1+n)/2

Then we define, let us call it  I_n:

I_n = {u: up=u}.

This is a left ideal.

Now, the defining equation up=u is equivalently written as un=u (convince yourself that this is indeed the case!). Since n² =1 (n is a unit vector), and n*=n, it follows that n, considered as an operator acting on A from the right, has two possible eigenvalues +1 and -1. So the equation  un=u means that I_n consists of eigenvectors of n belonging to the eigenvalue +1. This is our left ideal under consideration.

The first thing we notice is that p itself is an element of I_n. But that is not all I_n. I_n is a complex two-dimensional space. Thus there are two linearly independent (even mutually orthogonal) vectors in I_n.

Thus we proceed as follows: we choose an oriented orthonormal basis e¹,e²,e³ in V in such a way that e³ coincides with n. Then e² and e³ are perpendicular to n. Then we define a basis E₁,E₂ in I_n by choosing:

E₁ = p
E₂ = (e¹ - ie²)/2,

Then magic happens: in this basis the left action of e¹,e²,e³ on  I_n is given exactly by the three Pauli matrices!

We came to the lake in a forest and it is time to fore out the thinking machine in our brains. We have arrived naturally at Pauli matrices, which is very rewarding. Except for the fact that there is nothing "natural" in this process! First we had to select a direction n in otherwise completely isotropic space V. This cannot be deterministic. No deterministic process can lead to breaking a perfect symmetry. It can be done only by a conscious choice. So consciousness is entering here (or it can be a random choice, but then consciousness is needed to define what precisely a "random choice" is). In practice the choice of a reference direction, and of an orthonormal basis is being made by a conscious "observer" (or by a machine programmed by a conscious "observer"). You can, of course, replace "observer" by "experimental physicist" or "an engineer", but that will not change the idea.

Then we decided to define E₂ the way we did above. Another application of consciousness. Thus, temporarily, I am associating the right action of the algebra on itself, the action of p in up=u, with consciousness. It is not needed for further considerations, but it something that should be thought about: we have left and right actions of operators on our Hilbert space. In ordinary quantum theory only left actions are being considered, What can be the meaning of right actions, if any? But let us abandon philosophy and return to math.

We have the basis E_α (α=1,2) in I_n, we have the basis eⁱ (i=1,2,3) in V and they are related by Pauli matrices σ_i by the following relation

eⁱ E_α = E_β (σ_i)_βα.       (*)

Notice that I write the right hand side by putting the basis vectors first, and coefficients after. That has the advantage that matrices transforming the components are transposed to those transforming the basis vectors. This way I do not have to transpose anything.

But what happens if we replace our basis E_α by some other orthonormal basis in I_n? Then the whole beauty and simplicity of Pauli matrices will be spoiled. And we like Pauli matrices so much! And here is the place to demonstrate the power of the desire. We want Pauli matrices, whatever the cost would be! So, we start thinking. When there is a desire, there must be a way! So we start looking at our equation (*) from a different point of view. The elements E_α  and eⁱ are related (or "correlated") by the Pauli matrices. If change E_α, perhaps eⁱ also need to be changed so, that the correlation stays the same? We try our great idea of saving our love - the sigmas. The result is condensed in the following statement:

Proposition. There is one and only one way to have Eq. (*), with Pauli matrices in it, valid for all orthonormal bases in I_n. It goes as follows: if E_α is replaced by E'_α related to E_α by a 2 by 2 unitary matrix A of determinant 1 (element of SU(2)):

E'_α = E_β A_βα,

then e_i must be replaced by e'i, related to e_i by a real orthogonal 3 by 3 matrix R(A) (an element of SO(3)):

e'_i = e_j R(A)_ji,

where the relation between A and R is

Aσ_iA* = σ_j R(A)_ji.

Proof. Left as a straightforward, but needing use of indices,  exercise.

And this way we have accomplished something that was left unexplained in October 16 post  Part 3: Spin frames.

What we see now is that this correlation between spin  frames Eα and orthonormal frames e_i is not so "natural" at all. It requires certain arbitrary human-made choices. It has little to do with the "true state of affairs". Spin frames and orthonormal frames are two different realities. Yes, they can be "correlated", but this correlation is artificial. So, the question remains: what are spinors? Elements of a left ideal? But which one? And why this one, and not some other?

Exercise 1. Do the calculations needed to prove the Proposition.

Exercise 2. For any x in A denote by Ax the set

Ax = {ax: a in A}

Show that Ax is a left ideal. Show that it is the smallest left ideal containing x. With I_n and p =(1+n)/2  show that I_n = Ap. Why Ap is not the same as An? What is An?

Exercise 3a.  If u in A is invertible, it cannot be contained in any of the  I_n's.

Exercise 4. Show that the * operation transforms every left ideal into a right ideal, and conversely.

Exercise 5. If Il1 and Il2 are two left ideals, is their intersection also a left ideal? If Il is a left ideal and Ir a right ideal, is their intersection a two-sided ideal?

Sunday Special - Consciousness, Quanta, and Meaning

 There’s no shortage of theories trying to explain the mysteries of quantum mechanics, and consciousness often gets dragged into the mix. Some even claim it has a special role in state vector reduction—those quirky “quantum jumps.” Roger Penrose is one such advocate, but he’s not alone. When you ask these consciousness enthusiasts if physics behaves differently on the far side of the Moon (where no one’s watching) or if atoms over there just stop jumping, the answers get...let’s say, "evasive."

Who's Consciousness Is It Anyway?

Now, I'm not here to knock anyone’s ideas. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But, honestly, this view feels a bit like trying to peer through a foggy window. I mean, whose consciousness are we talking about here? When John Wheeler, another big name in the "consciousness club," was pushed on this point, he eventually said it was “consciousness in general.” Sounds poetic, right? The problem is, no one knows what “consciousness in general” actually means.

