Six Words » Interactions

The disappointing Higgs and Sterile Neutrinos

admin — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:58:57 +0000

RESPONSE TO VICTOR STENGER`S BLOG … “THE DISAPPOINTING HIGGS AND STERILE NEUTRINOS“

(Posted on 14th September 2012)

(To read the blog…refer www.huffingtonpost.com)

THE BLOG IN FULL :

“So far, the Higgs boson has been a disappointment. Of course, it was a major discovery that generated worldwide attention. The two independent experiments at the Large Hadron Collider that reported the discovery on July 4, involving thousands of physicists, engineers, and technicians, were conducted with praiseworthy skill and effort.

However, all that has been learned so far is that its mass is 125-126 GeV (billion electron-volts). Otherwise, the data look exactly as predicted by the standard model of elementary particles and forces that was formulated in the 1970s and has agreed with all observations since.

Scientists had anticipated that the LHC would point the way to new physics beyond the standard model. And, this will hopefully still happen, especially after its energy is doubled in 2013. One expectation that has not yet been fulfilled is the production of new particles predicted by a theoretical hypothesis called supersymmetry (SUSY). This principle postulates that the laws of physics are the same for integer spin particles, called “bosons,” and half-integer spin particles called “fermions.” SUSY predicts that every boson will have a fermion partner and every fermion will have a boson partner of the same mass. So, the spin ½ electron will have a spin zero “spartner,” the selectron. And, the spin 1 photon will have a spin ½ spartner, the photino. My favorite is the spartner of the quark, which is called the `squark`

ince squarks, selectrons, and photinos have never been observed, physicists are forced to conclude these sparticles, if they exist at all, are so much more massive than their normal partners that they could not be produced by previous particle accelerators. It was anticipated that the energy of the LHC would be sufficient to reach the regime where supersymmetry comes into play and sparticles would appear. Theorists had, in fact, expected sparticles to appear by now, but it hasn’t happened. By contrast, the Higgs showing up so soon was a pleasant surprise.

Supersymmetry has been a favorite idea among theoretical physicists for decades. It appears to be essential for any future quantum theory of gravity. A generation of young theorists has spent their careers developing the SUSY-based String theory, which they hope to be the ultimate theory-of-everything (TOE). If SUSY is falsified, it is unlikely that String theory will survive.

Actually, that would not be all that bad. Any TOE would mean the end of physics.

One of the big questions in science today is the nature of the dark matter. For years, the favorite candidate has been WIMPs, weakly interacting massive particles. And the most popular WIMPs are supersymmetric particles referred to generically as neutralinos.

While reports that SUSY is dead are exaggerated, other options for the dark matter are currently receiving renewed attention. A recent cover story in New Scientist(September 10, 2012) talked about the role that neutrinos play in the search for physics beyond the standard model. Of particular note are sterile neutrinos, which could constitute both the ingredient of dark matter and a pointer to new physics. (SeeNature News Vol 464, March 18, 2010).

In 1998, an underground experiment in Japan called Super Kamiokande reported the first evidence that neutrinos have mass. I played a small role as a collaborator on this experiment, my final research endeavor before retiring from the University of Hawaii in 2000.

Massless particles with spin have the feature of always spinning either in the same direction as their motion, like a right-handed screw, or opposite. Neutrinos are observed to have left-handed “helicity,” that is, to spin opposite to their direction. Antineutrinos are right-handed, like a normal screw.

However, when a particle has mass it can have either helicity. It follows that neutrinos must have a small right-handed component while antineutrinos have a small left-handed part. Since these components are not observed, they may possibly be “sterile,” meaning, they interact only gravitationally. In that case, they are good candidates for dark matter.

To constitute the dark matter, a sterile neutrino would have to have a mass of at least 1 keV (thousand electron-volts) and a lifetime of billions of years. These features are not ruled out by any known physics.

Interest in sterile neutrinos has also been piqued by several hints in neutrino experiments and astronomical observations. None are sufficiently significant, however, to claim a discovery.

In any case, over 20 experiments are now planning to search for evidence of sterile neutrinos. For all you could want to know about sterile neutrinos, including details on each of these proposals, see the draft of a white paper under preparation by over 200 physicists. As someone who worked on neutrino physics and astrophysics for 30 years, I’m delighted to see neutrinos continue to be a crucial factor in our understanding of nature.“

response:

SKSagar :

Nicely explained…..

Someday we will have a complete understanding of what is dark matter…what is dark energy…Someday we will know why a Fermion needs to rotate through 720 degrees in order to get back from where it started while a Boson needs only 360 degrees ….Someday we will know if Susy (Supersymettry) is to be considered as an acceptable theory or not or it needs to be modified etc etc …In short ,Someday we `ll have a theory that explains everything about matter and energy… …but that theory cannot be called as a `Theory of Everything` …no way can we say… that will be the end of physics.

Any TOE that does not take into account Mind and consciousness and its impact on Matter and energy is incomplete. Any TOE that does not explain what caused the big bang is incomplete.

Its not enough to proceed with the assumption that the big bang happened at time zero. Trying to understand what caused the BB may be in the domain of philosophy…but whenever it is understood it will have to be considered Physics.

Its possible… after trillions of years ..Dark energy will drive the universe, via accelerated expansion, towards perpetual nothingness .. to wipe the slate clean… .. But that won`t be the end of everything….Rather it must be considered as a platform for resetting conditions in preperations for the next cycle… Either that or the fact that the galaxies will get so far away from each other that each one of them becomes a universe in itself..and though it will still be driven by the same dark energy it may not proceed towards oblivion … instead it may collapse on itself and cause another big bang ..but not before the designers have incorporated certain constants into the design.

Any theory that does not guarantee … a continuity.. of a universe with life and consciousness..is incomplete…. In fact this aspect must be set as a precondition for arriving at any meaningful TOE. Any theory that leads towards a future of perpetual nothingness and ends there, is unacceptable to the thinking mind. We must look at hundreds of alternatives that prevent such an end. There is no hurry…there is ample time.. the current universe is still in its infancy…let us keep watching the phenomena …

..Let us keep watching the phenomena…Let us keep flooding ourselves with information..Who knows what may happen – when two worlds collide (Remember Jim reeves?) – when Andromeda gets entangled with the Milky way and rewrites our future … let us keep observing and experimenting and above all playing the game of intuition.

There are inherent complexities here… Even the greatest Scientists differed on conclusions even though the inputs available to them were similar. Einstein was in perennial disagreement with Neils Bohr on the `Completeness/Incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics` issue ( Ref `Einstein, Bohr, and the quantum dilemma.`…by Andrew Whittakar ). John Wheeler and Wigner were involved in a major argument – on what happens inside a black hole – during the 1979 Centennial symposium to celebrate the achievements of Einstein ( Refer `Some strangeness in the proportion`…edited by Harry Woolfe). Stephen Hawking disagreed with Roger Penrose on Objective reduction of the wave function and its role in the operation of the brain + on the necessity to explain consciousness (Refer `The large , the small and the human mind` .. by Penrose).

But we can squeeze the complexities and arrive at certain simple statements ..that do not contradict established truths ..and are in the domain of possibilities.

In the words of John Wheeler:

“In time to come, a single simple sentence will explain the strangeness of the Universe and as we say that sentence to each other we`ll say-Oh how beautiful- how could we have missed it all that time?“.

One such candidate for a single simple sentence is this :

“WE ALL HAVE THE SAME MIND“

Can any religion have a problem in accepting this?

Is this not a trump card that can unite Science and religion?

And where is the linkage to the subject of this blog?…

Will come back to these philosophical issues soon.

Coming back to Susy… I think its verification will require huge costs and fiscal limitations may come in the way for further research on the subject…(though it is true that even this huge cost is insignificant in comparison to what goes into the Military industrial complex built up by the Republicans) coupled with the fact that there is good chance of its falsification.

On the other hand research on Neutrinos may be worthwhile.

I have glanced through the `White paper` referred in the write –up.. Its complex …and highly specialized but one can make out …..its brilliant.

The task at hand is to squeeze the complexity…and so I look into the part that I can understand and which is relevant:

I refer to page 34 …on `EXTRA FORCE

“ Consider that 96% of the energy density of our Universe today resides in mysterious dark matter and dark energy, neither of which are comprised of standard model particles. It looks as if there are some hidden sectors ie fields which have not yet been discovered due to the extreme feebleness of their interactions with the ﬁelds of the standard model. Such sectors are ubiquitous in string-based constructions and theories with extra dimensions, and it is possible that the answer to the dark matter and/or dark energy puzzles resides in a hidden sector, which contains one or more light fermions that manifests as a sterile neutrino or neutrinos that can mix with the neutrinos of the standard model. If such a hidden sector also contains at least one light boson which couples to the sterile neutrinos, sterile neutrino cosmology can be altered as well, in some cases alleviating the cosmological tension between more than one additional ultralight states or reconciling a large neutrino mass with cosmology or even contributing to dark matter or dark energy“ .

Back to philosophy… which some day…. when understood…will be physics:

If there is a hidden sector that can explain the 96 %… Then.. why not a hidden sector that can explain the `AWARENESS` of this 96 % and the `AWARENESS` of its interaction with the 4 %..

Why not a hidden sector that can explain `Mind and awareness`

Back to Neutrinos:

The number of neutrinos that leave the sun every second and travel in all directions is so huge that even if we identify a restricted location such as a human body…about a trillion of them pass through that human body every second. About how much time would a neutrino – moving at the speed of light – take to travel a distance about 15cm ie ..remain inside my body… I guess it can be worked out as 5 X 10^ -10 secs. Now if a trillion of them are to pass through my body every second…it can be worked out that at any given instant of time ( about as short as planck time ) ..about 500 neutrinos are inside my body. But they all pass by ..none of them is a permanent resident.

Back again to philosophy ( ie Physics when understood ) :

But the `Mind` – that is contemplating all this is a permanent resident …at any given instant of time it is interacting with about 500 neutrinos…and then the same mind interacts with the next 500…and so on…And it’s the same mind that interacts with the atoms and molecules of the body through which the neutrinos pass through. Without this `Mind` I (inclusive of my brain ) am just an inanimate object, and the `I` in me gets its unique identity due to the unique sets of interactions of the rest of the universe on me….nothing more than that.

Now I correlate this with something I read in Chapter 3 ..`Physics and the mind` ..of the book `The large, the small, and the human mind`…by Roger Penrose :

“In some sense the `Physical world` emerges out of the `Mental world`.

Then there is the third world called the `World of culture` .. Could it be that the mental world is in some way emerging from the Physical world, and somehow culture arises out of `mentality`…Philosophers may not like the idea ..They may ask the question : `How could our feelings, our perception of redness, or of happiness have anything to do with Physics?

What about the `Platonic` world that tells us that there are mathematical concepts required to describe the Physical world. There is a feeling that these mathematical constructions are already there…and there is also the feeling that they are products of the human mind.“

Next, there is the question about `Human consciousness` … should we think about it in terms of scientific explanation. ? Roger Penrose is of the viewpoint that we should and I am inclined to agree.

With all this I end this response by reiterating that any `TOE` is incomplete if it does not take into account `Mind and consciousness`, that its Physics that deals with the subject and that the end of physics is nowhere in sight.

All in all a great article by Victor and some really nice and thought provoking comments by the readers.

Can the Truth Come Back With a Capital 'T'?

admin — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:57:44 +0000

RESPONSE TO DEEPAK CHOPRA`S BLOG …“Can the Truth Come Back With a Capital ‘T’? (Part 4)“on Huffingtonpost.

Posted: 08/05/2013 12:44 pm

SELECT PARAS FROM THE BLOG:

“Truth cannot be known or experienced by a system of thought, be it scientific or philosophical. Specific thoughts tied to experience of space and time are tied to the mechanics of the brain, which are enmeshed in space and time, not beyond them. But thought can also contemplate the end of space and time, the beginning of space and time. This is the paradox of reality, demonstrated by quantum mechanics already 100 years ago. Consciousness pervades the cosmos but cannot be contained there, because it is the source, the womb from which all things arise.

Such statements are logical conclusions based on taking consciousness seriously. If they seem preposterous to many orthodox scientists, this reflects the limitation of present-day science, not the ridiculousness of the statements. Science exists for the purpose of making sense of the universe, to understand the components that comprise the universe through quantitative means, and to produce self-consistent theories that can be tested and, potentially, disproven. Here we are making qualitative statements, which means one of two things: either science must concede that it is helpless to measure meaning or meaning must give rise to a new, expanded science. In both cases, crude materialism plays no role“

RESPONSE :

SKSagar:

“Science exists for the purpose of making sense of the universe“

Absolutely the most important sentence of the entire set of blogs …all four parts.

