Consciousness and String Theory

Y

yanniru

Member
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Grafton, Massachusetts, USA
My first post here. I have written a paper on cosmic consciousness, based on the Calabi_Yau Compact Manifold universal subspace of 10 dimensional supersymmetric string theory, that has been accepted for presentation in the Stockholm Conference on 'Consciousness in the Universe'.

Please do not be put off by the Title or Abstract which are necessarily scientifically formal. I think the paper can be understood by anyone and without quite saying so points to a panenthistic being for which you all have an extensive thread. Forgive me for starting another.

I admit that despite a PhD in electromegnetic theory nearly 45 years ago,
I am a layman when it comes to string theory and to the mathematical logic of Godel, the two bases of this paper.

Please read, critique and/or indicate if it is of interest.
Peace. Richard Ruquist aka yanniru

:mad: I am not allowed to post a link until I have posted 10 times

So here is the title and abstract. Someone or someall will have to ask me ten questions.

​
Is the string landscape distributive in the universe
and might it manifest a Peano cosmic consciousness?
Richard D. Ruquist, PhD
A consequence of 10d supersymmetric string theory is the existence of a universal subspace called the Calabi-Yau Compact Manifold (CYCM) which is composed of a 3D array of discrete units of 6d compactified space. The recent astronomical evidence that Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant varies slightly across the visible universe (from north to south in an Earth perspective) suggests that the flux windings in the discrete 10^-30 cm diameter CYCM units may vary similarly across the universe. String theorists estimate that the flux has 10 quantum states while winding through the 500 or so holes in each CYCM unit, so that there are about 10^500 possible windings, the so-called string landscape. Such a large number is more than enough possible windings to fill many good size universes with distinct CYCM units. If the discrete and distinct CYCM units are also numerable, they may have the properties of a Peano arithmetic and possibly manifest an invisible emergent collective cosmic consciousness that permeates the entire universe, separate from human physical consciousness.
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Key words: string theory, string landscape, fine-structure-constant, Calabi-Yau compact manifold, Peano arithmetic, cosmic consciousness, mind/brain duality.
[/FONT][/FONT]"all things not forbidden are mandatory"- [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Murray Gell-Mann
[/FONT][/FONT]
 
yanniru said:
My first post here. I have written a paper on cosmic consciousness, based on the Calabi_Yau Compact Manifold universal subspace of 10 dimensional supersymmetric string theory, that has been accepted for presentation in the Stockholm Conference on 'Consciousness in the Universe'.

Please do not be put off by the Title or Abstract which are necessarily scientifically formal. I think the paper can be understood by anyone and without quite saying so points to a panenthistic being for which you all have an extensive thread. Forgive me for starting another.

I admit that despite a PhD in electromegnetic theory nearly 45 years ago,
I am a layman when it comes to string theory and to the mathematical logic of Godel, the two bases of this paper.

Please read, critique and/or indicate if it is of interest.
Peace. Richard Ruquist aka yanniru

:mad: I am not allowed to post a link until I have posted 10 times

So here is the title and abstract. Someone or someall will have to ask me ten questions.

Is the string landscape distributive in the universe
and might it manifest a Peano cosmic consciousness?
Richard D. Ruquist, PhD
A consequence of 10d supersymmetric string theory is the existence of a universal subspace called the Calabi-Yau Compact Manifold (CYCM) which is composed of a 3D array of discrete units of 6d compactified space. The recent astronomical evidence that Sommerfeld's fine-structure constant varies slightly across the visible universe (from north to south in an Earth perspective) suggests that the flux windings in the discrete 10^-30 cm diameter CYCM units may vary similarly across the universe. String theorists estimate that the flux has 10 quantum states while winding through the 500 or so holes in each CYCM unit, so that there are about 10^500 possible windings, the so-called string landscape. Such a large number is more than enough possible windings to fill many good size universes with distinct CYCM units. If the discrete and distinct CYCM units are also numerable, they may have the properties of a Peano arithmetic and possibly manifest an invisible emergent collective cosmic consciousness that permeates the entire universe, separate from human physical consciousness.
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Key words: string theory, string landscape, fine-structure-constant, Calabi-Yau compact manifold, Peano arithmetic, cosmic consciousness, mind/brain duality.
[/FONT][/FONT]"all things not forbidden are mandatory"- [FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]Murray Gell-Mann
[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...