And let’s be real—science knows more about quarks and gluons than it does about human consciousness. So, no, I don’t think consciousness is irrelevant, but I do think it’s being overhyped in quantum mechanics.

Is the Universe Watching Itself?

Measurements and observations in the universe happen, whether we’re looking or not. The cosmos doesn’t wait for us to wake up in the morning to start its business. Atoms are constantly observing other atoms, cats are keeping tabs on mice, and things happen regardless of our awareness.

This brings me to my simple, no-nonsense perspective: consciousness doesn’t create reality, it just interprets it. Consciousness, in my view, is there to give meaning to what we observe. The more complex the consciousness, the deeper and richer the meaning.

The meaning of it all?

The Meaning of Consciousness

Here’s the kicker: the higher your level of consciousness, the more meaning you can extract from an experience. A cat sees the world differently than bacteria, and we humans have the potential to see meaning on levels a cat can’t even dream of. This ability to find meaning ties into free will—we see meaning in something, and it allows us to make conscious decisions, changing ourselves and reality. It’s like designing your own narrative rather than just playing out some mechanical script.

So, no, I don’t believe in consciousness collapsing wave functions. But that doesn’t mean it’s useless—it’s just not responsible for playing referee in quantum mechanics.

Gravity vs. Consciousness: The Final Showdown

Now, if consciousness isn’t out there reducing wave packets, then what is? Gravity, maybe? Some theories suggest gravity might be responsible for collapsing quantum states. But here’s the twist—what if wave function collapse actually explains gravity? It’s one of those chicken-and-egg scenarios, except the chicken is quantum mechanics and the egg is the entire fabric of spacetime.

I don’t claim to know the definitive answer to what reduces wave packets, but I do know how to describe the process. And that’s what matters. A simple, quantitative description that satisfies both quantum theory and the observations of a humble peasant (equipped with the finest metaphorical pitchfork, of course).

In Search of the Third Factor: Reflections on Science, Philosophy, and Purpose

 Returning to Old Notes

Every so often, I dive back into my notes from years gone by. It’s a way to ensure I haven’t strayed too far from the path I once set for myself. Although only a handful of people seem interested in these private reflections, a handful is not the same as no one at all. Occasionally, a message from a curious mind lands in my inbox, reminding me that these thoughts resonate beyond my own head.

Yesterday, I felt compelled to revisit an entry from October 1993. Below are a few snippets from those musings, still as relevant to me now as they were then.

---

October 1993: The World of Information

“The beginning of the world and the Big Bang. Should I believe this? Should you? Where is the flaw in the narrative? What’s missing, misunderstood, or understated?

Here’s my take (borrowing from Popper): beyond the world of matter and the realm of geometry, there exists a world of information. We don’t fully understand this world yet, but we sense it—just the tip of an iceberg. New, bold ideas are needed, new mathematical structures to chart this realm. Today, we are only scratching the surface.

This third world—the world of information—must integrate with the other two. It’s not some distant future; this new paradigm is already here, hanging in the air like a ghost. And this is where I must focus: full steam ahead toward information, toward algorithms, toward the structure tree. This has become the content of my life, my calling.

This has become the content of my life, my calling.

Who knows what I’ll discover along the way? Searching for information, I might stumble upon something even greater. But nothing is more important than this pursuit. Information is life. Information is complexity."

---

On Tactics and Purpose

“But strategy is not enough. Tactics matter, too. I embraced the audacity of youth. Be bold. Be rowdy. Life demands action, constant action. And with that, comes the realization: I must shed responsibilities that don’t serve this purpose. I am a researcher, not a teacher. A scholar, not an administrator. And certainly not a director. My task is not to manage or organize but to build knowledge, to create something unknown that will one day be known. That is my holy calling. So help me, God.”

---

April 1994: The Anthropic Principle and Life’s Questions

A year later, in April 1994, I was grappling with the anthropic principle:

"Does a theory make sense when it leaves such a narrow window for the emergence of life? Can something as organized as life arise from chaos? The anthropic principle provides no real answers. It's no explanation to say that the universe must be the way it is because otherwise, we wouldn’t exist to observe it.

Where did the laws of nature come from? Why these laws and not others? The argument that ‘it couldn't be any other way’ falls flat. What is explanation anyway?

And what is chance?"

---

A Personal Shift: Technology and Self-Reflection

"On a more mundane note, I received a grant. It was just enough to buy a notebook. Will life be easier with a notebook? A little. But is that enough to change everything? Hardly."

---

Navigating Blindness: The Search for Free Will

The challenge looms: how can the blind lead the blind? How do we reach a generator of free will without the freedom to reach it? Mechanically, I can only detect what is mechanical, and even that requires tremendous effort. Yet here I stand, the best possible laboratory at my disposal: myself. I am both the experimenter and the most sensitive instrument.

My goal has become clear. I must produce a device—a mind—that won’t need external forces to guide it. But is that what I want? I want to take stock of everything I know and push further. I want to gather the fragments of my understanding and draw meaningful conclusions.

Years ago, I didn’t know what I was searching for as a physicist. I was drawn to the idea of additional dimensions, but for reasons that remain unclear, I got sidetracked. I lost more than a year in uncertainty until I encountered the works of Sheldrake, Popper, Eccles, and Jeans. Slowly, the fog lifted, and my mission crystallized: to discover a third factor that exists beyond matter and geometry.

This third factor is information—knowledge. My purpose now is to bridge the gap between modern physics and this new reservoir of understanding. The challenge lies in finding a safe path forward, one that doesn’t fall into the murky waters of philosophy. It’s clear to me now that quantum theory is the key.

---

Today: The Premonition Endures

Here I am, years later, still chasing that same premonition I had in the '90s. Consciousness, I believe, cannot change the facts themselves, but it can influence their probabilities. How? That’s where the devil hides—in the details. And that’s what I’m still working on.

That’s where the devil hides—in the details.

The journey continues.