Let us concentrate on this sentence:

The many widely accepted Scientific theories predict that dark energy will lead the universe towards perpetual nothingness…no energy…no light…. no life….no warmth.. Nothing but perpetual and irrevocable stagnation with massless photons and gravitons doing nothing at all – except getting bored.

And this goes on forever and ever …from age (say) 10^18 years, to age (say) 10 ^ 100+ years, since big bang.

Imagine…in such a scenario…that life and consciousness existing only in one unit of time out of nearly 10^ 82 units of time .

Does this make any sense at all ?

Some Scientists might say …Is making sense a requirement that the Universe must consider?

And in such a scenario as described above…if `making sense` is not a requirement..Then life and consciousness was just an accident….There was never a designer…. No Anthropic Principle… Just the second law of thermodynamics…Entropy at its infinite maximum….there is no way ..and no one.. to change the direction… That’s it.

Do we accept that?…No we cannot…..even to be aware of it, we need consciousness… and all that consciousness is concentrated in the tiny first region of time ..upto 10^18 years stage…perhaps maxm upto 10^20 years stage.

How can we make sense of the Universe? …What should the Scientist (or the philosopher ) think of, so that we can realize that it won`t be necessary to go into that useless region of time.

What then are the possibilities?…

In the broadest sense, there are only two players playing this game of `Reality`, and their names are :

1) `Matter and Energy` lets call it `MAE` ..and

2) `Mind and Consciousness` call it `MAC`

Now there are two alternatives:

ALTERNATIVE 1: MAE is the primary player and responsible for the occasional appearances of MAC at various locations and times, whenever – and wherever – it has `randomly` created a certain biochemistry for MAC to arrive.

In this alternative … there is no such thing as an Anthropic principle and `Randomness` is supreme and the kind of life which is commensurate with the constants provided (also chosen randomly) materializes. This alternative does not explain how and from where does `Intelligence` arrive on the scene.

Perhaps it is an extremely rare commodity.. and also perhaps the quantum of intelligence is extremely limited…certainly not enough to prevent our civilization from self destruction.

Also in this alternative, the universe in the deep future – with the kind help of dark energy ( a major part of MAE) – will proceed towards nothingness…and that’s it.

No more universes – in that universe – , no more MAE, let alone MAC.

Or if the galaxies in that universe at some time in the future start collapsing on themselves towards their black holes…perhaps new smaller universes will be created after the ensuing explosions …Randomness will still be supreme and randomly selected `funny` constants will determine what type of MACs will appear.

Lives will be rare in this alternative, intelligent lives even rarer and whatever lives are there will be constantly killing and eating each other in an everlasting strife.

If a choice is given to me I am not going to come back in this sort of universe.

Now compare this with Alternative 2 where MAC is the primary player but has complete control over MAE.

Here in this alternative MAC on reaching a state of Super consciousness, prepares a comprehensive programme with beautifully designed mathematical constants and then switches on the computer at the appropriate time and ushers in the next big bang… And after trillions of years the next …and so on…a cyclic phenomena.

An excellent universe with billions of galaxies and millions of stars in each galaxy, trillions of planets brimming with life and intelligence. Plenty of Einsteins and Newtons , Plenty of Christ’s, and Buddha’s too,

Of course Randomness will be prominent in this alternative also, and so there will be some Hitler`s too.

Here in this alternative I`ll have no choice…I will be forever conscious ..(even if there are some time gaps between successive consciousness states for the simple reason that I will be unconscious of these `unconscious tenures` which will pass instantly for me )…

I can`t help it ..it is programmed that way.

But its nice…sometimes not so nice.

In this alternative you could call MAC as `Mathemetics` who gives orders and call MAE as Physics who follows these orders.

Indeed `Mathemetics` is the President and the company is called `The Universe`

And there are many such laws where Mathemetics is giving Orders on how to proceed …and they were well crafted with nicely designed `constants` to create good enough probabilities for lives and consciousnesses to evolve at millions of locations and theoretical physicists to arrive and then understand these laws.

Laws such as the `Uncertainty Principle` where `Mathemetics` has played such a trick that it does not allow the quanta to get created out of nothing except for the shortest possible – and thus irrelevant period of time.

Laws such as `Quantum entanglement` where `Mathemetics`has played such a trick that it permits entanglement but does not permit information to be sent faster than at speed of light.

And both these tricks have been played out by the Mathematician by incorporating a certain randomness in the nature of reality… In the former case ..the vacuum randomly fluctuates between being and nothingness…and in the latter case the Mathematician keeps shuffling the deck of nature in such a way that the randomness remains intact .

I should go as far as to say that `Randomeness` is the Vice President.

And then at the center of everything … there is this thing called `EQUIVALENCE` ..The cleverest of all the laws …it goes without saying that this law is out and out Mathematics and Physics is just dancing to its tune.

In this alternative…good sense may prevail …Science and religion may converge.. Conflicts of the world may be resolved.. rise of population may be reversed… self destruction avoided.

Now, coming to the main subject of Deepak Chopra`s blog:

What can be that ultimate truth with a capital `T` that has the best chance of acceptance by all religions..by all Scientists.. by all Atheists and Theists .. by all Democrats and Republican whatever ..and above all that allows the universe to make perfect sense ?

The concept of an ` all intelligent Infinite mind` is a possible candidate for that truth with a capital `T`.. it remains very much in the domain of possibility…and it does not violate any of the established laws of Science.

A mind that is omnipresent not just in space but also in time.

A mind that can effectively come out of time and space and then travel instantaneously to far of corners of time and space of the universe.

It allows the Universe to proceed in its own way.. But the minds can travel back in time and stay within the stelliferous era and have a huge choice of biochemistries from a huge variety of galaxies and times to choose from.

The degenerate and the dark eras may go on and on…but all the stars – including Hollywood ones – will be with us.

In this way, we remain most of the time in the Stelliferous era when stars and planets are forming and life is flourishing beautifully…the only periods when there is no life is when the galaxies are collapsing and the primordial era – about 1,00,000 years – just after the big bang and before the stelliferous era…and these periods are not happening simultaneously in all galaxies… and at any given time, there are a phenomenally large number of galaxies simultaneously alive and kicking to choose from.

In addition, it can be said that the degree of consciousness and intelligence is increasing all the time, moving ultimately to the super consciousness stage – and this happens collectively as well as individually to all the minds.

Elsewhere on a few threads I have opined – rather supported Erwin Schrödinger’s views – about the oneness of mind.. its just that consciousness always happens to be in the singular.

Can this concept of an Infinite mind unite the Atheists with the Theists ?…. Why not ?…The Atheists will be happy with the knowledge that there is no Anthromorpic God…and no harm is done if the Theists consider the Infinite mind as God.

Indeed as DC says ..“We have raised a new absolute – universal consciousness (or pure awareness) – to the level once occupied by God, an all-pervasive, all-powerful agent“

But can we say that this `all powerful pure awareness` is secretly in charge of everything ?

I doubt if this is true…no doubt its all pervasive and all powerful… but the trouble is…`It plays dice` for it has to contend with the law of probability. The individual mind serves only its owner and has no control of the interactions of the rest of the world on it.

Similarly when this `all powerful Super conscious mind` of the previous Aeon set the ball rolling for a new universe…

he had no control over when and where life would emerge….

Yes it had no control over when and where life would emerge, or if and when a civilization from a planet `x` would conquer another from planet `y`, or whether Manchester United would beat Arsenal on a particular day.

Indeed that all powerful `Super Intellect Infinite mind..the so called President of the Universe` of the previous Aeon was a Mathematician God who designed those beautiful mathematical constants with great ingenuity… but he had to contend with `Randomness …the Vice President`.

And to give you an idea of what a tough customer `Randomness` can be.. here`s a story.. not a true story …but just a hypothetical one to explain my point about randomness :

A man called `x` takes a five minute evening walk in the garden …150 years later nearly 20 million people die…and I am telling you they would not have died had `x` not taken that walk….

I will come back in Part 9…giving you a chance to take a wild guess at what happened to this innocent man called `x` during that walk…which altered the history of the planet.

This is what happened to `x` :

While taking that short evening walk, `x` was bitten by a mosquito…A few days later he was down with Malaria and hospitalized……While in the hospital he fell in love with a nurse….Later the two of them got married….. They had a daughter… …. …. … `She was Hitler`s grandmother`

And in principle… she could have been the grandmother of a World renowned Space Scientist who could be instrumental in the development of Space technology to an extent that may lead to the colonization of the galaxy before the human civilization of the planet Earth self destructs itself.

And so Randomness plays its part…a single mosquito alters the history of the Milky Way.

And its not just `Randomness` which the `infinite mind` has to contend with…There is another guy ( or is it a gal ?)…even more dangerous than `Randomness`…… they call him `The second law` ( or `Entropy` if she`s a gal ).

You might ask the question … What kind of God is that `mind` if it is so powerless against these two … viz `Randomness` & `Entropy` ?

And what is the answer to that question ?

What should the mind do to gain some sort of control on the situation ?

The answer is simple …. `Get consciousness`….Look out for and then interact with biochemistry…get itself a consciousness… and then control nature….

And then control nature…such as by pressing a nuclear button and causing a catastrophic explosion.

But wait a minute ….Here too Randomness and the law of probability comes into the picture…No doubt the mind finds a biochemistry and pretty soon engulfs itself with a tiny speck of jelly …But it’s the Interactions of the Universe ..or in other words.. `Randomness` that determine whether that speck of jelly will go on to become a Hitler or a Buddha or an Einstein.

But now that the secret is out…the secret regarding `the phenomena of Interactions` .. The minds that are in possession of this secret are able to take adequate care of the probabilities such that randomness does not create problems….

Example… we anticipate the likely maximum Earthquake force that can act on a building during the next couple of centuries and multiply that by an adequate margin of safety and then design that building to withstand that force.

And in the same way let the minds that are in possession of this `Interactions` secret …spread the word throughout the world – to the minds of the leaders of nations – to cause such interactions that will create the probabilities to prevent nuclear wars and avoid self destruction.

And as for Entropy … We all know it’s possible for Consciousness to change the direction of Entropy from positive to negative.

Now, I agree..that its all philosophy…all this talk about `The infinite mind`.. `The oneness of mind` `The universal consciousness`…`The pure awareness`…`The intelligent force`…whatever you may call it is speculative, its not yet an established truth by Science.

But it’s a strong concept and can explain many features of reality which can otherwise not be explained at all by Materialistic Science. Apart from that …We see the enormous adverse implication of not accepting the `infinite mind` concept..viz that it renders the universe as not making any kind of sense at all (refer earlier parts).

In my view I think it is the responsibility of `Science` to reorient its direction and move forward in a way so as to ensure that the universe makes sense, and in this respect it is imperative that it includes `mind and consciousness` in its scope. …But I am afraid Science is not doing its job properly.

Some of my friends on Huffingtonpost are worried that I am not aware that speculative thought needs some constraints too… they are advising me to be pragmatic about the whole thing at least till such time that we have some sort of a grip on the totality of propositions put forward and accept the fact that we may not be able to figure out the ultimate truth for quite some time.

In the normal course… if the world was progressing peacefully …I would take that advise ..

But there is an urgency here…..The world, as far as the human civilization is concerned, is `NOT AT ALL` progressing nicely, as if it can escape from self destruction before the 25th century. ( Some people say it won`t be that late…Stephen Hawking feels 200 years are all that are left for us…Martin Rees is certain this is our final century)

That `Escape` will not happen unless the `Threat` of Nuclear war reduces appreciably.

And this `Threat` is not just from the Nuclear Arsenal getting into the wrong hands. Responsibility towards the future security of the world lies not just in preventing wrong hands from getting powerful but also in preventing powerful hands from possible wrong actions.

A harassed world leader can be very dangerous for the World.

A few hundred nuclear warheads are enough to destroy the entire human civilization and we have accumulated nearly a hundred thousand of them on the planet.

And there is no moral force acting against this… No outrage shown by the Church …or by religious leaders of any religion against this massive accumulation.

And this `Threat` will not reduce till conflicts and wars are over ..till Religion converges with Science… which will pave the way for all religions to converge into a single religion.

And that will not happen till the Scientists and Philosophers …not forgetting religious leaders, come together and arrive at a `World view` of reality which is acceptable to all.

And that common denominator in that `World view` can be none other than the concept of an `Infinite mind` coupled with Erwin Schrodinger`s idea of the `Oneness of mind` . Indeed there is only one mind …its just that consciousness is in the singular.

Who can object to it ?…

Which religion will not accept it ?