Quite interesting Mate. I have often speculated on some similar ideas. If we differ at all, it is on consciousness being something akin to human-animal consciousness. I do not attribute animal consciousness such as thinking, perceiving, intervening in the lives of us animals, to a cosmic creative force. I do find Super-string theory to be fascinating and 10 or 11 (including time) dimensions to be compelling. I reject the Anthropomorphic Gods of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. However, I would like to read your paper.

Amergin
 
You mention the "invisible human mind" yet also the mind-body duality. My concept of mind is different. I am a Neuroscientist (MBChB, Ph.D.) I have worked in cognitive neurology correlating "mind functions" with brain functional mapping and imaging. I have used EEG, digital EEG, fMRI, PET scanning, Single Fibre Imaging, Transcortical Magnetic Imaging, and Transcortical Magnetic Stimulation. We of course also study post-mortem brain anatomy of patients who had various mental aberrations.

It is my view that human consciousness is not truly invisible. I know that many conscious and cognitive functions while seemingly invisible can be seen in the patterns of circuits and circuit networks that light up and even show the evolving changes in active brain areas with speech, analytical thought, and perception.

On death of the brain, (real death not simple cardiac arrest) neurons cease to produce action potentials as measured by absence of cell metabolism. A truly dead brain produces none of the electrical and chemical metabolic signals of brain based mind behaviour. Mind is a collection of brain-generated information processing networks.

The mind is only invisible just as gravitational acceleration is "invisible." Only the motion of one body to another is visible. I suggest you understand better than I, how magnetic force of attraction cannot be seen. You can measure moving electrical particles of magnetic fields. All you can see is lines of iron filings in the lab or the Aurora Borealis in Polar Skies.

Mind is not separate from the Brain. In my experience, observations, and the research of hundreds of fellow Neuroscientists mind is purely a brain-generated function. Dead brains cannot speak, move muscles, or solve problems. The mind dies when the brain dies, just as the music stops when you smash the CD player or remove its batteries.

Superstring Theories fascinate me, although I am not a physicist and my understanding is that of only an avid reader. I do think that they point to the explosion-creation of the universe with the formation of quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, matter...and us.

Thanks for introducing the topic.

Amergin
 
Amergin said:
You mention the "invisible human mind" yet also the mind-body duality. My concept of mind is different. I am a Neuroscientist (MBChB, Ph.D.) I have worked in cognitive neurology correlating "mind functions" with brain functional mapping and imaging. I have used EEG, digital EEG, fMRI, PET scanning, Single Fibre Imaging, Transcortical Magnetic Imaging, and Transcortical Magnetic Stimulation. We of course also study post-mortem brain anatomy of patients who had various mental aberrations.

Richard: I wonder if I can reply inside a quote- seems to work?

It is my view that human consciousness is not truly invisible. I know that many conscious and cognitive functions while seemingly invisible can be seen in the patterns of circuits and circuit networks that light up and even show the evolving changes in active brain areas with speech, analytical thought, and perception.

Richard: I also do not think that human physical consciousness is invisible.
I propose in my paper that there ios a mind/brain duality and that the mind portion is invisible

On death of the brain, (real death not simple cardiac arrest) neurons cease to produce action potentials as measured by absence of cell metabolism. A truly dead brain produces none of the electrical and chemical metabolic signals of brain based mind behaviour. Mind is a collection of brain-generated information processing networks.

The mind is only invisible just as gravitational acceleration is "invisible." Only the motion of one body to another is visible. I suggest you understand better than I, how magnetic force of attraction cannot be seen. You can measure moving electrical particles of magnetic fields. All you can see is lines of iron filings in the lab or the Aurora Borealis in Polar Skies.