---

This mix of self-reflection, science, and philosophy still defines my work today. The questions I grappled with decades ago remain as crucial and unsolved as ever, but the pursuit is what drives me forward—full steam ahead.

Full steam ahead

P.S. 29-09-24 11:42 This is a partial answer to Igor Bayak asking in his comment what do I mean by "information"? Reading an autobiography of Stefan Osswiecki:

"Stefan Ossowiecki (1877-1944), a businessman by profession, was also a psychic whose clairvoyant abilities made him famous in his native Poland. He became known internationally as a result of numerous successful experiments with Polish, French and British psychical researchers."

Here is an illustration of his psychic abilities taken from the CIA Reading Room document (released in 1977) "Israeli Secret Services":

In his 1944 autobiography "The World of My Soul and Visions of the Future" (written in Polish), Ossowiecki wrote these prophetic words:

"Today's knowledge, based on intellectualism and experimentation, has been profaned as it has become available to both heroes and criminals alike. Not everything should be shared with everyone. Modern man has forgotten the warning of the greatest Sage: “Do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they turn on you and trample them underfoot, and then attack you.” Who knows whether this profanation of nature’s mysteries, this brutal intrusion of modern technology into the subtlest vibrations of matter, this apparent triumph of the intellect, will one day mark the beginning of an unprecedented catastrophe in the history of the modern world?

The ancient Atlanteans unleashed the forces of the elements, and, unable to control them, perished. We today are no different. We are on the brink of collapse, for our civilization has also violently intruded into nature’s secrets without sufficiently cultivating morality in heart and spirit. Today, while flying through the skies and plumbing the ocean’s depths, the people of the 20th century consider themselves victors over nature. But in reality, they are spiritually bankrupt, selfish in their bloody struggle for existence, blinded by their own arrogance, cold and empty-hearted. Their airplanes, submarines, radios, and wireless telegraphs—tools that could be the glory of life if driven by a noble will—may soon become a curse. When hatred and greed unleash yet another war, all of this technology will become instruments of death, not life"

P.S. 01-10-24 11:57 While working on writing a report on a paper on photon's position operator for a physics journal, I decided to check a Referee Report of my own paper on Clifford algebras, that after many changes have been finally happily published.  I would like to quote a particular piece from this last report, as it makes me smile. The Referee writes:

"... As a mathematician, I do not at all agree with the Author's point of view. and I am not at all ready to consider the tensor algebra as "the mother" of the other algebras. But as a reviewer, I observe that the Author supports his thesis with interesting arguments (in other words, it is not just propaganda), and I wish his paper to become a useful contribution to the debate."

Quantum Musketeers: The Quest for Cognitive Physics

 The following story drifts somewhere between sarcasm and curiosity, touching on the idea that our minds might be governed by quantum laws. Yes, those quantum laws. You know, the ones with Schrödinger's cat, uncertainty, and all that jazz. But as much as I want to laugh it off, part of me hesitates. Could there be truth in these bold claims? Is it possible that 50 years from now, we'll be awarding Nobel Prizes for discoveries that our brains are quantum computers, firing love and hate through Schrödinger's equation?

I might be skeptical, but let's dive into this paradoxical rabbit hole of thought with our valiant quantum musketeers.

---

Meet the Musketeers

Almost everyone has heard of the classic musketeers from Dumas' world, but have you heard of their quantum counterparts? Enter the Quantum Musketeers, a group of researchers who dared to ask: "What if mental phenomena are quantum-like?" Six fearless scientists initially embarked on this mind-bending journey, soon to be joined by a mysterious seventh.

But before we dive into the science, let’s recall the type of trivialities that triggered swordfights for our classical musketeers:

"Why are you fighting?"
"Faith! I don't very well know."
"I’m fighting because… well, I’m fighting!"

At least Dumas' musketeers had a reason (albeit vague) for crossing swords. Our quantum musketeers? They're fighting the unseen, the intangible. Forget waving swords—these warriors are dealing with halos of uncertainty, fluctuating in and out of existence. 

Their minds are neither particles nor waves but something in between. Quantum superpositions, perhaps?

And now, the modern heroes:

1. Elio Conte
2. Antonio Federici
3. Francesco Vitiello
4. Orlando Todarello
5. Michele Lopane
6. Andrei Khrennikov
   And the wildcard:
7. Joseph P. Zbilut

Together, they’ve crafted papers with titles like "Preliminar Evidence of Quantum-Like Behavior in Measurements of Mental States" and "Remarks on Quantum Behavior of Cognitive Entities." Clearly, they’re not messing around.

---

Quantum Leaps of the Mind

What, you ask, have our brave musketeers accomplished? According to their Introduction, mental states don't fit neatly into our traditional physical reality. They argue that we need extra dimensions—mental coordinates, if you will—to capture the complexity of consciousness. Sounds pretty groundbreaking, right? Well, as they put it:

"Mental phenomena cannot be completely embedded into physical space."

Wait… extra dimensions? I can barely manage three, and now you’re telling me there are more? In fact, B. Hiley (a sidekick of David Bohm, quantum legend) theorizes that consciousness might exist in something called PRESPACE. Oh sure, PRESPACE. It's right next to that place where I left my car keys and my sense of direction.

---

Schrödinger’s Brain?

The six musketeers go on to suggest that thinking itself might resemble quantum mechanics. They propose that when we make decisions, our minds behave like quantum particles, collapsing from one potential state to another. In short, every decision you make is a quantum leap in your head. Just imagine: You’re deciding between pizza and salad, and somewhere in PRESPACE, a wave function collapses.

"The act of conscious thinking is itself the same as the collapse resolving out potential alternatives."

A tantalizing thought, isn’t it? Maybe that time I accidentally bought a pineapple pizza instead of pepperoni was the fault of quantum interference.

---

Quantum Spin or Spin Doctoring?