And then it provides us with `God` and `immortality` at one stroke.

And it leads us to this statement:

“ Its impossible to be aware that we are not aware…and equally impossible for us to be not aware that we are aware“…

and even if there are periods of unconsciousness..we will be unconscious of these unconscious tenures and they will pass quickly.

And why should we call this concept which is agreeable to all as `wishful thinking`?.

Science will one day establish this truth…but there is ample time for that..The universe though 13.7 billion years old is considered still in its infancy.

Let us first survive the danger zone ..the next few centuries… with this concept… and then we can resume .. in earnest…our search for the final truth with a capital

All in all ..this is a great article …all four parts…and presumably this subject will be at centre stage of discussions during the forthcoming `Scientists and Sages Symposium` to be held between August 16 and 18 where DC is the host.

It is hoped that the participants will use both hemispheres of the brains, and arrive at a consensus view during the symposium… a view that is by and large acceptable to all sections of society.

A large percentage of the World population still believes in an `Anthromorpic God`..While they are likely to accept the `all intelligent omnipresent mind` as their `God`.. it is unlikely they will be convinced if we tell them that there is `no God` and there is nothing that controls nature and that nature acts on its own…such a view is likely to be culturally very damaging to the psyche.

Direct evidence of `something` controlling nature will never be visible but it is plain to see that the probabilities that govern the motions of even the quantum particles evolve deterministically, as if connected with a classical world that can be perceived by our consciousness.

The view that has the best chance of acceptance is:

“There is `Something` out there that controls nature… We don`t have to call it `Someone`…One day Science will find out what that `Something` is.. Till such time (and even after that), we can call it `GOD`.

Can Black Holes Tell Us Something About Digital Computers?

admin — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:57:02 +0000

Responses to Mario Livio `s Blog …“Can Black Holes Tell Us Something About Digital Computers?“

(Posted: 01/08/2013 5:04 pm)

LAST TWO PARAS OF THE BLOG:

“In 1981, Bekenstein used that emerging field of black hole thermodynamics to propose an interesting new principle. He found that for any system that can be enclosed within a sphere of radius R, the ratio of the entropy of the system (expressed in the appropriate units) to its energy cannot exceed a certain value that is proportional to R. Remarkably, he then used this new limit to show that one can obtain an upper limit on the number of species of elementary particles — quarks, leptons, and neutrinos — which may exist. Specifically, he showed that a few analogous generations are permitted, but more than ten strain credulity.

Most amazingly, however, he demonstrated (by combining his thermodynamic limit with restrictions imposed by causality) that this same principle shows that an ideal(but non-parallel) digital computer cannot perform more than 1015 elementary arithmetical operations per second! Astonishing, isn’t it? The physics of black holes placing limits on the rate at which information can be transferred. Bekenstein’s work demonstrated yet again that even the most abstract concepts in physics can find unexpected applications in more familiar subjects.“

RESPONSES AND DISCUSSIONS:

(01) SKSagar:

Once again I have to say that we cannot come to a perfect understanding of these things without bringing in consciousness into the picture.

To begin with I have some questions to ask… But before I do that I reproduce here a question asked by Wigner to Wheeler + Wheeler`s reply during the 1979 Symposium held to celebrate Einstein`s one hundredth birth anniversary.

“WIGNER`S QUESTION: I have a question within physics that always bothers me in connection with the black hole, and it is this: The laws of relativity are time inversion invariant. As a result, it is clear that the same amount of information is contained after the black hole collapses as before. This is not evident because just as, even though the laws of physics are also time inversion invariant, thermodynamics shows that things come to equilibrium. But in that case we can see what it means. It means that the information that time reversal will push the system back into its original state is not relevant because we cannot reverse the velocity of every particle. Now the question is: what is a similar problem in the black hole situation? What does become uninteresting? Tell us, John“.

“WHEELER`S REPLY: One has to recognize right from the start that in all the theory of black hole physics that we do today we feed in the assumption about the direction of time — we do not deduce it. We put it in as an initial condition. We could perfectly well talk of holes that work the other way round, just as we could perfectly well talk of heat going from a cold teacup to a hot teacup. But it would violate all our understanding that it is initial conditions that count and not final conditions. And so, this one-sidedness we feed in as a generalization of our experience — not understanding, at least I don`t understand — why the world is built that way, with a one-sided initial condition.“

“WIGNER`S NEXT QUESTION: In thermodynamics we say, when deriving the law of entropy that the initial conditions are irregular except for those which are macroscopically constrained. Otherwise initial conditions are fully irregular. This is the basis of the increase of entropy. What is a similar postulate for the black hole?“

….And so on …and the dialogue continued.

My first question : Who is `WE` in Wheeler`s reply…`we` feed in the assumption…`we` do not deduce it…`we` put it in as initial condition…`we` could perfectly well have…etc.

In short `WHO` is it – in the literal sense – that is responsible for setting these initial conditions ?

Is it not `CONSCIOUSNESS` that does the trick ?

Before my second question lets discuss the second law of thermodynamics:

A glass on the edge of the table falls down and is broken into pieces…we say that `Disorder` (I use Boltzman`s term and not `entropy`) has increased towards increase in time….time cannot be reversed back in the sense that the pieces of glass on their own cannot reassemble and climb up back on the table.

The glass was in a state of `Order` while it was on the table and then it fell down and the `disorder` started increasing as per the second law.

Now consider the earlier state of the glass…While it was being manufactured in an industry…Obviously it was less orderly and the `disorder` kept changing till it was completely ready and placed on the table…

Now you might say the system itself was changed.

My second question : How is it that human beings – who are themselves part of nature, being made up of trillions of constituent parts such as atoms and molecules – can alter the state of the system from `closed` to `open` or `open to `close` as they like and thus alter entropy ? ..and that they do it without changing the direction of time.

In short is it not CONSCIOUSNESS that does the trick ?

Before the next question..lets discuss the direction of time.

Now the direction of time can not be changed – refer Part 2 – at least for the duration of this universe….

This was after all the initial condition established by The Consciousness (rather the Super consciousness that programmed and then switched on the big bang).

Even in the case of a big crunch the direction of time will not change…But first….Can there be a big crunch ?…

Let us look into the deep future… trillions of years deep…Current level of knowledge says that expansion will continue forever… That the dark energy will keep driving the universe towards perpetual nothingness.

But there is one scenario we need to consider….That after a great spell of time the Galaxies which while moving away from each other will get so far apart ..they will have no influence on each other…each will be like a universe in itself and matter density will be enough for gravity to overpower entropy ..and the galaxies will start collapsing on themselves towards their black holes at the centres…

Slow at first and gaining speed in course of time…It could still take billions of years. That could be the big crunch…. But the direction of time will still be positive towards future… The glass that falls from the table will still be moving towards disorder…it will still not be able to reassemble on its own and climb back on the table. Its just that the orbit of the solar system around the centre of the galaxy will start reducing….

Only near the end will the situation become critical and dangerous. …

But by then the degrees of consciousnesses of the beings of the stars and the intelligence levels would have increased a thousand fold (or maybe a miilliionfold…..what do I know), enough to come together and form a super consciousness and then in time feed in the constants and press the appropriate buttons and at least achieve a somewhat controlled explosion of the black hole.

In fact the final question asked by Wigner to Wheeler near the end of the dialogue was this:

WIGNER: 1`ll ask one more question, then I`ll shut up – is it possible to imagine the explosion of a black hole? I often think that the big bang was an explosion of a black hole. Is that nonsense?

WHEELER: Zel`dovich and Novikov proposed it some years ago – the idea that there are in addition to black holes, white holes. And that they should vomit forth matter the way a black hole sucks in matter.….

Of course Wheeler`s reply … in continuation.. was not encouraging towards that conclusion (that a black hole explosion could cause the big bang)… but than a Super consciousness a thousand times more intelligent will know what to do.

And so I come to my next question which is in fact similar to the first two:

Is it not CONSCIOUSNESS that does the trick….. And keeps doing all the time?

@Mario Livio…… Appreciate your article…..Looking forward for your response…..Best wishes

For the full conversation between Wigner and Wheeler …refer “Some Strangeness in the Proportion“…A centennial Syposium to celebrate the achievements of Albert Einstein….Edited by Harry Woolf… One of my favorite books.

( ref…Open Discussion following papers by J,A,Wheeler and F.Dyson…Chairman P.A.M.Dirac)

(02) Carlitos1327:

Once again I must caution you that just because the universe has many symmetries does not give rise to the notion that the universe is in fact a simulation.

(03) Daemon Process :

Very good Carlitos.

(04) SKSagar :

But the universe has many constants – extremely fine tuned – embedded into the laws the universe is following ..That caused theoretical physicists to arrive and then understand the universe …which gives rise to the notion that the universe is in fact a simulation.

(05) Charliefoxtrot999:

The idea of that the universe is a “simulation” is not even scientifically coherent.

Let us say that fine tuning of natural laws is proof that a universe which has those laws is a simulation.

The universe in which our universe is being simulated must be at least as mathematically powerful as the universe we reside in, because otherwise a simulation of our universe would not be possible. There are vastly more conceivable worlds which are less mathematically powerful than our world; therefore any world which can simulate our world must also be fine-tuned.

If the world that simulates our world is fine-tuned, then that is proof that it is ALSO a simulation. Therefore there is a third world which is simulating that one. By the above logic, that world must be simulated, and so on.

Therefore, by your logic, no universe is non-simulated, so there is no meaningful distinction between a simulated and a non-simulated universe.

In fact, a sufficiently powerful simulation is mathematically identical to the “real” thing, so the idea of a simulated, as opposed to non-simulated, universe is entirely incoherent.

(06) DiogenesOfAlaska:

It’s not that simple. If it were that simple, it would be easy to rule out the Cantor set.

btw whether something is coherent does not (NOT) depend on whether it is “scientifically” coherent. To the contrary: it is the job of science and expertise and education to make sure that at the very least “coherence” is not a property that needs to be judged by experts.

And given the Cantor set, that’s certainly not easy.

The difference between pathological and non-pathological arguments should not itself be subject to debate.

(07) charliefoxtrot999

We can rule out the cantor set…

AS AN OBJECT IN A PHYSICALLY REALIZABLE UNIVERSE.

But that’s beside the point. My argument was using reductio ad absurdum on the SPECIFIC argument used by the poster that fine tuning of laws somehow represented evidence of a PHYSICAL simulation of our universe in another universe. There’s a whole host of other, thornier philosophical arguments to be had about simulations in general.

I don’t think the idea of our universe being a simulation is coherent, but I should have phrased it better to avoid making it seem as if that was the intention of my argument, when the argument was merely that saying that fine-tuned laws was evidence that the universe was physically simulated in another universe was incoherent.

Such are the difficulties of communicating complex philosophical thoughts in limited-word comments on news articles.

(08)SKSagar:

Here we are talking `philosophy`…Neither can I say with a 100 % degree of certainty that the Universe is a simulation…nor can anyone say with a 100 % degree of certainty that it is not a simulation…

This universe though 13.7 billion years old is considered still in its infancy…The degrees of consciousnesses and the levels of intelligence are forever increasing and there will be ample time to know the truth regarding `simulation`.

For the time being lets consider the evidence available and then judge for ourselves what is the probability that the universe could in fact have been `simulated` …

And when we do that … When we study the evidences available…..When we look at these constants ..When we see how extremely fine tuned they are in such an extremely narrow range… And there are so many of them ..perhaps more than twenty..And each one of them has to be that finely tuned for the desired end results…. We will realize that the probability of the universe not a `simulated` one is just about as low – as someone said – As that of an aircraft getting assembled by a tornado striking a junkyard.

(09) charliefoxtrot999:

That’s not a good argument. All teleological arguments about the nature of the universe are no good.

The argument from fine-tuning which you are using makes the assumptions that:

A.) Natural Constants are 100% arbitrary (ie they could just as well have been any value, with intrinsic changes to our physics)

B.) Life of ANY KIND must be like ours and can only exist in “possible” worlds very close to ours.

C.) There is only one universe and it is this exact one we are in.

First, you blow C out of the water by making this an argument about simulation. If there’s another universe where we’re being simulated, maybe there is an infinite number of universes with slightly different laws. You have no reason to pick “simulation” over “unguided anthropic selection”. It’s a matter of choice. What we know is perfectly consistent with a multiverse generally inhospitable to life.

B, there are surely an infinite variety of information processing species possible in all of these infinite “possible” worlds, according to their physics. Basing your argument on the necessity of carbon-based Earth life is dumb.