Mind is not separate from the Brain. In my experience, observations, and the research of hundreds of fellow Neuroscientists mind is purely a brain-generated function. Dead brains cannot speak, move muscles, or solve problems. The mind dies when the brain dies, just as the music stops when you smash the CD player or remove its batteries.

Richard: It is my hope that consciousness survives brain death. NDE and OBE are evidence that such survival may be possible. In addition I have had personal experience with a channel which also is evidence for the survival of consciousness after brain death.

Superstring Theories fascinate me, although I am not a physicist and my understanding is that of only an avid reader. I do think that they point to the explosion-creation of the universe with the formation of quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, matter...and us.

Thanks for introducing the topic.

Amergin
Click to expand...


I am told to leave a message at least 10 characters long so perhaps the interspersed remarks will not do.

I will copy them below:

Richard: I wonder if I can reply inside a quote- seems to work?

Richard: I also do not think that human physical consciousness is invisible.
I propose in my paper that there ios a mind/brain duality and that the mind portion is invisible.

Richard: It is my hope that consciousness survives brain death. NDE and OBE are evidence that such survival may be possible. In addition I have had personal experience with a channel which also is evidence for the survival of consciousness after brain death.
 
Actually it is quite readable as you said.

But for me, in order to really appreciate what you said, I would need to have some background knowledge of things like how Godel Incompleteness can lead to "unpredictability and complexity of strong emergent behaviour". I also am not able to understand why on the one hand you said that "Compact subspace may manifest a form of consciousness based on emergent, non-computational and non-deterministic natural processes" and on the other that "Consciousness is more fundamental than emergence".

A basic problem for me is why consciousness should emerge from any physical processes at any scale.
 
Hi Yanniru —

It's quite readable, but it's in another language — I'm just familiar enough with the terms and the concepts involved.

Coming at it from a complete lay perspective, there is consciousness, and consciousness organises its experience/information into manageable patterns and constructs (such as maths?), to explain the world ...

... but now it seems as if one is trying to figure out how the construct gives rise to the consciousness in the first place? Isn't this cart before the horse?

I'm not saying that there is no link between consciousness and matter, but I am suggesting that a mathematical solution might not be the way to go ... but what do I know?

Currently reading "The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World" ... staggering.

God bless,

Thomas
 
Last week's Horizon programme was called "What is Reality?" Essentially it was about QM (and string theory). Thankfully, one of the leading scientists in this field said something to the effect of: No-one understands QM. Anyone that claims that they understand QM has not understood it.

Made me feel slightly less bemused :p

s.
 
yanniru said:
:mad: I am not allowed to post a link until I have posted 10 times

Someone or someall will have to ask me ten questions.
[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]
[/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...

We're on the home straight now...

What is your favourite ice cream flavour?

What is your favourite colour?

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

If a tree falls over in the middle of a forest and there's no living creature in the forest, where have they all gone?

What is the meaning of liff?

s.
 
OAT said:
Actually it is quite readable as you said.

But for me, in order to really appreciate what you said, I would need to have some background knowledge of things like how Godel Incompleteness can lead to "unpredictability and complexity of strong emergent behaviour". I also am not able to understand why on the one hand you said that "Compact subspace may manifest a form of consciousness based on emergent, non-computational and non-deterministic natural processes" and on the other that "Consciousness is more fundamental than emergence".

A basic problem for me is why consciousness should emerge from any physical processes at any scale.
Click to expand...

The statement :"Compact subspace may manifest a form of consciousness based on emergent, non-computational and non-deterministic natural processes" is a conjecture with some evidential basis and actually the whole point of the paper; whereas the statement "Consciousness is more fundamental than emergence" is pure speculation.

Yet I think the two statements are consistent in the sense that emergence may be the border between the realm of consciousness and the realm of physics and math (in other words the physical realm).

I use the very abstract word "realm" because these are not different spaces. They occupy the same physical space. And I say emergence is a "border" because emergence is just beyond mathematical derivation. In fact it appears that the mathematics or forms that come out of emergence, besides being independent of the axioms of arithmatic, may be actually random.