Our fearless heroes even dared to experiment. They devised tests to examine how people perceive shapes, borrowing ideas from Gestalt psychology. We all know this joke:

Imagine staring at two images: one group sees picture A, the other sees picture B, and depending on which background you focus on, your mind flips back and forth. What does this have to do with quantum physics? They claim that our minds exhibit “quantum interference” in how we perceive and interpret information.

At this point, the authors were this close to preparing a Schrödinger-like equation for cognitive states. And yet, a small caveat emerged: quantum micro-descriptions might not scale perfectly to the human brain. The differences in temperature, time, and scale are just too vast. But fear not! They propose that mental states still behave in a context-dependent, quantum-like manner.

In summary, they claimed:

"Mental states behave in a context-dependent, quantum-like manner, indicating that mental phenomena cannot be completely encompassed within the framework of traditional physical space."

---

Quantum Philosophy: The Final Thought

So, there you have it: mental phenomena, Schrödinger-style. Whether our brave musketeers are on the verge of unlocking the mysteries of the mind or simply wielding the sword of over-enthusiastic theory, only time will tell. Could they be heralds of a new era of cognitive science, one where quantum equations describe love, war, and pizza choices? Perhaps.

Or maybe, just maybe, this quantum interpretation of thought is as elusive as PRESPACE itself. For now, I'm left with one lingering question: If consciousness exists in extra dimensions, does that mean my existential crises are bigger than I thought?

Conclusion:

Quantumly speaking...

In the end, it’s a balancing act—somewhere between skepticism and curiosity, quantum fuzziness and clarity. Our Quantum Musketeers have taken up arms in a battle where the enemy is not only invisible but exists in multiple states simultaneously. Whether they’re on the path to a Nobel Prize or just tilting at windmills, they’ve certainly given us something to ponder. Or at least, to laugh about—quantumly speaking.

Life is at the boundary

A Sleepless Odyssey

For over a week, I've barely slept. I've barely eaten. Without my wife, I might not sleep or eat at all. Work has consumed me. My brain spins endlessly, processing algebraic symbols and the elusive objects from Plato's world. Something new is forming. At least, it's new to me.

My brain spins endlessly, processing algebraic symbols and the elusive objects from Plato's world. 

Will it be of use to anyone? Right now, I don't care. It's beautiful, and that's enough. A puzzle is unfolding before me. 

I don't know what the final picture will be. Many pieces are still missing. The box is vast, overflowing with possibilities. Strangely, I find myself returning to ideas from my doctorate. Back then, they were mysteries. Now, I understand them. Now, I develop them.

The Edge of Reality

To satisfy your curiosity, I'll share what I'm working on. Although, I doubt anyone will understand. But I’ll tell you anyway. Think of it as surrealist poetry.

On the edge, there’s a great concentration (critical density) of Black and White...

Our world—our entire reality—is a complex domain. This domain has an edge, and our lives unfold along this boundary. We have no clear view of its interior. Perhaps, just a glimpse. Deep within the domain, a spotlight of consciousness shines, like a lighthouse, illuminating the edge point by point.

A lighthouse, illuminating the edge point by point.

The Cycle of Time

Each point touched by light marks the passage of our "time." Time is cyclical. Reincarnations. For those who live only on the edge, with no insight into the interior, the cycle repeats endlessly. Every point on the edge has its opposite—somewhere, infinitely distant.

Within the domain, time does not flow. Inside, there is no difference between reality and imagination. Inside, Geometry dwells. Geometry akin to Escher’s devils and angels. Our edge is not the only one. There are others, adjacent to ours, with other "lives" existing in different dimensions.

Not only is our "time" cyclical, but our space also loops back on itself. It closes with a cap shaped like a truncated double  light cone.

The Operators of Existence

The domain is filled with operators. Our point on the edge, along with its opposite—the tip of the cap—is also an operator. This operator is anti-commuting with the lighthouse. It remains anti-commuting through all "time." The tangents to the edge are four Dirac gamma operators.

But there is a fifth gamma operator, anti-commuting with the four "normal" ones. Together, they span a five-dimensional space. The domain is "round." But if a "wind" distorts it slightly—it creates unstable gravity waves—that’s GRAVITY.

The Quantum Enigma: A Dance of Possibilities

I recently delved into the intriguing paper “Relations between Quantum Theory and Panpsychism” by Thomas Görnitz. It was a revelation, sparking countless thoughts and ideas that I can't wait to share in upcoming posts. Today, however, I'll focus on one mind-bending concept.

Görnitz emphasizes repeatedly that quantum theory isn't about solid, unchanging facts but about a dynamic realm of evolving possibilities. Classical physics gives us concrete facts, while quantum theory presents us with an ever-shifting sea of possibilities. But then, in a miraculous twist, these possibilities collapse into solid facts. Let's explore this further with some profound quotes from the paper:

“We humans are born into a reality which we did not create ourselves. However, in order to survive, it is necessary to understand the facts we encounter in it, as well as the processes and changes.”

This resonates deeply with me. But beyond understanding the external world, we must also strive to understand ourselves and our fellow human beings.

“Classical physics establishes deterministic laws about facts. The much more precise quantum theory asserts only a determined change of possibilities.”

Here lies a fascinating puzzle. Must the evolution of possibilities always be deterministic? If randomly generated facts can influence possibilities, then perhaps the evolution of possibilities isn't always deterministic.

“We consider possibilities that have not yet become facts. With us humans, possibilities are often emotionally underpinned: we expect, fear or hope for something to happen. All our intentions rely on possibilities. Thus, mere possibilities can already generate real effects.”

This brings us to the mysterious process of fact generation. When and how do possibilities crystallize into facts? I've co-authored papers on this very topic, titled "How and When Quantum Phenomena Become Real?" and "How Events Come Into Being." We need to understand the "binamics" – the irreversible process where possibilities become facts.

“We have to consider both facts as well as possibilities for an understanding of nature, a feature described by the 'dynamic layer structure' of natural science.”