A, we have no reason to assume the natural constants you think are “fine tuned” are arbitrary. For all we know they can be established mathematically from fundamental principles. Choosing to believe that they are arbitrary is, again, a choice, and a totally unscientific one.

The comment cut it off, so here’s a paper by physicist Victor Senger which rebuts all of your arguments:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Stenger-Is-the-Universe-Fine-Tuned-for-Us.pdf

(It’s focused on rebutting intelligent design, which is why it’s hosted on an atheism website, but all of the rebuttals work equally well for your arguments)

(10) SKSagar:

The required quantum of simulation is not that high… It is not that each and every activity is a consequence of that simulation… As Carlitos 1372 said it is somewhat of a notional simulation..

Only a computer programme was prepared and the mathematical constants provided as inputs by the designers….

But the designers had no control over `Randomness` `probability` and the `laws of causation`…

The designers could not say when and where life would emerge and then understand the universe…or when a civilization from planet `x` would conquer a civilization from planet`y`… or if Obama would win a certain election. One just presses a button and then see what happens….

This also explains all the imperfections in our World.

Its like when we press a button to cause a massive explosion in a crowded city.. We are sure the damage will be done…but we cannot say which buildings will be destroyed or precisely how many people will be killed

(11)charliefoxtrot999:

The “imperfections” of the world are a well-understood result of chaotic dependence on initial conditions and thermodynamic entropy. They don’t need a metaphysical explanation beyond that.

“It is not that each and every activity is a consequence of that

simulation…Only a computer programme was prepared and the mathematical constants provided as inputs by the designers….”

The problem is that you need some computational substrate for this simulation to exist in, so in fact every activity HAS to be a consequence of that simulation. What I mean is you can’t just say (to be flip) “Let there be light” and have a simulation of light appear; you have to have a system that can simulate it. That’s what a simulation IS. The point I’m making is that YOU seem to be implying that the simulation is a mechanism being controlled by designers. My argument is that the computational substrate could as easily be an abstract simulation in the realm of Platonic forms. All simulations of our universe would be equivalent mathematically, so there’s no need to assume more than necessary, like that there are intelligent designers behind its creation.

(12) SKSagar:

@Charliefoxtrot999…(I like the name)

With regard to your argument…`That the mere fact that there are those fine tuned constants embedded in nature is no evidence that the universe was `Physically` simulated by someone in another universe`…This indeed is a valid point….and here again we are talking philosophy… rather deep `philosophy`…. Neither can I say with a 100% degree of certainty that the `simulation` was actually a `Physical simulation` carried out by the Superconsciousness of the pre big bang universe…..nor can anyone say with a 100 % degree of certainty that the `simulation` happened on its own…ie by `Magic` or something.

Both alternatives require `carrying a quantum of metaphysical baggage` …Here I think It can be said… that in the former case ie `Super consciousness doing the trick`..its a finite quantum of metaphysical baggage that needs to be carried…whereas in the latter case ie `Magic doing the trick`…it looks like this quantum is enormously high .. perhaps infinite.

(Fanned for making the discussion so interesting)

This is a continuation of my initial responses…

Will come back again…to respond further

Best wishes

(12)charliefoxtrot999:

It is rather deep philosophy. I tend to side with Plato on the subject–specifically that the universe we live in is a partial representation of a perfect mathematical reality. Some might look at this and call it “simulation”, and that phrase has been used in Plato’s presence an awful lot.

However, my major point is that there’s a huge difference between the Platonic simulation (matter simulating form) and computational simulation (form simulating matter), which is what most people are talking about when they argue that the world is simulated.

Both have some concept they are modeling and some substrate they are using to model it with. Plato’s forms are pure mathematical ideas, and the substrate is matter–essentially, matter acts as the computer and the forms the software. A computational simulation (like the ancestor simulations some transhumanists talk about) has a pre-existing idea of reality as its model and some kind of computer as its substrate.

The huge difference here is that in the Platonic simulation, our physical reality is a byproduct of the simulation of forms. In the computational simulation, physical reality is the intended end-product, which brings into question where the physical reality being modeled comes from, and leads to infinite regress.

(Fanned back for keeping the discussion so civilized)

(13) DiogenesOfAlaska:

The argument in favor of our universe being a simulation is a different one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/11/physicists-may-have-evide_n_1957777.html?just_reloaded=1

Its core goes like this, and it’s perfectly plausible – as far as it goes:

“A long-proposed thought experiment, put forward by both philosophers and popular culture, points out that any civilization of sufficient size and intelligence would eventually create a simulation universe if such a thing were possible.

And since there would therefore be many more simulations (within simulations, within simulations) than real universes, it is therefore more likely than not that our world is artificial.”

It’s merely a challenge. Food for thought. But it’s also good enough to debunk the entirety of New Atheism in one paragraph.

I am SO sad that I didn’t come up with that paragraph. But at least I’m not denying it.

If you just take this idea and ask yourself: what would happen to folks living 5000 years ago when they came across something like it? What would they do?

Prove that the Continuum hypothesis is independent from the remaining axioms of Zermelo Frenkel set theory?

Or come up with a religious myth of the creation of the world by a superior intelligence?

And most importantly: which one of the two has better chances to survive for the number of millenia it takes so that somebody can tackle the foundations of mathematics – telling us that the answer is approximately 42.

(14)charliefoxtrot999:

Uh huh. You’re talking about ancestor simulations; the poster I was responding to was using a fine-tuning argument, so that’s what I focused on.

The problem with this idea is that we have very good reason to think that it is NOT possible to create such a simulation, except on a limited scale. That is to say that fundamental limitations (in our case the Bekenstein bound, which limits the amount of information that can exist in a volume of space, but also thermodynamic considerations, not to mention the economic impracticality of such an endeavor) would force our simulation to be limited compared to our universe–or, in other words, a simulation of the universe utilizing all the space and energy of that universe would BE that universe, and not a simulation.

Therefore, because all simulations are small, and nested ones even smaller, the original universe would be staggeringly large and contain the vast majority of people. This, I think, totally invalidates that argument.

(15) Diogenes of Alaska:

So you rely on the strong Leibniz principle and a rough estimate on sizes of abstractly possible universes in order to settle a metaphysical dispute that is at least as undecidable with finitist means as the fine structure of the Cantor set.

Some people are really brave around here.

(16)DiogenesOfAlaska ..reply to 09 of charliefoxtrot999:

re: “All teleological arguments about the nature of the universe are stupid.”

That’s a pretty strong claim given that the best theories about the nature of the universe are so far unable to reconcile the very small and the very big. Under those circumstances, who is to rule out the possibility that the only way to “round up” our understanding may even REQUIRE teleology? Or something similar, like “entelechy”?

Because you don’t like theology and metaphysics? Is that the reason why?

Then please explain to me the non-metaphysical documentation of this:

“A, we have no reason to assume the natural constants you think are “fine tuned” are arbitrary. For all we know they can be established mathematically from fundamental principles. Choosing to believe that they are arbitrary is, again, a choice, and a totally unscientific one.”

First of all, “we” clearly CANNOT establish mathematically from fundamental principles the constants of the Standard Model. But even assuming that “we” could, how would that be non-metaphysical and non-theological?

For all I can tell, you have NO way of ruling out that the answer will prove equivalent to some variant of “entelechy”. In fact, the only alternative seems to admit that theory will arrive at the limit of its wits. Or has already done so.

(17) charliefoxtrot999:

“…how would that be non-metaphysical and non-theological?”

You’re using a strawman here. There’s nothing inherently theological about mathematics.

As for metaphysics, when you’re talking about the mathematical underpinnings of nature you’re talking about something INHERENTLY metaphysical. I’m not sure what your issue is here.

Teleological arguments are not good evidence of intelligent design. You can only ascribe them to intelligence when you’ve either

A.) Given some other persuasive evidence that an intelligence could exist (we have no evidence either way at this point)

B.) Proven that no other argument suffices to explain a phenomenon

In either case you need much more persuasive arguments to support the teleological one.

As for unguided teleology, like the strong anthropic principle, you still need evidence of some unguided mechanism which can be selected for the desired outcome. Your argument may be true but it needs a lot of evidence.

So simply from the basis of logic, teleology should be avoided in science unless absolutely necessary. You’re right that it may be true, but it’s probably not.

As for establishing constants from first principles, we’ve done that already with some constants. Pi, for example, began as an observed phenomenon–every time we measured circles we got the same answer. But the value of pie arises essentially from the nature of euclidian space–it couldn’t be any other value. That’s the kind of thing I suspect we’ll find about the “fine-tuned” constants.

(18) DiogenesOfAlaska :

It’s very refreshing that you’re not worried about metaphysics at all. Very rare too in these forums. And you clearly don’t seem to be materialist either. We can quickly agree that indeed there is something inherently metaphysical about the role of mathematics in all sufficiently rich models of nature.

Whether that makes mathematics theological or not is another question. There are guesses and opinions though. For example, a famous Bourbakist once said that “We know that god must exist because mathematics is consistent, and we know that the devil must exist because we cannot prove it”.

I didn’t defend Intelligent Design (in the sense of the movement) and never will. Teleology and even Creationism is something else. What I claim is you can’t prove them inconsistent. Not with the means you need to assume when you believe in a unified theory of the universe, and not without those means. Hence never, no matter what.

Your optimism with respect to the mathematical meaning of the constants of the Standard Model is breath-taking, and on certain days I would like to share that optimism.

But then I watch the movie “Pi” and recall that numerology isn’t science…

(19)Carlitos1327:

There is also a theory called “the anthropic principle”, that speaks to the universe as we see it.

You are absolutely correct that “simulation” is nothing more than a notion.

(20)Diogenes of Alaska … Reply in general to sksagar):

You’re making very interesting points. But trying to answer too many things at once invariably leads to a lack of precision. And ultimately, the assumption that there must be a way of making all of this stuff clear may not be warranted. I agree that we cannot rule out the idealist view that traces everything back to consciousness. But historically, such attempts have always resulted in worldviews that lacked in resilience.

Scientism is merely the other extreme and doesn’t work either. But the core problem is the lack of resilience. To avoid that problem, help only comes from pragmatism. And that means, among other things, accepting that we may not be able to figure it all out.

Nor do we need to.

(21)SKSagar:

“help only comes from pragmatism. And that means, among other things, accepting that we may not be able to figure it all out.“

I already said that we may not be able to figure it all out…for a long long time…But as the degrees of consciousnesses and levels of intelligence keep increasing with time ….We will keep getting closer and closer to that – figuring it all out – stage.

“Nor do we need to“

Do we need to play football…watch movies…eat out etc.

We find it interesting and we do it for fun….

Besides philosophical discussions (not limited to the `simulation` issue) will forever remain a continuous process …forever moving towards a `World view` acceptable to people of all countries and all religions.

S(22) SKSagar ….In continuation of 01:

(In a lighter vein)

@ Diogenes of Alaska..charliefoxtrot999..carlitos1372.. and @Mario livio (if interested)…..

Continuing the discussion on `Simulation issues`…In the broadest sense (or nonsense), there are only two players playing this game of `Reality`, and their names are : 1) `Matter and energy` hereinafter denoted by the symbol `MAE` ..and 2) `Mind and consciousness` call it `MAC`

Now there are two alternatives:

ALTERNATIVE 1:

MAE is the primary player and responsible for the occasional appearances of MAC at various locations and times, whenever – and wherever – it has `randomly` created a certain biochemistry for MAC to arrive.

In this alternative … there is no such thing as an anthropic principle and `Randomness` is supreme and the kind of life which is commensurate with the constants provided (also chosen randomly) materializes. This alternative does not explain how and from where does `Intelligence` arrive on the scene. Perhaps it is an extremely rare commodity.. and also perhaps the quantum of intelligence is extremely limited…certainly not enough to prevent itself from self destruction, and definitely not enough to avoid getting obliterated by a major Asteroid hit.

Also in this alternative, the universe in the deep future – with the kind help of dark energy ( a major part of MAE) – will proceed towards nothingness…and that’s it.

No more universes – in that universe – , no more MAE, let alone MAC.

Or if the galaxies in that universe at some time in the future start collapsing on themselves towards their black holes (ref 01)…perhaps new smaller universes will be created after the ensuing explosions …Randomness will still be supreme and randomly selected `funny` constants will determine what type of MACs will appear.

Lives will be rare in this alternative, intelligent lives even rarer and whatever lives are there will be constantly killing and eating each other in an everlasting strife.

If a choice is given to me I am not going to come back in this sort of universe.

Now compare this with Alternative 2 where MAC is the primary player but has complete control over MAE.

Of course Randomness will be prominent in this alternative also, and so there will be some Hitler`s too.