For example, in evolution Stuart Kauffman has proposed that the Cambrian explosion of a variety of lifeforms is a product of strong emergence. Some of the stranger forms that emerged did not last long in the physical world due to natural selection. That is where my suspicion that the emergent forms may be random comes from.

However, the extension of such a metaphor to human consciousness requires considerable imagination- in other words speculation. Apparently what emerges for humans is 'words' by which we characterize the world. And the suggestion is that we use "downward causation" to pull the appropriate words out of our emergent consciousness.

In my paper I use many quotes, I admit, as a cover for concepts I do not really understand myself. I get around my lack of understanding by quoting someone who presumably does understand. But I suspect that quite often their understanding is no better than mine.

As to "why consciousness should emerge from any physical processes" the suggestion of my paper is that it does not. The emergence is in the superstring Compact subspace and is invisible. The conjecture is that what emerges for humans from that subpace, the mind aspect of mind/brain duality, is communicated into visible physical consciousness because the mind and the brain both consist of BECs (Bose-Einstein Condensates) that are entangled so that the words or ideas that emerge in the mind are automatically present in the BEC of the brain. The exact location or substance of the brain BEC is yet to be determined.
Richard
 
Snoopy said:
Last week's Horizon programme was called "What is Reality?" Essentially it was about QM (and string theory). Thankfully, one of the leading scientists in this field said something to the effect of: No-one understands QM. Anyone that claims that they understand QM has not understood it.

Made me feel slightly less bemused :p

s.
Click to expand...

Actually the most popular understanding of quantum mechanics, believed by all big name physicists except Penrose, the Many Worlds Interpretation MWI of quantum mechanics, is rather easy to understand, but for me quite unbelievable. My paper is an alternative to MWI.

In general for every particle interaction there are always a number of possible final states, what are called quantum superpositions, with probabilities attached to how often any one state will be realized.

In MWI every single final state is realized every time in one parallel world or another. For example, if two final states were possible in a given interaction, the world bifurcates into two parallel worlds with one final state realized in one world and the other final state realized in the other world.

As a result MWI is completely deterministic and everything that happens over the entire set of parallel worlds is predetermined. That effectively reduces quantum mechanics to a classical mechanics. That approach actually resolves all the paradoxes of quantum mechanics. But it also eliminates free will and the need for morality, etc., etc., etc.

BTW in was Feynman who said "Anyone that claims that they understand QM has not understood it."
Richard
 
yanniru said:
The statement :"Compact subspace may manifest a form of consciousness based on emergent, non-computational and non-deterministic natural processes" is a conjecture with some evidential basis and actually the whole point of the paper; whereas the statement "Consciousness is more fundamental than emergence" is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that there is no basic consciousness emerging from the compact subspace from emergent non-computational etc processes? but that the basic consciousness is somehow inherent within the compact subspace?

yanniru said:
Yet I think the two statements are consistent in the sense that emergence may be the border between the realm of consciousness and the realm of physics and math (in other words the physical realm).

I use the very abstract word "realm" because these are not different spaces. They occupy the same physical space. And I say emergence is a "border" because emergence is just beyond mathematical derivation. In fact it appears that the mathematics or forms that come out of emergence, besides being independent of the axioms of arithmatic, may be actually random.

For example, in evolution Stuart Kauffman has proposed that the Cambrian explosion of a variety of lifeforms is a product of strong emergence. Some of the stranger forms that emerged did not last long in the physical world due to natural selection. That is where my suspicion that the emergent forms may be random comes from.

However, the extension of such a metaphor to human consciousness requires considerable imagination- in other words speculation. Apparently what emerges for humans is 'words' by which we characterize the world. And the suggestion is that we use "downward causation" to pull the appropriate words out of our emergent consciousness.
Click to expand...
Would it be accurate to say that "emergence" is a term for some unknown process (probably non-physical) that result in some phenomena in the physical world/realm? The phenomenon could be something abstract like a mathematical idea or more concrete like the Cambrian explosion. And the occurrance of that unknown process could itself be random?

yanniru said:
As to "why consciousness should emerge from any physical processes" the suggestion of my paper is that it does not. The emergence is in the superstring Compact subspace and is invisible.
Click to expand...
It seemed to me that processes within the superstring compact subspace are not considered physical processes. Or perhaps, there are no processes to speak of within the superstring compact subspace. Could you clarify?