Yet, the Ur theory, or the theory of “Abstract Quantum Information Units,” neglects facts altogether. Following Weizsäcker, Görnitz speaks only of quantum codons as standard qubits. But DNA relies on four codons (A, C, G, T) to create complexity. Shouldn't we consider additional codons beyond the standard Complex Qubit, such as Real, Quaternionic, and Octonionic structures, and even the standard binary field GF(2) (as well as more general p-adic number fields)?

“In a very exact description of natural processes only a determined evolution of possibilities can be assumed. Emerging facts are then random within the scope of these possibilities.”

“Possibilities are subject to other logical rules than facts. The meaning of "possibility" is that they can, indeed must, contradict each other if they would mistakenly be interpreted as facts at the same place and time.”

“Facts, of course, are not part of a quantum wholeness. A fact, however, can give rise to new quantum possibilities, which then can form or join a wholeness.”

This last insight is crucial. It suggests that the evolution of possibilities, influenced by the back-reaction of facts, isn't always deterministic.

“Already in quantum physics the transition from possibilities to a fact is not actually solved by the theory of decoherence. While a mathematically clear definition can be given, it is not practicable because the occurrence of a fact would theoretically require the passage of an infinitely long time. No physicist or anyone else can wait that long.”

This is the famous Measurement Problem of quantum theory, still awaiting a definitive solution. My own theory, EEQT (Event Enhanced Quantum Theory), was an initial step toward this solution but lacks a place for consciousness.

There’s a tantalizing possibility that conscious thinking may be based on non-associative logic. This is the exciting direction my current research is exploring.

Stay tuned as we unravel more of these quantum mysteries in future posts. The dance of possibilities and the birth of facts await.

P.S. 18-07-24  13:44 Here is one example of a possibility that became a fact:

https://x.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/status/1813887120081035311

It certainly required some non-associative decision making.

P.S. 18-07-24 16:42 Here is an excerpt from "Ur Theory and Space-Time Structure" by David Finkelstein:

"... It would therefore not be surprising if the second quantum evolution has a fundamental scale-time like an ur, that sets the scale of non-associativity in the way that the fundamental action h sets the scale of non-commutativity. (...)  It is  easy  to  see  from  elementary  computer models that processes that act on or refer to themselves do not necessarily compose associatively. If the dynamical laws are elements of the very cosmos that they propel, the dynamical processes they represent might be non-associative. "

P.S. 18-07-24 17:52 From my questions and answers chat with the C's, 23-04-22: 

Q: (Ark) What about quaternion algebra? Is it relevant to wave reading units? 

A: Absolutely. 

Q: (Ark) Yes? What about octonions? Are they better or worse? They are non-associative. Ooo! 

A: Better. 

 

 

The Goldilocks Enigma

 

It’s not too hot, it’s not too cold and its forces act together in a way that’s just right; why does the universe seem so perfectly tailor-made for life to exist?

by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

In his book aptly titled “The Goldilocks Enigma”, physicist and science writer, Paul Davies, says that some scientists claim to be on the verge of providing answers to the great questions of existence such as Why are we here? How did the universe begin?  How will it end?  How is the world put together?  Why is it the way it is? And so on.  We recognize these questions from Philip Goff’s rather feeble attempt to philosophize about them in the previous series of posts: “Why? The Meaning of the Universe”.  Here I’ll just suggest that the reader will be better served reading Davies over Goff even if I don’t think Davies has the whole banana either.

Davies explains that the reason some scientist are so confident about the possibility of being able to explain the order of the universe is due to developments in both cosmology and high energy particle physics.  However, elsewhere, Davies has warned us against ‘Taking Science on Faith’  because the faith scientists have in the immutability of physical laws has origins in Christian theology. (He was roundly criticized for saying this).

Davies thinks that the fact that consciousness exists is one of the most significant facts of the universe, (he also notes that many scientists and philosophers do not agree with this assessment), and that for life to emerge and then to evolve into conscious beings like ourselves, certain conditions have to be met.

Davies worked with astronomer, Fred Hoyle, and tells us that Hoyle thought that it appears as if some super-intelligence was behind the laws of physics.  Davies agrees that it does look that way and no scientific explanation for the universe can be acceptable unless it accounts for this fact. “On the face of it, the universe does look as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator expressly for the purpose of spawning sentient beings.  

Like the porridge in the tale of Goldilocks and the three bears, the universe seems to be ‘just right’ for life, in many intriguing ways.”  Figuring out why this is so requires us to probe the nature of physical laws. Davies writes:

“Throughout history, prominent thinkers have been convinced that the everyday world observed through our senses represents only the surface manifestation of a deeper hidden reality, where the answers to the great questions of existence should be sought.  So compelling has been this belief that entire societies have been shaped by it.  Truth-seekers have practiced complex rituals and rites, used drugs and medication to enter trance-like states, and consulted shamans, mystics, and priests in an attempt to lift the veil on a shadowy world that lies beneath the one we perceive.  The world ‘occult' originally meant ‘knowledge of concealed truth’, and seeking a gateway to the occult domain has been a major preoccupation of all cultures, ranging from the Dreaming of Aboriginal Australians to the myth of Adam and Eve tasting the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge. …

“The ancient Greek philosopher Plato compared the world of appearance to a shadow playing on the wall of a cave.  Followers of Pythagoras were convinced that numbers possess mystical significance.  The Bible is also replete with numerology… The power of numbers led to a belief that certain integers, geometrical shapes and formulas could invoke contact with a supernatural plane, and that obscure codes known only to initiates might unlock momentous cosmic secrets. …

“Isaac Newton – mystic, theologian and alchemist – … did more than anyone to change the age of magic into the age of science. …

“The ancients were right: beneath the surface complexity of nature lies a hidden subtext, written in a subtle mathematical code.  This cosmic code contains the secret rules on which the universe runs.  Newton, Galileo and other early scientists treated their investigations as a religious quest.  They thought that by exposing the patterns woven into the processes of nature they truly were glimpsing the mind of God.  Modern scientists are mostly not religious, yet they still accept that an intelligible script underlies the workings of nature, for to believe otherwise would undermine the very motivation for doing research, which is to uncover something meaningful about the world that we don't already know.”