I can`t help it ..it is programmed that way.

But its nice…sometimes not so nice.

In this alternative you could call MAC as `Mathemetics` who gives orders and call MAE as Physics who follows these orders.

Indeed `Mathemetics` is the President and the company is called `The Universe`

Laws such as `Quantum entanglement` where `Mathemetics`has played such a trick that it permits entanglement but does not permit information to be sent faster than at speed of light.

I should go as far as to say that `Randomeness` is the Vice President.

Who knows when – in the deep future – when dark energy drives the universe into perpetual nothingness… what will that energy get converted into…perhaps not into void …

In this alternative…good sense may prevail …Science and religion may converge.. Conflicts of the world may be resolved.. rise of population may be reversed… self destruction avoided.

And in this alternative… If an Asteroid is on course to hit us… Scientists may come up with a solution that saves us from a collision.

(23) DiogenesOfAlaska:

alright. I see. Pretty cool.

I was just a little worried that maybe you weren’t aware of the fact that speculative thought needs some constraints too.

Although I’m not entirely sure what exactly it would mean to “agree” with your point of view, I’m basically open to it. It might be the truth. But as I said, most of the time I prefer to act and think in contexts where it’s just a little bit easier to tell whether or not I have a firm grip on the totality of propositions entailed by what I put forward (aka; knowing the truth, according to Tarski).

Which, together with the fact that it’s an impossible feat, is the daily bread of the comedian and of the mathematician?

But of course I would never go as far as claiming that this makes me a “mathemetician”.

It sure is good enough to link rational thought to “memetics”.

(24) SKSagar:

Great….. Di

Hope you are still there and hoping Cf 999 also joins the discussion.

Yes I am aware that speculative thought needs some constraints…and the biggest constraint is that the truths already established by Science must not be violated…and I am trying my best to follow this principle.

I have read your conversations with Cf (in response to some of my comments… with deep interest…it was nothing short of spellbinding.

Cf indeed has some valid objections to `Physical simulation by intelligent designers` …such as …1) Some computational substrate is required for the `simulation` to exist in, and that this computational substrate could as easily be an abstract simulation in the realm of platonic forms, and 2) It is not possible to create a `simulation` except on a limited scale, a simulation of the universe utilizing all the space and energy of that universe would BE that universe, and not a simulation.

At the current level of knowledge it is difficult to give a satisfactory reply to counter these objections without recourse to some metaphysics or `Teleology` …(your views on `teleology/entelechy`..interesting and insightful..ref 6:01am 1/13/2013)

But then the current level of knowledge is indeed insignificant compared to what it would be a few thousand years from now.

In about some hundred thousand years we have become Men from apes..it is reasonable to assume that after a similar time gap… or even less…we would become `Super minds`…and then these problems of understanding `simulation` would not be insurmountable… and what looks like teleology could be nicely explained by Science then.

I have discussed many such possible scenarios…of `Physical simulations` in response to many earlier blogs…A large scale ( full universe level) `simulation` carried out by the ultimate `superconsciousness` is a possibility that in no case can be ruled out. Erwin Schrodinger`s (And Charles Sherrington`s) concept of the `Oneness of mind` together with a distinct possibility of the intelligent mind`s omnipresence …can lead towards the hypothesis of a Superconscious designer doing the `simulation`….Perhaps it may not be `nonsense` to consider `Intelligence` to be a compound…How can we – with our limited knowledge – deny this.

Perhaps the `Omni present `mind` or `something` could also explain `quantum entanglement`….not to mention `collapse of the wave function`

Or perhaps…..I am out of my mind

(25) DiogenesOfAlaska:

re: objections to physical simulations

Let me admit that I don’t believe at all in physical simulations of universes – and I don’t think I ever claimed something else.

Also I don’t believe in extrapolating future knowledge, or possible future knowledge.

The use of the thought experiment is that it elucidates aspects of our own evolution of understanding. I don’t think it can help us find out something new about the world.

Sometimes it can be ok to violate “truths already established by Science”. But usually this requires the use of means that are extremely difficult to keep under control. To wit: the reason why some “truths already established by Science” may turn out to be false is because those who established them were already in the same situation and didn’t control enough of the consequences of their new approach, but nobody found out so far.

It’s been like that for quite a while now. And to get beyond that dance (which is probably impossible) may require teleology or entelechy. But it’s also possible that humans cannot include that mode of thought within a scientific worldview.

Which means that pragmatism may always remain one step ahead of theory. Why sacrifice the open-ness of the scientific process for the sake of the appearance of more comprehensive theory? The price is that the scientific worldview remains incomplete. But that’s not a problem, as long as we don’t expect from a scientific worldview what religion and philosophy promised but couldn’t deliver.

As I said, we cannot rule out these scenarios (or some version of them). But that doesn’t mean we can support them with evidence. It still means something that they can be made with some consistency: it means it’s not surprising that people have come up with the notion and concept of a transcendent mind. There’s nothing in these thoughts that violates science, or at least there is a way of rendering these thoughts that doesn’t violate science.

(26) SKSagar:

And in conclusion….

Perhaps Intelligence `is` a compound…Its in the air……its omni present….

Correlate this with the double slit experiment….the electron too is intelligent….it is aware when it is under observation or not …and does what it is expected to do.

This has been an unforgettable experience..Thanks to you Di…and Cf…Wish ML had joined the discussion…maybe he did`nt do so as we deviated somewhat from the main track of the blog.

Looking forward to future interactions.

Is Life an Illusion?

admin — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:56:02 +0000

RESPONSE TO THE SETH SHOSTAK BLOG …“Is Life an Illusion?“ On Huffington post(Posted: 10/10/2014)

AN EXTRACT FROM THE BLOG:

“Do you ever wonder about the meaning of life, and in particular your life? Well, of course you do, but maybe you should ease up on the angst. There are academics who say you don’t have a life. You’re just an app.This disconcerting idea has been most famously promoted by Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University. It goes like this: Everyone knows that historically, as computers became more powerful, programmers started making simulations — mimicking real-life situations in software. Scientists modeled everything from pandemics to planet formation. Soon complex and compelling societal models such as Will Wright’s SimEarth and its brethren emerged.

The characters in such sims were not very clever — they didn’t think. They simply reacted to your keyboard strokes or joystick moves with algorithmic behavior.

But now consider what might happen a few hundred years down the pike, when a simulation can be populated by avatars with advanced artificial intelligence. The characters can act in their own interests, and transcend the hard-wired intentions of the programmer. Presumably, at some level of complexity they become self-aware.“

RESPONSE :

I am inclined to appreciate the blog….This could be a simulated universe.

As someone ( Seth Lloyd ) said : “The very first information processing revolution, from which all other revolutions stem, began with the beginning of the universe itself. The big bang at the beginning of time consisted of huge number of elementary particles, colliding at temperatures of billions of degrees. Each of these particles carried with it bits of information, and every time two particles bounced off each other, those bits were transformed and processed. The big bang was a bit bang“

With regard to the Big Bang… one of the these explanations must hold good: Either it was an `Act of God` or an `Act of Simulation`. Perhaps both are true… provided we assume that the `God` in question is not an Anthromorphic `physical function` God. In what form can the God be, such that it is acceptable to one and all…to believers as well as atheists … and does not violate the established principles of Science ? The best bet I think is an all pervading `Intelligent Field`… or the omnipresent `Infinite Mind` …omnipresent in space as well as time.

As someone (Paul Davies) said : “Whatever their difference of opinion about the nature of God, I know of no religion that does not teach that God is a Mind“

So, It looks like there is some sort of an all pervading “INTELLIGENT FIELD` (I.F.) that controls nature. This `IF` is also the link between Quantum Physics and Classical Physics.You might think I am just replacing `Acts of God` with this `IF` But that is not the case. I believe the `IF` has evolved over the years and still evolving.

But there is nothing disconcerting about the idea that the universe might be a simulated universe. We need not worry …if the idea that this is a simulated universe …implies that we are just `apps` and there is nothing special about us or that we have no free will. For, the realization having manifested itself that we are not special could imply that in some ways we are indeed special for the simple reason that such a realization that we are not special has manifested itself……And the fact that NOW the said realization has manifested itself that we are indeed in some ways special or at least among those who are special, leads us to another realization….That we are not `SO SPECIAL` that a divine universal force will arrive to save us from extinction….but `SPECIAL ENOUGH ` to have been granted the realization (perhaps by the divine universal force) …..That it is up to us to create certain probabilities on the planet Earth that can enable us to survive from self destruction. It’s the same thing with `Free will`. In essence we do not have free will…for it’s the interactions of the world on us that make us what we are. But the realization has manifested itself on us – due to these interactions – that we do not have free will, implies that NOW we have the free will to do what we like to do…. And maybe improve our future interactions.

I am currently reading “Information and the nature of reality…edited by Paul Davies and N.H.Gregerson“ …a book of far reaching significance in respect of understanding the subject, and here my explanation is interspersed with some passages from the book.

“I could draw you a map of all the tens of thousands of components in a single celled organism and put all the proper arrows connecting them (and even then) I or anybody else would look at that map and have absolutely no ability whatsoever to predict anything“ …. …. By Jesper Hoffmeyer ( from the chapter on `Semiotic Freedom: An Emerging Force)

But when we consider the cell as a whole…such as a single celled paramecium.. as it swims toward food we can very well predict that there is a very good probability that enroute it will retreat from danger, negotiate obstacles, and achieve its goal. What can be the explanation for this ?

Now consider the `information` carried by DNA molecules.

“The code does provide a program for constructing an organism, but no person has constructed it and no consciousness needs to understand and apply the program. It has originated by ordinary evolutionary processes, and like a computer programme, it operates without the need for conscious interpretation“ … … By Keith Ward (from the chapter on `God As The ultimate Informational Principle`).

One can of course argue that consciousness is just a random by product of the evolutionary process. But where does the `Intelligence` come from that determines the code that provides a program for constructing that organism?. What can be the explanation for this ?

Indeed we need a cosmic holistic explanation, in which the development of the parts is explained by their contribution to the existence of an integrated totality.

From the same chapter : … “ Taken together these considerations suggest the idea of a primordial consciousness that is ontologically prior to all physical realities, that contain the coded information for constructing any possible Universe, and that can apprehend and appreciate any physical universe that exists. It would certainly be a strong reason for creating a universe that might contain finite consciousness, that could share in appreciating, and even in creating some of the distinctive values potential in the basic structure of the universe. Whether or not one calls such a primordial consciousness `GOD` is partly a matter of taste.“

But of course …an Anthromorphic God … made up of atoms and molecules is too primitive and sentimental to be of any use. No harm will be done to our psyche …or our ego… if we call this `primordial consciousness` as an `Intelligent Field` or may be an `Infinite mind`.

And as I said earlier the Intelligent field evolved over the years and is still evolving. The question may be asked : Is `IF` itself a product of simulation which then simulates the universe?.

I would say:

`Yes, It is simulated … and then it simulates …i s simulated … and then it simulates … and it goes on and on … step by step … trillions and trillions of intermediate steps, through trillions of years and countless eons of the universe. It could be that we the human beings are an intermediate step. And with each simulation the complexities increase. It must have been very very very simple in the very very very beginning.`

Could it be that the very first simulation was just a `thought`.

And when we calculate the ratio `Matter : Void`… as one in several trillion trillion trillion ( Average quantum of matter in the universe is equivalent to about 4 atoms per cubic.m of space and that includes dark matter, and the atom itself is mostly void with its nucleus like a grain of sand in a huge auditorium).

Can we not say that …“It is still a thought“.

In short …can we indeed ask the question ..

`Is life an illusion ?`

Dark Energy Explained

admin — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:55:21 +0000

Interactions with Louis.A.Del.Monte in response to his blog entitled “Dark Energy Explained — A New Theory“ On Huffingtonpost

(Posted: 03/11/2013)

THE BLOG IN FULL :

“Our scientific view of the universe is in a state of upheaval. Just look at the last 89 years:

In 1924, Edwin Hubble, using the 100-inch Hooker Telescope at the Mount Wilson Observatory, discovers the Andromeda galaxy, a sister galaxy similar to our own Milky Way galaxy. This shatters a long-held belief that the entire universe consists of only the Milky Way. Today, we know our universe contains billions of galaxies.
In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovers the universe is expanding. This shatters another widely held belief that the universe is static, not changing. Einstein, in the wake of Hubble’s discovery, must discard his “cosmological constant.” Einstein arbitrarily introduced the cosmological constant into the equations of general relativity to force them to predict a static universe. Einstein terms the cosmological constant “his greatest blunder.”
In 1998, three scientists — Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, and Adam G. Riess — measure the rate of expansion, expecting to find that gravity is causing it to slow down. To the scientific world’s astonishment, they discover the universe’s expansion is accelerating. This shatters the “big crunch” theory, namely that gravity would eventually slow down the expanding universe, and pull everything back together in a big crunch. This discovery results in the three scientists receiving the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.