Btw, I enjoyed reading your paper even though I understood less than half of what you've said. I think I could have understood more if I have the background knowledge that you have.
 
Thomas said:
Hi Yanniru —

It's quite readable, but it's in another language — I'm just familiar enough with the terms and the concepts involved.

Coming at it from a complete lay perspective, there is consciousness, and consciousness organises its experience/information into manageable patterns and constructs (such as maths?), to explain the world ...

... but now it seems as if one is trying to figure out how the construct gives rise to the consciousness in the first place? Isn't this cart before the horse?

I'm not saying that there is no link between consciousness and matter, but I am suggesting that a mathematical solution might not be the way to go ... but what do I know?

Currently reading "The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World" ... staggering.

God bless,

Thomas
Click to expand...

Thomas,
I guess since I am not an experimentalist, a mathematical solution is the only way I know to go whether it is consciousness or any other aspect of physics. yanniru
 
OAT said:
Does this mean that there is no basic consciousness emerging from the compact subspace from emergent non-computational etc processes? but that the basic consciousness is somehow inherent within the compact subspace?


Would it be accurate to say that "emergence" is a term for some unknown process (probably non-physical) that result in some phenomena in the physical world/realm? The phenomenon could be something abstract like a mathematical idea or more concrete like the Cambrian explosion. And the occurrance of that unknown process could itself be random?

It seemed to me that processes within the superstring compact subspace are not considered physical processes. Or perhaps, there are no processes to speak of within the superstring compact subspace. Could you clarify?

Btw, I enjoyed reading your paper even though I understood less than half of what you've said. I think I could have understood more if I have the background knowledge that you have.
Click to expand...



OAT, I wish I knew how to divide up the quotes like you were able to do.

But anyway, regarding basic consciousness which I would call pure consciousness, I do not think it resides in the Compact subspace. I think it is outside the Compact subspace but permeats the space of the universe and the subspace. However, the consciousness that emerges from the Compact subspace is probably not different in substance from pure consciousnes. OTOH the emergent consciousness may be all that exists.

Yes, emergence is an unknown process unless that process is similar to what Godel had to do to prove the Incompleteness theorems, which required 46 stages or levels of concept grouping and redefinition. However, that is speculation. The process is nonphysical but still natural- that is, part of nature. But it is tempting to refer to it as supernatural. Afterall string theory is supersymmetric.

I would say that the processes in the Compact subspace are virtual as they include quantum wave functions and virtual particles. There are far more possible outcomes of these processes than ever become physical reality. Yet they are still real processes rather than hypothetical ones if string theory is true. But we are getting into semantic difficulties regarding the definitions of words like physical, virtual, real, etc.

Glad you like the paper. Keep the questions coming. And how do you respond todivided up quites?
yanniru
 
Snoopy said:
We're on the home straight now...

What is your favourite ice cream flavour?

What is your favourite colour?

What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

If a tree falls over in the middle of a forest and there's no living creature in the forest, where have they all gone?

What is the meaning of liff?

s.
Click to expand...

I think I know this one
Vanila
Blue
With coconuts or without?
Jersey
to be as affable as possible and take nothing seriously
 
Paladin said:
I think I know this one
Vanila
Blue
With coconuts or without?
Jersey
to be as affable as possible and take nothing seriously
Click to expand...

Excellent! 4 out of 5. For the meaning of liff, consult Wikipedia...

s.
 
yanniru said:
OAT, I wish I knew how to divide up the quotes like you were able to do.
Click to expand...
When you hit the "Quote" button to reply to a post, you will notice that the post will be enclosed by something in square brackets at the beginning (call this A) and by something in square brackets at the end (call this B). The system apparently will draw a box around whatever is so enclosed. Therefore to box up a certain passage of a post, just copy A and paste it at the front of the selected passage and copy B and paste it at the back of the selected passage. You can then write your reply after that. Repeat this as required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top