There is actually a bit more to the search for the underlying nature of reality than just ‘figuring stuff out’.  Theologian Gerd Theissen writes:

“Religion is a cultural sign language which promises a gain in life by corresponding to an ultimate reality.  The definition leaves open whether and in what sense there is an ultimate reality.  In religion, a gain in life is often to be understood in a very tangible way, above all as health and help … But often religions promise something more sublime in addition: a life in truth and love, a gain of identity in the crises and changes of life – even the promise of eternal life.  … Cognitively, religions have always offered a comprehensive interpretation of the world: they assign human beings their place in the universe of things … Religion maintains belief in a hidden order of things – and it functions where our knowledge fails in cognitive crises (for example in the question of what lies beyond this world in which we live and what removes us from ourselves at death).” (Gerd Theissen, A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion  (London: SCM Press, 1999).(Emphases, mine.)

What is of interest here is that it is implied that knowing or inferring something about ultimate reality can help an individual to live a better life in some sense and Christianity  most certainly promised this ‘gain in life’ at its inception.

But somehow, today, what was once seen to be a path to a better life has changed into a way of life that, to outsiders, seems delusional.  The problem lies, I think, in how Christians began very early on to misunderstand the message and then to distort it.  The main reason for the distortion of that message was the very thing that the message was intended to defeat: a totally materialist view of reality versus one that includes consciousness as something that can be non-material.  And in our day, scientific materialism reigns supreme.

In many ways, scientific materialism is the modern incarnation of one side of the old conflict between the flesh and the Spirit, to use the apostle Paul’s terms, only taken to new extremes. Often not explicitly formulated or even acknowledged, this belief system is based on the idea that the material world is all there is, and everything else – consciousness in particular – is derived from it, a mere side effect. What’s more, it is often assumed that the physical world is causally closed, which implies that our free will is just an illusion. But for this belief system to make any sense, if only superficially, its proponents need their own creation myth to explain the complexity of human life, experience and consciousness: enter Darwinism. A random material universe, so the story goes, is somehow capable to produce life by chance; the complexity of our experience, including our so-called illusion of having free will, so the story continues, is just a product of selecting ‘advantageous’ traits over long time spans. Never mind that if the physical universe is causally closed and we have no free will, then our consciousness is entirely useless and certainly not advantageous for survival.[1] But if we have free will, that is, if our minds can somehow break the causal chains of the strictly physical world, then there must be something seriously wrong with materialist doctrine.[2]

But the materialists are determined to hold the line against any single acknowledgment of any process that is not totally random, accidental, and material. Evolution is their gospel, Darwin their savior.  Their story is that the Big Bang was the explosion of a primal atom, and all matter in the Universe was in this incredibly dense atom.  Everything that has happened since is just the result of random jostling of particles that, over billions of years, may form affinities by accident, and different forms of matter arise.  Eventually, some of this matter jostles against some other bit of matter, some sort of electrical (or other) interaction takes place, and that is 'life.’

But make no mistake about it!  The Big Bang theory is Creationism. Materialists believe that matter sprang suddenly into existence with nothing prior. That primal atom was there, and they make no attempt to explain it.  That's exactly the same as saying 'God was just there' and decided to create the universe.  Archeologist Steven Mithen writes:

Creationists believe that the mind sprang suddenly into existence fully formed. In their view it is a product of divine creation. They are wrong: the mind has a long evolutionary history and can be explained without recourse to supernatural powers.[3]

As you can see, Mithen is arguing from as false a premise as the 'God-did-it-in-six-days' gang. He has already made a big leap of assumption that when anyone speaks about 'mind' they are speaking exclusively about a mind that is tied to a physical body.  It apparently never occurs to him that pure consciousness is what is meant by ‘mind’ and not masses of neurons talking to each other with chemical and electrical signal systems. The very idea that consciousness might exist prior to matter is anathema to the materialists, yet that very idea in its most basic form is being discussed in recent years as the foundation of all existence in the form of pure information. At the same time, a close study of the matter reveals that many scientists involved in biochemical research have actually gutted classical Darwinism and some of them are coming forward and saying so plainly.[4] 

Proponents of Darwinism or neo-Darwinism insist that there are clear distinctions between science and religion.  Indeed, there are obvious differences in the style and content of a laboratory experiment and a claim to divinely revealed knowledge.  Materialists say that science is concerned with knowledge of the proven and visible, while religion is concerned with mindless faith in the unprovable and invisible.  And yet, when the facts are known, one must ask: is natural selection really a proven system based on demonstrated knowledge, or is it an unproven hypothesis in which there are so many contraindications that belief in it is also, in the final analysis, only a matter of faith?  Natural selection is no more visible than a Deity and, frankly, less likely to do what is claimed than supernatural intervention!

Evolutionists are often found taunting those who think that something higher is involved in our existence – that their miracles of special creation can, by definition, be neither proved nor disproved.  Yet the evolutionists arrive at similar propositions, especially when they exclude any possibility of something that guides and propels evolutionary processes.  The main difference between the believers in miracles of special creation and believers in accidental variations is that the former has God Almighty pulling the strings and the latter has only impossible probabilities of jostling atoms and molecules as its ultimate reality.  Not much difference, eh?

The late Weston La Barre, professor of anthropology at Duke University, was consumed with ideological fervor against the 'enemy' and wrote that all religions other than evolution are maladaptive retreats from reality.  When considering the Platonic philosophy which holds that ideas, forms, patterns, types and archetypes have an existence and reality of their own and would, therefore, seem to have an obvious relevance to evolution and the origins of species, he regularly compared Plato to Adolf Hitler.  He neglected to mention that Hitler was a confirmed – even extreme – Darwinist, believing that man evolved from monkeys, a proposition that Plato would have considered absurd.