The scientific community believes that a strong negative pressure (acting repulsively), “dark energy,” is causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, the fundamental nature of dark energy remains elusive. To compound the mystery, the galaxies furthest from us are accelerating away the fastest, some even faster than the speed of light.

In October 2012, I published my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, available online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. In my book, I put forward a new theory that explains both the fundamental cause of time dilation and accelerating universe. I name the theory “The Existence Equation Conjecture.”

What is the Existence Equation Conjecture? It is a mathematical equation I derived using Einstein’s special theory of relativity and Minkowski space-time coordinates. It delineates the energy required for a mass to move in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space. Unfortunately, this sounds more like science fiction than science fact. In addition, all the scientific jargon tends to confuse the explanation. Rather than going through the derivation and experimental verification, which are in the appendices of my book, let me just get to the punch line. Here is the Existence Equation Conjecture:

KEX4 = -.3mc2

Where KEX4 is the kinetic energy associated with an object’s movement in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space, m is the rest mass of an object, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.

What does all this mean? The interpretation is speculative. With this caveat, I interpret the equation to imply that a mass requires energy to move in the fourth dimension of Minkowski space. Although, Einstein never called the fourth dimension time, it includes a time component, and I interpret the mass’ movement in the fourth dimension to equate to its existence. The equation is dimensionally correct (expressible in units of energy), but highly unusual from two standpoints. First, the kinetic energy is negative, which suggests a mass requires energy to move in the fourth dimension. Second, the amount of negative kinetic energy suggested by the equation is enormous. Although, the equation’s roots extend to special relativity, and it correlates well with experimental time dilation data, I termed it a conjecture. It requires further peer review and additional experimental verification.

If the Existence Equation Conjecture actually models the energy a mass needs to exist, how does this explain the accelerating universe? If correct, the amount of energy required for existence is enormous, and it has to come from somewhere. I looked at a number of potential candidates. In the end, I concluded the most likely candidate is the vacuum of space. We know from our experiments with vacuums in the laboratory that vacuums contain energy. An example of this is virtual particle production, which gives rise to the Casimir effect, where two closely spaced electrically neutral plates are pushed together in a vacuum. Although counter intuitive, a laundry list of effects demonstrates vacuums contain energy.

If we think of galaxies as masses, we can postulate to exist they are removing energy from the vacuums that surround them. We know from Einstein’s famous mass energy equivalence (E = mc2), that removing energy is equivalent to removing mass. This suggests that as the mass/energy density decreases, the gravitational attraction within the vacuum decreases, which in turn causes the vacuum to expand.

This still leaves two questions:

Why are the galaxies furthest from us moving away the fastest? My thoughts: Those galaxies are the oldest. Therefore, they have removed more energy from the vacuums that surround them, causing the vacuums to expand faster than the speed of light. There is no physical law that prohibits space expanding faster than the speed of light.
Why doesn’t the space inside a galaxy expand? My thoughts: A galaxy contains dark matter, which acts as glue, and allows a galaxy to act like a single mass.

I recognize it is a speculative theory, but it has roots grounded in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, Minkowski space-time coordinates, and experimental time dilation data. It fits all the observed data, and it does not violate any physical laws. Please feel free to visit my blog to share your thoughts with me. “

DISCUSSIONS:

SKSagar:

In short …you have used the Minkowski`s space to take out the `Relativity` from Einstein`s special theory of relativity and given us an absolute picture with an `equation`.

And in this equation you have used a constant and given it a precise value …viz `0.3`…Is this in order?..Or should you have used a constant `a` and indicated `perhaps its value is 0.3`.

The concept of `vacuum energy` acting as `dark energy` that drives the expansion of the universe is interesting.

Roger Penrose has discussed this subject in great elaboration in his latest book `Cycles of time (What came before the big bang)` .. I am currently reading this book…Its complex and I will need some time before I get some sort of grip on his concepts.

You have accepted that you are `Speculating` and that your conjectures require a Peer review. I doubt if there exists a `Peer` who has a thorough (or even a reasonably good) understanding of the subject.

If at all there are a few such people in this category….then I think Roger Penrose is one of them. I suggest you should read his book … and may be write another article /blog …and then we (including some very learned commenters on this thread ) can have a discussion on the subject .

Meanwhile I have a few questions….

You have indicated that Dark Matter is within the galaxy and forms a sort of glue making the galaxy as one mass.. and that dark energy (or vacuum energy) is surrounding the galaxy …is expanding and carrying/driving the galaxy away.

Is there a dividing (imaginary and invisible of course ) surface that seperates the galaxy from its `outsides` ?…Is there a friction between the two ? … Is there no dark energy (vacuum energy) within the galaxy ?

LouisDelMonte:

Dark matter is concentrated within and around galaxies. There is no dark matter between galaxies. There is no sharp dividing line that seperates the dark matter within and around a galaxy from the rest of space. I hope this addresses your questions.

SKSagar :

Yes of course…..But there are contradictions…..And this is what we call `Maya`

Thanks anyway

SKSagar:

PART 2 :

In Continuation of earlier comment:

“There is no physical law that `prohibits` space expanding faster than the speed of light“

And there is none that `permits` space expanding faster than light.

Lets talk `inflation`…the cosmological one..

Was it the `vacuum energy` that caused a rapid increase in the size of a certain scale factor ?

“The inflation of the scale factor meant that a small, smooth spatial region of the universe expanded exponentially to encompasse a volume that would grow to become larger `TODAY` then the size of the observable universe. In the process of expansion, the spatial geometry became flat“….Ref `New Physics`..edited by Gorden Fraser.

Now I have these books… about twenty of them… in front of me…including the one referred above + `The cycles of time` …by Roger Penrose… + your blog + my views in response to several blogs on the important role of consciousness + the concept that the universe is a designed ( even simulated ) one …and let us discuss `threadbare` as well as with wide open minds.

At First let me put all the cards on the table….ie all the complications and the complexities that need to be addressed with each one of the various concepts proposed by the various Scientists (or Engineers ..whatever) :

1) INFLATION : Consider the word `TODAY` in Gorden Fraser`s Para(actually the para is by W.L.Freedman and E.W.Kolb)…

PART 3:

For us on the Planet Earth `TODAY` corresponds to about 13.7 billion years since the big bang and we say with our highly advanced — and at the same time highly limited – understanding of the subject…that sometime during the first second (between 10^ – 36 secs and 10^- 32 secs to be precise), after time zero of the big bang, the universe inflated to a size (Radius) of 10^`z` metres…where `z` is about 28.

Now imagine someone living on a certain planet orbiting a certain star in a certain galaxy which is about 12.3 billion light years away…consider that I am looking at him now…its obvious that his universe is only about 1.4 billion years old….For that someone .. if he or she is writing a book on Cosmology…`TODAY` corresponds to only 1.4 billion years since the big bang..and in his description of `Inflation` `z` will not be 28 ..rather it will be closer to 27.

In the same way…for someone ahead of us in the deep future..`z` will be greater than 28.

What then was the true extent of the inflation with regard to the volume encompassed?….Was Einstein`s special relativity actually violated by the `entities` that travelled with the `inflation`?…

PART 4 :

Or can we say that `special relativity – in respect of giving an upper limit to speed of light – ` is not violated, in the same way as in Quantum entanglement when we said that entanglement takes place instantaneously but no information can be sent faster than at speed of light ?…

Or is this value of `z` a measure of the consciousness of an observer as well as a measure of his coordinates in time and space at the time of his observation ?….

Or is the concept of `Inflation` itself is misconceived?… and should we now look at some other explanation for the homogeneity of the universe ?

Or can we say that `There is indeed a physical law that `prohibits` space expanding faster than the speed of light`?

(to be continued after a time gap)

LouisDelMonte:

Hi SKSagar,

You have raised many excellent questions. It will be difficult to answer all of them, but here is my view.

First, two points:

1) Most of the scientific community agrees that there was an early inflation of the universe, consistent with its enormous size (observable part is about 93 billion light years in diameter) versus its age (about 13.7 billion years).

2) The scientific community agrees a mass (or energy) cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum.

Based on the above, we have only two alternatives.

1)The laws of special relativity did not apply in the early universe, or

2)It was space that inflated faster than the speed of light.

No one really knows the answer. My judgment is that space expanded faster than the speed of light. This judgment is consistent with the accelerating universe we observe today, which my blog post addresses.

Louis A. Del Monte

SKSagar :

PART 5:

Clubbing this part …with a reply to your above response :

2) THE BIG BANG :

For all practical purposes the big bang with all the activities associated with it – including inflation – is still in a state of superposition.

Its wave function has not been collapsed as yet. Will it be collapsed any time in the future…I should think so… If it really was such a stupendous show – as it is made out to be by all and sundry – it could not remain a performance to empty stalls. The designers must have made sure that in course of time it will be witnessed by the consciousness of the observers of the future.

But it has not been observed so far.

So when you say that the size of the observable universe is about 93 billion light years in diameter…what exactly is implied? …Does it mean we can observe regions which are say 20 billion light years away…which means we can look back 20 billion years into the past…and enroute somewhere we can pierce thru the big bang itself.

…Surely the capacity of telescopes could not have been a constraint…we have observed Supernovas that happened billions of years back in much detail ..why not a few percentage point extra capacity and the big bang should have been observed clearly considering the enormity of its magnitude.

But the truth is.. it is not observed so far.

What then is the explanation?..

PART 6:

What then can be the explanation ?….Perhaps:

a) The size of the observable universe is limited to the age of the universe in terms of light years which works out as about 10^28 metres radius.

b) Beyond this we cannot see no matter how great may be the capacity of our telescopes…as that would mean going back into time beyond `Time zero` into a different universe altogether or may be to a previous aeon of our own universe ….or maybe the main show of the big bang took place in a black hole from which light could not escape at all.

c) Or maybe the big bang was caused by some sort of a phase transition in the last stages of the previous aeon of our universe. This required a huge violation of the second law of thermodynamics in bringing about a comprehensive change in entropy from an infinitely high level to a near zero level. Perhaps the Superconsciuosness of the previous aeon played a part in this transformation.

d) Perhaps the massless photons of the last stages of the previous aeon were not getting bored at all …they were always upto something …getting together and forming a `Superconsciousness`..designing the new universe with brand new and refined constants and then switching on the big bang.

LouisDelMonte :

To answer your question regarding the observable universe: “In Big Bang cosmology, the observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can, in principle, be observed from Earth in the present day—because light (or other signals) from those objects has had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of the cosmological expansion.”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe)

The Big Bang is the most accepted theory of the evolution of our universe. It has some problems, which I discuss in my book. However, it is not in a state of “superposition.” It is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Louis A. Del Monte

SKSagar :

PART 7 :

Continued from Part 6 …and the responses.

@ Louis A Del Monte….appreciate your prompt responses to the commenters.

You are abs right ..the big bang and inflation cosmology is very well understood and accepted by the Scientific community …but it has not been physically observed – through a telescope that can look at a region 13.7 billion light years away – nor adequately explained so far…As for inflation, it cannot be tested as the energies involved are too high and well beyond the experimental reach of our accelerators.

When I say `The big bang` has not been adequately explained…it is implied that an appropriate ` PHYSICAL CAUSE` has not been determined ( which is by and large acceptable to the scientific community) so far, of which the `EFFECT` is precisely what happened at all the various stages of the big bang …not just the first second of it.

And that `physical cause` Even if it happened just Plank time before the Previous Aeon ended, must not violate any law of Science..and it is further assumed that all the laws of Science which are applicable in the present universe were also applicable in the previous Aeon.

Now what can be that possible `Physical cause` that explains it ?

What can be that `Hidden variable`?

Lets ask Eugene Wigner..

(to be continued)

SKSagar:

PART 8 :

1) CONSCIOUSNESS:

Lets ask Eugene Wigner..then John Wheeler…Then Rene Descartes…and then Erwin Schrodinger..and put all the cards on the table and see what Consciousness and finally Super consciousness can do to `switch off`one Aeon of the universe and simultaneously `switch on` another :

Eugene Wigner`s philosophy: It is the consciousness of the mind itself that acts as a hidden variable that explains the collapse of wave (phenomena).