The writings of many great researchers, including physicists and mathematicians, suggest that Plato was correct and that there are immaterial realities independent of physical brains, and more.  The evidence for this is actually more considerable than the rags and tatters of evidence glued together to attempt to validate macroevolution.  And, of course, this means that the advocates of materialistic Darwinism are the ones who are laboring under one of history's greatest delusions.

Quantum physics indicates that not only does 'matter' seem to dissolve into patterned vibrations at the most fundamental levels, it has become apparent that there is a structuring role played by consciousness, by information.[5]

There is now much accumulated evidence that mind does exist separate from the physical brain and that phenomena such as telepathy, psychokinesis, and other so-called paranormal effects are not only demonstrable, they conform to models of the universe with non-local causes.  In the fields of mathematics and physics, the world has changed under the material evolutionist's feet and there is much more to our reality than the naive realism upon which neo-Darwinism is based.  The fact that most contemporary evolutionists still cling to the old-fashioned, crude and mechanical theories in spite of the well-known developments in other scientific fields is more proof of the religious character of their beliefs.

And here we come to an interesting idea: the difficulty for both believers in purely mechanistic evolution and the creationists is that any cosmology that is sufficiently explanatory of the phenomena we observe in our universe has deeper dynamics and implications.  The evolutionists and creationists both seem incapable of the truly abstract, subtle thinking required to parse these implications. It is as though both types are confined within a set of cognitive restrictions that drive their perceptions, experiences and priorities.

Science took a serious wrong turn in the middle of the nineteenth century, about the time Darwin published his Origin of Species and that is why we do, indeed, live in a spiritual Dark Age as a consequence.  It wasn't that natural selection was wrong, per se, but the way the principles have been applied has been disastrous.  Natural selection was seized upon as the one and only underlying law of our reality – and this seizing was done by individuals with a very particular psychological make-up.  The same kinds of people that become fanatically religious and kill others in the name of their god can – and often do – become adherents of the religion of science.  Psychologist Robert Altemeyer calls them ‘rightwing authoritarians’ and ‘authoritarian followers,’[6] but there are leftwing authoritarians too – labeled ‘political-correctness authoritarians’ in the contemporary literature.

In the nineteenth century, certain discoveries that enhanced technology led to economic and political considerations, and that is when science took the wrong turn because the authoritarian type of individual also has other character traits that include a need to dominate others, as well as a strong tendency to greed.  The pursuit of science thus was taken over by politics, and an army of scientific workers was sought to serve the agendas of what has become known as the military-industrial complex.

Altemeyer points out that the authoritarian follower is quite capable of holding entirely contradictory beliefs, and this is how they are easily controlled by those in positions of power who desire that science serve only their interests.  Over and over again it is seen – in retrospect, of course – that irrational beliefs which are promulgated by authorities who desire to maintain control, and which are believed by the followers who want to be 'good,’ trump true science; and here I mean the mode of scientific cognition, not just 'science' since the so-called Enlightenment.

Over and over again, throughout history, going back even to ancient times, you can note that there were a number of really intelligent free thinkers who made observations, drew useful inferences from those observations, and suggested solutions that were ignored, ridiculed, reviled, buried; and often, the thinker who dared to voice his ideas was destroyed by one means or another because authoritarian followers are also aggressive against anything that is not pronounced to be 'okay' by their leaders.  Most often this destruction was – and is even today – due to power considerations: the individual has an idea that, in some way, threatens the political/social power structure.

The fact is, if you read enough history, you will discover that in war, killing or otherwise neutralizing the intelligentsia first is the aim of all invaders and conquerors because it is through the elimination or suppression of competent thinkers that any oppressive regime takes hold.  This has been done so regularly and extensively throughout history that it staggers the mind to consider it.  What it means, essentially, is that over and over and over again, pathological authoritarians have systematically eliminated from the human population the best and brightest minds, removing their DNA from the human gene pool, and it is ALL of humanity that is suffering the consequences of this loss.  It could very well be that this single strategy is the reason that humanity may indeed be on the verge of extinction right now, as is proposed by a number of eminent thinkers.

The Malthusian Darwinists, of course, will say that it is just 'survival of the fittest.’ I guess that depends on what you understand the 'fittest' to be.  In the animal kingdom, where fitness is measured by strength and power, the ability to wallop the heck out of all rivals to your possession of food and sexual partners, selection of this type might be useful.  But in the human species, where fitness and progress and even survival depend on brain power, killing off all the brainiest people in any given culture can only lead to degradation and devolution of the species as a whole.  And when that species holds in its hands the ability to destroy all life on the planet, well, I think you can see where that kind of selection will lead: a lot of power and not enough brains to know that it ought never to be used.

I would like to invite you to stop and try to imagine what life on Earth might be like if science had actually fulfilled its mandate of explaining our reality, solving the problems of humanity, and teaching us how to best interact with our world and each other.  If science was – today – actually a free exploration of nature and drawing accurate conclusions, creating theories, testing those theories with no hidden agendas, what might it have accomplished up to now?  Can you do it?  Can you think of any area of life that could not be improved by having a truly scientific understanding and clearly described response that was supported and implemented by the social/power structure to the benefit of all of humanity, not just the enrichment of a few?

Oh, you think it has been done?  Think again.  Read the history of science and human social development.  When you see how repeatedly the few individuals who had the right idea were marginalized and/or destroyed, if you have any firing neurons after being born into a humanity which has been genetically manipulated to lower intelligence, you will immediately realize that the same conditions – only worse – prevail today: what the mainstream follows is almost always what is politically expedient to those in power, with only enough truth involved to patch over the obvious tears in the now disintegrating fabric of the mask of science.

If a true, free, intelligent science, supported and encouraged by all of society, had actually been the norm since its inception, not the exception, we would live in a world where our very existence was not a shame to the planet that gave us birth.  We would have free, clean energy.  We would not have vast numbers of human beings living in poverty or starving.  We would have no over-population problems.  Health issues that dominate Western society and are bringing it to its knees would not be a problem because there would be plenty of nourishing food for all.  There would be no wars because scientific anthropology and social psychology would have figured out what is the best of all possible forms of social structure that allows for the widest expression of human types to flourish in harmony.  Children would not be medicated at ever younger ages because cognitive science would have established the best way to rear and educate them, and couples would be able to attend classes on infant care and parenting that were actually effective.  The best forms of education would be known so that the widest variety of options would be available to the varied human types and levels of intelligence and skill so that each individual would progress into a life of satisfaction doing what they really enjoy and are best at doing, and society would benefit by not wasting its most precious resource: human beings.  Consciousness – and non-material spirit – would be understood and the proper reverence for Nature and the Cosmos would be a natural part of the lives of all, and the well-known religious feelings in human beings would be directed toward compassion and empathy, not used by manipulative leaders to incite anger, aggression and death.  Free will, rather than being outright denied in science and philosophy as well as in very real terms politically, would be respected as the sacred principle that it is. In short, humankind would know how to live in harmony not only with each other, but with the world in which they are born.

All of these COULD be the conditions of a world where true science is a valued part of society. It could have been our world.

But that isn't what we have today.  What we have today is the chaos produced by pathological individuals that induces consent from the authoritarian followers.  As I noted above, science took a wrong turn when it was co-opted by power and diverted to the purposes of imperialism and materialistic greed.

The really sad thing is that the authoritarian followers who 'believe in authority' could as easily follow an authority that actually does have their best interests at heart, were such an authority to exist.  I don't think it does anymore: the psychopaths[7] have seen to that, co-opting and corrupting even science, to the core.  As it is, the authoritarian sheep follow and support the very worst of humanity: pathological individuals who gain power by deception and manipulation.  And in the end, as psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski wrote: “Germs are not aware that they will be burned alive or buried deep in the ground along with the human body whose death they are causing.”[8]

The moment that Darwin published his Origin of Species in the nineteenth century, an event that marked the culmination of a gradual shift in society from being dominated by religion to what was called 'rational thinking' and science, the authoritarians knew they had their theory of everything: random processes of matter, no consciousness needed.

So, it has been the steady application of materialistic evolutionary thinking that is behind the explanation of the order of the universe that prevails today, which underpins the chaos and disorder we see in a world devoid of information and organization.  There are, undoubtedly, psychopaths in the woodpile here acting as the éminence grise behind science – the thing that controls most of our social constructs and institutions – because we certainly can't say that all scientists, or even most of them, are psychopathic.  The profession itself excludes most psychopaths by virtue of the requirement for superior intellect.  However, it can certainly include a great many members that are authoritarian in personality type and who are under the control of pathological types.  We have seen living examples of this as a result of the COVID scam. 

Looking back at the history – more particularly, the archaeology – we notice how much like the Roman Empire our present civilization actually is.  The Romans were certainly rational and scientific in many respects.  They had factories which produced tableware that has been found at the farthest reaches of the Empire, even in peasant homes.  They had factories that manufactured roof tiles that covered the heads of even the poorest workers and their livestock.  A cache of letters was found in northern Britain where soldiers wrote home to have socks sent to them, which were, apparently, mass produced.  The Roman army was superior because it had standardized equipment, produced in mass quantities at factories located in hubs of the Empire.  Grain, olives, oil, foodstuffs of all kinds, luxury goods, were mass-produced and distributed throughout the Roman world.  Literacy was obviously very widespread, even to the working classes.  There were roads, sanitation systems, haute cuisine; in short, everything that we take for granted as essential to civilization.  The only difference seems to be that we have harnessed sources of power that the Romans did not have, which enables our civilization to aspire to globalization. But in almost every other way, we are exactly like them.  It is only science that has made us bigger and badder, so to say.  And, as the saying goes, the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  That fall may be the extinction of the human race.

The end of the Roman Empire witnessed horrors and dislocation of a kind I sincerely hope never to have to live through; and it destroyed a complex civilization, throwing the inhabitants of the West back to a standard of living typical of prehistoric times. Romans before the fall were as certain as we are today that their world would continue forever, substantially unchanged. They were wrong. We would be wise not to repeat their complacency.[9] 

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, in the next post, we'll come back to Davies and proceed with examining 'The Goldilocks Enigma'.  

---

[1] Karl Popper argues this point in some depth; see Karl Popper and John C. Eccles, The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism (Routledge, 1984).

[2] For a thorough philosophical refutation of materialism in general, see for example Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford University Press, 2012); David Ray Griffin, God Exists But Gawd Does Not: From Evil to New Atheism to Fine-Tuning (Process Century Press, 2016); Bernardo Kastrup, The Idea of the World: A Multi-Disciplinary Argument for the Mental Nature of Reality (Iff Books, 2019); Rupert Sheldrake, Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery (Deepak Chopra, 2013).

[3] Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind (Thames & Hudson, 1999).

[4] See, for example, Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (2^nd ed., Free Press, 2006), The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Free Press, 2008) and Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution (HarperOne, 2019); David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin (Discovery Institute, 2010); Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2009) and Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013); Matti Leisola and Jonathan Witt, Heretic: One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design (Discovery Institute, 2018); and the references in footnote 10 above.

[5] Florin Gaiseanu, Informational Model of Consciousness: From Philosophic Concepts to an Information Science of Consciousness (Philosophy Study, April 2019, Vol. 9, No. 4, 181-196 )

[6] Robert Altemeyer, The Authoritarians (Cherry Hill Publishing, 2008).

[7] For a discussion on how pathological characters, including psychopaths as an extreme case, can subvert society and power structures, see Andrew Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes (Red Pill Press, 2006).

[8] Lobaczewski (2006).

[9] Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization (Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 183.