In Wigner`s own words:

“…the result of an observation modifies the wave function of a system. The modified wave function is, furthermore, in general, unpredictable before the impression gained at the interaction has entered our consciousness: it is the entering of an impression into our consciousness which alters the wave function because it modifies our appraisal of the possibilities of different impressions which we expect to receive in the future. It is at this point that the consciousness enters the theory unavoidably and unalterably.“

John Wheeler goes one step further and feels the consciousnesses of the future can even collapse the wave functions of the past…vide his concept of the `Self excited circuit`…which in turn is deducted from his `Delayed choice thought experiment`

(Though I am an ardent fan of John Wheeler…I think this one is a bit too far fetched…and difficult to comprehend…But this is a queer universe and anything is possible )

(to be continued)

LouisDelMonte :

Thank you for your comments. Again, you raise extremely insightful questions, and make excellent points. I’d like to add three points to your post.

First, there is no accepted theory as to what caused the Big Bang. I have put forth a hypothesis in my book, “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries,” and discuss it on my YouTube channel video “The Big Bang Duality Theory” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWublgzpxdk. There are several foundation videos prior to the one abovdiscuss the fine points.

Second, we do not know what scientific laws applied at the energy levels associated with the Big Bang. As you pointed out, we are unable to duplicate those energy levels with today’s science.

Third, I discuss the problems with the Big Bang theory in my book and on my YouTube channel. The major issues are the initial inflation of the early universe and the almost complete absence of antimatter in the universe. I also discuss these issues in my book, and on my YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/LouisDelMonte/videos.

As a note: Eugene Wigner was a chemical engineer, Nobel Prize recipient in Physics, and made numerous significant contributions to physics and mathematics.

SKSagar

PART 9:

Thank you Louis…I`ll come back for discussions after I am done with the remaining parts..Probably not more than 12…

Placing of the cards continued…

Rene Descartes` views :

“The mind is coupled to the body through the brain, which it uses (via the bodily senses) to acquire and store information about the world. It also uses the brain as a means to exercise its volitions, by interacting

on the world. An important feature of this picture is that the mind is a thing; perhaps even more specifically, a substance. Not a physical substance, but a tenuous, elusive, aetherial sort of substance, It is neither perceptible by the senses nor extended in space; it is intelligent and purposive and its essential characteristic is thought or rather CONSCIOUSNESS“

Erwin Schrodinger`s views ( including those of Charles Sherrington):

There is only one mind…But our consciousness is always in the singular…Now consider the billions of cells inside us…each one of which is a unit life in itself..and the awareness of each one of them is in the singular…But we the human beings are conscious of the sum total of those awarenesses….so there is a distinct possibility that there may `ultimately` be a cosmic consciousness which is in the plural and contains the sum total of all the consciousnesses of the universe.

This leads towards consideration of the equation of the Upanishads :

ATMAN = BRAHMAN

(to be continued)

SKSagar

@ Louis A Del Monte…

Agree with the points made.

Regarding Absence of antimatter…In my view this is a consequence of, one of the constants of nature provided at the time of programming by the Superconsciousness …viz ` That at the time of the big bang, One in about 30 million Quarks would not find its Anti quark, and thus escape annihilation…which means all the matter available in the universe is made up of this surplus number of quarks…and it also ensures absence of anti quarks.

If this ratio had been higher – than one in about thirty million – matter density would have been higher and may not have permitted expansion of the universe.

Regarding Inflation…this can be dispensed with …by assuming that the previous Aeon ended with a size that permits Homogeneity..and by considering that the big bang was a phase transition that converted `something` into `temperature, radiation, energy , etc, whatever it was that came with the big bang.

All that remains to be answered is… what was that `something` ?

What do you and I know ?…

But that Super consciousness knew…..perhaps it was `itself`…

Perhaps I am wrong.

I have completed all 12 parts followed by a concluding thought.

And I am posting them …separately….

We can discuss…. if you like…. But if it is late (out of sight of the readers)..its ok if we stop here…It has been a great experience interacting with you.

Appreciate your blog …above all your open mind..…Thanks and best wishes

…

SKSagar

PART 10 of 12 :

(in continuation)

Is it not mind boggling that this equation was conceived by the philosophers of the ancient past by intuition alone with no knowledge of Quantum physics, Einstein`s Relativity, or even Newton`s laws…

And we (some of us at least) of the 20th/21st century are in a position to talk about this equation, with the current level of our knowledge ..and place it `very much`in the domain of possibility.

And surely the super minds of the future …say hundred thousand years hence …will have enough knowledge at their disposal to validate (with some modification if necessary ) the equation…even by experiment and observation.

Will come back to this equation….

But now, I must place the other category cards on the table… viz The many widely accepted Scientific theories that predict the dark energy to lead the universe towards perpetual nothingness…no energy…no light…. no life….no warmth.. nothing but perpetual and irrevocable stagnation with massless photons and gravitons doing nothing at all – except getting bored.

And this goes on forever and ever …from age (say) 10^15 years, to age (say) 10 ^ 100+ years, since big bang.

Imagine…in such a scenario…that life and consciousness existing only in one unit of time out of nearly 10^ 85 units of time .

Does this make any sense at all ?

Some Scientists might say …Is making sense a requirement that the Universe must consider ?

(to be continued)

Top of Form

SKSagar:

PART 11 OF 12 :

Do we accept that?…No we cannot…..even to be aware of it, we need consciousness… and all that consciousness is concentrated in the tiny first region of time ..upto 10^15 years stage…perhaps maxm upto 10^20 years stage.

And it is in the `Here` and the `Now` …while we are in this tiny region of time … while we are living in this Stelliferrous era …. ..where beautiful stars are shining and beautiful life (with all that consciousness) is flourishing….while we with our consciousnesses are contemplating about the gloomy future (ie from 10^20 to 10^100+ years)… That we must do something to avoid going into that region… And it should be a collective approach..a team work…but we need not panic.. …there is ample time …even in the Stelliferous era we are still in infancy.

What then are the possibilities?…

I should say…That there are many….But they all need:

THE EQUATION: “ATMAN = BRAHMAN“

` The personal self equals the omnipresent eternal self`….Schrodinger

And that’s a trump card I have placed on the table…

(to be concluded in part 12)

SKSagar

PART 12 OF 12 :

And there is no teleology in this…no metaphysics…. No law of established Science is violated….. some day science will deal with it …and explain it.

So it looks like, mind and consciousness (MAC) is the primary player and has complete control over matter and energy (MAE).

Three possibilities considered here:

1) MAC on reaching a state of Superconsciosness prepares a comprehensive programme with beautifully designed mathematical constants and then switches on the computer at the appropriate time and ushers in the next big bang…and after trillions of years…the next…and so on …a cyclic phenomena.

2) There is only one universe where lives are lived in different regions of time. The mind keeps travelling to different regions of time (within 10^ 20 years after big bang stage ) and space ..entangling with biochemistries… and getting consciousness…and remains mostly in the Stelliferrous era.

3) Sometime in the deep future the galaxies will get so far apart…they will have no influence on each other..each will be like a universe in itself..matter density will be enough for gravity to take control and they will start collapsing on themselves towards their black holes at the centres. But there will be time enough for Superconsciosness to feed the necessary constants and press the appropriate buttons and at least achieve a somewhat controlled explosion of the black hole.

Take your pick…

CONCLUDING THOUGHT

Their is `SOMETHING` that controls nature

We don`t have to call it `SOMEONE`

How thoughts become matter

admin — Thu, 04 Dec 2014 08:52:38 +0000

INTERACTIONS WITH THE BLOGGER `PETER BAKSA IN RESPONSE TO HIS BLOG ENTITLED “THE ZERO POINT FIELD : HOW THOUGHTS BECOME MATTER“ On Huffingtonpost

(Posted on 3rd August 2011)

The last para of the blog :

“The lowest possible energy of a given system must be greater than the minimum potential of the well — its zero-point energy. This leads us to postulate the collective potential of all particles everywhere with their individual zero-point energies merging into one universal zero point field. The theories and scientific research in this particular area of quantum physics lay the ground work for attempting to explain how the mind/brain/brain waves initiate transactions in the natural; how our thoughts commingle with everything else, and cause matter to manifest in our lives. The more we look at this area, the clearer the God/science connection becomes. If thoughts equal energy and energy equals matter, than thoughts become matter. Observe your thoughts as they will manifest themselves in your life in the natural via the ZPF.“

Discussions:

SKSagar:

Part 1:

Regardless of the Turmoil in the world economy and rising probabilities of a double dip recession, Peter Baksa continues to write complex but interesting and extremely thought provoking articles on these intriguing subjects linking our thoughts – to prayers – to quantum entanglement etc via the zero point fields.

Despite some contradictions in our views, I cannot but appreciate his work.

To begin with: “How our thoughts commingle with everything else“

Consider the two words `OUR THOUGHTS`.. it implies `We thought in a specific language`.

But we – and our languages – arrived in this universe just a short time back. The universe is about 14 billion years old. If this period of 14 billion years is considered as 24 hours then we `the human beings` arrived only about 6 seconds back and the languages even later. But Quantum entanglement between particles has been going on for these billions of years notwithstanding the fact that the stalls were empty and there were no observers to collapse the wave functions.

However there is one way it could have been possible, ie if you think as John Wheeler (And I am his fan) thought, that this Universe of ours is `A SELF EXCITED CIRCUIT` . Starting small, it grows (loop of U) and in time gives rise to observer–participancy which in turn imparts `tangible reality` to even the earliest days of the universe.

Part 2:

In order to understand this we must first understand the mechanism of an experiment called the `Delayed choice experiment`

This is a thought experiment conceptualized by John Wheeler. To grasp this, let us go back to the famous `Double slit experiment` with electrons. Consider that a new detector screen is set up somewhere in between the two holes and the last detector screen. Now in accordance with the quantum theory if we decide to turn off this new detector there will be an interference pattern formed in the main detector. On the other hand if we decide to delay our choice of looking, and look only after the electron has passed the two hole screen by activating/or installing the new detector – by means of a fast computer- only at that stage, we find that there is no interference pattern. Actual experiments have in fact been carried out in the Universities of Maryland in US and Munich in Germany to confirm this astounding phenomenon. How does this happen? And what in the world is going on? And what does this mean? This delayed decision seems to have affected how the electron behaved when it was in the process of passing through the hole(s) a tiny fraction of a second(perhaps a billionth of a second)in the past.

Part 3:

Now this idea of the universe as a self excited circuit was conceptualized by Wheeler on the basis that the timescales involved need not be so tiny, and we can imagine a similar experiment on a literally cosmic scale. In the words of John Wheeler: “ we in the here and the now, by observing the photon of the primordial cosmic fireball radiation, have an irretrievable consequence for what we have the right to say about that photon.

(Refer `Some strangeness in the proportion`…. Edited by Harry Woolf ).

Even so, it will make better sense if the word `THOUGHTS` is replaced by the word `MINDS`.

The omnipresent mind ( also called God) – interconnecting all the minds –omnipresent in space as well as time has no problem in collapsing wave functions and causing entanglements.

But no such luck for `THOUGHTS`. Our thoughts contain `Information` and Special relativity prohibits information from travelling at speed faster than speed of light.

And so when we say that a celebrity person called `x` was healed because many people in different parts of the world, prayed for him/her, I doubt if it was a result of `Entanglement`, rather, it could be due to the flow of information – at speed not exceeding that of light – through the media to `x` that the world prayed for his/her health that helped him to recover.

I could be wrong. In fact it can be tested with an experiment. Let me try one in Part 4.

PART 4:

THE EXPERIMENT:

Consider that the Mind carries information and transfers it to another mind by Entanglement.

Consider – and its true – that I am now thinking about John Cramer`s Transactional interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Perhaps the mind carries the quantum particles ( in this case information) as a retarded wave going into the future and coming back – after due entanglement and shaking of hands, not to mention the collapsing of wave functions – into the past as an advanced wave, both actions according to the Wheeler Feynman emitter – absorber theory, and each journey at speed of light – thus conforming to special relativity – but positive and negative, hence taking no time at all, and explaining the `collapse of the wave function phenomena`.

Let us see if John Cramer or one of his ardent fans (for I do not know if Cramer is alive) realizes that an entanglement has taken place in his mind, by which he/she has come to know what I am thinking about, in which case he or she is bound to come out with a mind boggling response.

I will be back soon.

Meanwhile warm regards to Peter Baksa.

Peter Baksa :

“Always great to hear your thoughts, Best, Peter“

SKSagar :

I am back.

There was no response from Cramer or any of his fans.

Either there was no entanglement of thoughts, or if there was, the requisite information was not registered in the brain cells.

Let me try once more :

This time I am thinking about Rupert Sheldrake and his concept of the phenomena called `Morphic resonance` a subject related to the subject of your research.

Let me see if a response from him is forthcoming.

Will be back soon. Regards

SKSagar ( after a few days):

I am back again.

No response from Rupert Sheldrake either.

What shall we do, Peter?

What about Bell`s inequality?

Can we make use of Quantum entanglement to send messages at speeds faster than light?

No… We cannot.

Why?

Because there is a God and he is a Mathematician. With the sleigh of his hands he has played a marvelous trick on us by avoiding real time non local influences. (Refer parts 5 to 8 of my responses to your blog “How does prayer actually work“)

The Conclusion: The subject is enormously complex. At the current level of knowledge it seems impossible to find an equation linking `Thoughts` with `Matter` or `Energy`.

Besides, its dangerous…. Indifferent Scientists (Engineers) will waste no time in developing the technology to trigger a nuclear device – located five thousand miles away – merely by thinking the right thoughts.

Tell me if I am wrong. With warm regards and deep felt appreciation

Peter Baksa :

That is why the key is mass consciousness. We know the world is round now and a few other things. All we have to do is connect the dots and observe the net result. In my research the truths become more clear with each day. Unless you want to win a Pulitzer or other award for bringing a truth to the masses the most important thing is to use the info. to lead the best life possible. To see all situations as an opportunity. Remain open gracious and humble and the world will look differently in that moment.

SKSagar:

Yes indeed, there must be mass consciousness. But as individuals our consciousness is always in the singular. We do not know what others are conscious of. But we do realize the distinct possibility of an omnipresent mind – omnipresent both in space and time – capable of mass consciousness. Consider the famous equation from the Indian Upanishads: “Atman = Brahman“

Where this Brahman could be that omnipresent mind. And this is not difficult to imagine when we realize that our own body is made up of trillions and trillions of cells, each one of which is a unit life in itself, and each is aware only of itself, whereas we, despite our singular consciousness, are possessed with the sum total of awareness of all these trillions of cells. In the same way Brahman may have a singular consciousness of the Universe as a whole which consciousness is made up of the sum total of the consciousnesses of the various Atmans.

It is astonishing, how the above said equation was conceived by the ancient Vedantists by intuition alone, at a time when there was no Quantum Physics, no special relativity, no knowledge of quantum entanglement, or wave particle duality etc.

In essence, there is only one mind.

This in my opinion is the ultimate truth we can order our lives on.

If it is understood properly, all the problems of the world, including conflicts between nations, not to mention the conflicts between the rich and the poor can be resolved.

Dr. Clifton Meador

admin — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:58:49 +0000

INTERACTION WITH Dr. CLIFTON. K. MEADOR ON TWO VISUAL CORTICES AND THE LINKAGE WITH THE FLICKER THOUGHT EXPERIMENT OF SCHRODINGER …IN CHAPTER SIX B OF `SIX WORDS`

Two Visual Cortices :

Occipital and Parietal Lobes of the Cerebral Cortex

Notes to SK Sagar

Monday, February 17, 2014

The Occipital visual cortex is at the back of the head. It receives visual images from the retina of the eye. The nerve pathways from the medial retina (closest to the nose) cross back of the eye at the optic chiasm. Thus the images from the left medial retina crosses to the right occipital lobe and the images from the right medial retina cross to the left occipital lobe. The left medial retina thus sees objects laterally out in the left visual field; likewise the right media retina sees objects laterally in the right visual field.

The lateral retinal nerves both go back to the occipital lobe on the same side of the brain. These lateral retinas “see objects” in the central visual fields. (Central vision),

Thus a destructive lesion to the occipital lobe, say on the right side of the brain, will cause complete blindness to the entire left visual field. The person, so blinded, will “see” nothing to the left of his nose. These lesions to the occipital lobe are quite rare but give an opportunity to study some details of vision.

Now, take a person with a destroyed right occipital lobe and shine a point of light at him from the blind left visual field. Ask the person to point at the light source and he will do it with great accuracy with his hand even though he cannot “see” it consciously.

These light images go to the opposite parietal visual lobe of the brain, located on the top and lateral side of the brain. These visual cortices of the parietal lobe see form and shape and motions. These are all unconscious visions – not seen in the conscious mind. If we did not have these unconscious visual abilities, all sorts of objects and insects and whatever would fly into our eyes. Our conscious vision is too slow to care for our eyes by averting our heads. The parietal lobes “see” objects even though the person may be blind from a destroyed occipital lobe.

I am not sure how this all fits with the flicker experiment but though this back ground would be helpful in our discussions.

Best to you, Clifton

From S.K.Sagar to Dr. Clifton Meador ( 26th Feb 2014) :

Dear Dr.Clifton,

Sorry for this delayed response…. But this was a difficult one.

I have read your notes a number of times with deep interest. Your analysis is perfect, and makes it clear about the physical connection – in time and space – between the right side of the brain and the left visual field, and between the left side of the brain and the right visual field.

Now, how does all this fit with the flicker experiment ?

Consider Charles Sherrington`s passage (Extract from page 111 of my book):

“It is not spatial conjunction of cereberial mechanism, which combines the two reports…it is as much as though the right-eye and the left-eye images were seen each by one of two observers and the minds of the two observers were combined to a single mind……etc“

What – I believe – Sherrington is trying to say is that `even though there may be a physical connection – in time and space – it is not this spatial conjunction (presumabely this connection in time and space) which combines the two reports.` I think we have to see it in the light of the nature of the thought experiment, which provides us with an initial condition that there is a suitable contraption which allows only every second flash to reach the right eye, and every other flash to reach the left eye, so that every eye receives only thirty flashes per second, which are not enough to remove the sensation of flickering.

So if there are two observers ( each with both eyes open ) and the same contraption is used, which allows only every second flash to reach one of them, and every other flash to reach the other one, each observer will see only thirty flashes per second and the flickering sensation persists.

Now if the contraption is removed and there are sixty flashes per second, the flickering sensation goes and each observer sees a continuous light even if he chooses to close one of the two eyes. Which means that there is a mind that does the connection between the eyes of an observer, and it is the same mind that does the connection between the two observers, except that physically this connection – between two observers – does not materialize for the simple reason that their consciousnesses are each in the singular.

Thus in each of the two examples, ie your analysis and the flickering light thought experiment, the common denominator is that there is an `intelligent field` which we call as the `mind`, which designs and builds this physical connection.

As Sherrington says “Contemporaneity of action rather than structural union seems to provide their mental collaboration“.

My favourite Sherrington Passage is the one that appears on page 112 starting with “Are there thus quasi independent sub brains based on the several modalities of sense ?……and ending with the line ….Matter and energy seem granular in structure, and so does `life`, but not so `mind`.“

In between this para there is this line “the single nerve cell is never a miniature brain“.Now it is true that a single nerve cell inside us is never a miniature brain, it is just one out of trillions and trillions of them, each one though aware in the singular is just an insignificant part of us and we in turn are conscious in the singular, but our consciousness is the sum total of the awareness of these individual cells.However when we consider a single celled `independent` creature such as a `paramecium`, it looks as if this single cell is indeed a miniature brain, for it can swim toward food, retreat from danger, and negotiate obstacles. This is curious. But strengthens my viewpoint about the ever present intelligent field, and how a mind when it encounters a certain biochemistry acquires a component of this intelligent field and gets awareness.

With all this I have a long way to go to develop a full understanding of the subject …It is extremely complex …but it is at the heart of my book. It is my good fortune that you are taking so much interest in my book. I stand to gain immensely from these interactions with you.

Looking forward. Warm regards and best wishes

S.K.SAGAR

From Dr. Clifton K Meador to S.K.Sagar( 28th Feb 2014):

Dear SK. Bruce Lipton makes the case that each cell is a “mind”, not sure I agree with all he says,but thought it would interest you to see the book, which you may already know. He posits that the cell membrane is the brain of each cell. Some far out thinking for you to consider. Clifton

Biology of Belief by Bruce Lipton

Clifton K. Meador

From SK.Sagar To Dr. Clifton Meador( 15TH March 2014)

Dear Dr. Clifton,

Regarding Bruce Lipton : I started watching the video on `Belief in biology`.. very interesting… its an hour long video and he`s talking too fast. So I decided to buy the book thru Amazon India ..I`ll get it by 19th March…and then I can read it comfortably in the car while going to office.

On his concept…`Each cell is a mind`… I have this to say :

If this were so, it would mean the mind is `something physical`…`something made out of matter such as atoms and molecules`…. But the world of matter must comply with the laws of physics, which on the macroscopic level, ignoring quantum effects are deterministic and mechanical and hence incompatible with free will. The mind I believe – is not the cell itself – but is something within the cell, and gives it intelligence via its intelligent field. It gives the paramecium (a single celled creature) the intelligence to swim toward food, retreat from danger, and negotiate obstacles , thus disobeying the laws of physics… not just Newton`s laws of motion but also the second law of thermodynamics… whereas a dust particle, which is outside the living organism can do nothing of the sort.

And that `something` within the cell …as Descates says ..“is not a physical substance, but a tenuous, elusive ethereal sort of substance, the stuff that thoughts are made of, free and independent of ordinary ponderous matter. The mind is neither perceptible by the senses, nor extended in space. Its intelligent and purposive and its essential characteristic is thought or rather consciousness or maybe just awareness in some cases.Though the human body is an engine, it is not quite an ordinary engine, since some of its workings are governed by another engine inside it – this interior governer—engine being one of a very special sort. It is invisible, it is inaudible and it cannot be taken to bits and the laws it obeys are not those known to ordinary engineers“…Perhaps it’s a` ghost in the machine`.

However, all this leads to a substantial paradox, viz if it is matter at a macroscopic level it cannot have free will, and if it is not matter, then how can it be an engine that is supposed to act as the prime mover of the component parts of the body.

In my opinion this paradox can be resolved by considering this engine to be a quantum level matter, too infinitesimal to be visible or audible but significant enough to be completely indivisible and to follow such laws which are not known to ordinary engineers. Perhaps it is a particle, a different sort of particle – with some sublime properties – manufactured and evolved during its journey through the cosmos in the aftermath of Supernovas. All it needs then is a certain biochemistry, to become life, and on its way it picks up a part of this thing called mind which is of course ever present throughout space and time. This was discussed by me in Chapter TWO pages 15,16, and 20, where I speculated about a certain molecular unit as being a `soul`. This takes care of the `free will` aspect, and satisfies the requirement that free will is a fundamental attribute of the soul. But then there can be only one soul in one body, it cannot be that there are trillions of souls – one for each cell – in one body, if it is to fulfill the requirement of free will. In this alternative the `Soul` is what we call as `I`, it is different from the `mind`, but it doesn`t die, all it needs is another situation, another biochemistry, to become life, and on its way, each time, it picks up the mind to become conscious.

There is however another alternative which does not require a `soul` …but in this alternative …where `there is no soul`…the Mind must play a double role. …..And as Schrodinger says (Chapter Six B page 114) “The conscious mind plays a curious double role, On the one hand it is the stage, and the only stage on which this whole world-process takes place. On the other hand we gather the impression, may be the deceptive impression, that within this world-bustle the conscious mind is tied up with certain very particular organs (brains), which while doubtless the most interesting contraption in animal and plant physiology are yet not unique, not sui generis; for like so many others they serve after all only to maintain the lives of their owners, and it is only to this that they owe their having been elaborated in the process of speciation by natural selection “.

The other difficulty with that concept is that it leads to trillions and trillions of minds in the universe, with each one dying when the cell dies. This does not agree to Schrödinger’s concept of the `oneness of mind` of which I am an outright supporter. The show that is going on in the universe obviously acquires a meaning only with regard to the mind that contemplates it. It cannot be that the mind was produced by that very display that it is now watching, and would pass away when the sun finally cools down and the earth has been turned into a desert of ice and snow (Page 115).

So, at this stage, I am not particularly inclined to agree with the concept that each cell is a mind. But I have an open mind ….and I will read Bruce Lipton`s entire book and then continue the discussion.

Indeed this is an extraordinarily complex subject, but to me the most interesting subject, and is at the centre stage of my book `Six words`, and I am absolutely grateful to you for generating a detailed in depth discussion on it. Perhaps all this discussion with you ( which is far from over)… with appropriate editing …could constitute one chapter of my next book `Interactions with the World`, or maybe you could also include it, in one of your future books.

This letter has been delayed somewhat… reason… conversations are in full swing with several others who are reading my book. Besides I am having to think hard before answering their questions… and it is taking time.

Warm regards and best wishes

S.K.SAGAR

Huffington Post

admin — Sun, 30 Nov 2014 23:57:19 +0000