Theoretical Physics | Quantum Biology | Dark Matter Research Cluster

- Oliver Thewalt on eMail Conversation with Professor Jonathan Vos Post (): hello dear Jonathan, so where is my Nobel now? You only earn money when you...
- Oliver Thewalt on About Dengue and Zika, Vaccination and Dengue test (): They want to sell this dengue test,and it says nothing ... I have seen people,...
- Oliver Thewalt on About Cancer (): http://www.zmescience.com/science/physics/cancer-safe-mode-mechanism-402343/
- Oliver Thewalt on About Cancer (): apoptosis - kind of body mind side effect with a strong link to radiation and...

antimatter, demokratie, bildungsdiktatur, nicola sacca mwaev saarland, werner asch mwaev saarland, werner asch mwaev referat d6 energie und klimaschutzpolitik, werner asch ministerium für wirtschaft arbeit energie verkehr saarland, nicola saccà mwaev referat d6 energie und klimaschutzpolitik, nicola saccà ministerium für wirtschaft arbeit energie verkehr saarland, jürgen barke staatssekretär im mwaev saarland, jürgen barke staatssekretär im ministerium für wirtschaft arbeit energie verkehr saarland, dark matter, johanna wanka, bundesministerium für bildung und forschung johanna wanka, bundesbildungsministerin, bundesministerium für bildung und forschung, phase transition, gravity, michael balmer, mass, black hole, education, neutron, higgs-field, neutrino, oliver thewalt, autism, black hole state, johanna wanke bundesbildungsministerin, mathematics, einstein, photon, time, quarks, qcd, autismus, vaxxed, cdc, science, hydrogen, proton, energy, positron, ramanujan, dimension, dark matter field, bildung, kinder, wahlmanipulation, physics

Consciousness, Computation

and Understanding in

Theoretical Physics

To: Professor Oliver Thewalt

Maziar Esfahanian

Torino-Italy

2017

1. Philosophical choices

Hidden unconscious or conscious philosophical choices have

one of the most important roles in route of science, since we

started to understanding universe and ourselves.

However, these philosophical choices usually are not determining

directly in the scientific papers.

About Theoretical Physics some people prefer logical positivism,

some other functionalism or instrumentalism or… and sometimes

people using the combination of them.

In my opinion behind each of these philosophical choices there

were some pragmatic motivations that usually people forgot them

during their research age. For instance, when physicists used the

term of wave and particle in Quantum physics, actually they used

some metaphorical concepts to describing some phenomena with

some more familiar concepts to our minds and with minimum

ontological assumptions. In fact, all of these concepts have root in

our common cognitive abilities to understanding new things by

assigning some older things which are more familiar to our mind.

Even in mathematical abstraction the big part of our activities are

related to our cognitive abilities. For instance, mathematicians are

interested to classification of mathematical structures.

One of the reasons is that our brain can memorize and analyzing

things better with classifying them. Finding the more fundamental

similarities and differences helps us to understanding things

better.

I think, forgetting the motivations of our philosophical choices can

confused us about the meaning of understanding in science and

push us so far from our initial goal in science. Let me quote from

you [1]:

“We are far beyond the physics the e+e- Collider can handle, while

most work remains unpublished because it is unpaid!

A circular electron positron Collider is not appropriate in order to

handle a Quantum Threshold in a region of neutrality.

Our mind is able to develop the theory by observing nature,

performing an experimental setup by a measurement.”

We spent lots of money to research about particle physics and

detecting the new particles. However, we could spend a little

money in other ways if we had other philosophical choice or at

least didn’t forget the motivations of our philosophical choices.

Sure, we need these Colliders, but also for understanding the

universe and ourselves as a main goal of Theoretical physics we

need to review our knowledge about our Mind and the meaning of

Consciousness. After a long time, since the Quantum Physics

started to developing, yet we have not a strong interpretation for

this theory than can fill the conceptual gaps up and remove the

ambiguities of fundamental concepts of this theory. For instance,

when physicists talk about quantum states, it is not clear that what

they are talking about, precisely. However, most of physicists

accepted the Copenhagen Interpretation and go on without any

doubt and review. In my opinion the root of this problem again

come back to the philosophical choice. A combination of

reductionism and pragmatism with support of mathematical based

proofs is not enough to research about the Truth. I think we

should review our knowledge about Consciousness at first and

figure out how is the interaction of mind and matter.

In this way even maybe we should think about our definitions

about Mind, Matter and reality itself.

Some scientists tried to describe Consciousness as a product of

brain activities in Neural networks framework. In consequence of

a rigid philosophical choice, these types of scientists are trapped

to Determinism. Usually, Neurologist don’t know about Quantum

Physics and its consequences about indeterminism and their

desire to reduce our mind to the Neurons activities don’t let them

to look at the castle that they made. Neurons are not in quantum

scale and they are classical objects and if one just reduces our

minds to the neurons activities so we have no Free Will and it

means these Neurologists are doing what they should did

according the written book of universe nothing more.

Few scientists, such as Roger Penrose [2] tried to point out this

fact and even Penrose introduced a new Consciousness Theory

which is based on a quantum scales entities in our brains that are

called Microtubules. There are some new theories about

Consciousness more or less based on Penrose idea that

generally known as Quantum Consciousness theories.

Here, again we can see only few people among physicists and

cognitive scientists paid enough attention to these theories.

It is just an example that I talked about to describe recent

situation of science as I understand.

Consciousness is not awareness or intelligence, Consciousness

related to our “I”, our first person experience about reality and ourselves.

I think there is a strong correlation between the meaning of

Consciousness and interpretation of Quantum Theory and the

meaning of reality. I am not a fan of Quantum Consciousness

Theory but I think at least this theory broke the taboo of speaking

about Non-Neuronal base theories of Consciousness.

My temporary philosophical choice as a researcher (or student) is

something like Mathematical Instrumentalism.

I think with this choice we can describe Consciousness in a

mathematical framework that is safe enough to prevent

ambiguities and also open enough to escape from trap of hidden

or obvious materialistic assumptions.

For instance of such a monistic non-materialistic theory, I want to

point out the Conscious Agent Theory of Donald Hoffman [3].

In Conscious Agent Theory, Hoffman tried to figure out how

Consciousness is fundamental. It is about genuineness of

Consciousness. He uses a metaphor from Computer

Science to describe the universes and Consciousness in a

unique framework with minimum of ontological assumptions

[3].

2. Computation

One of the bold effects of Reductionism on the theoretical

Physics and Cognitive sciences is that some people think that

everything is about computations. However, since Godel proved

Gödel's incompleteness theorems, we know that for each

arbitrary set of mathematical axioms there are some Undecidable

statements that we can’t make a decision about their logical

value. The stronger result proved by Alan Turing is a fact that in

German Language its name was Entscheidungsproblem[4] and

according what Alan proved there isn’t a general solution for

Entscheidungsproblem and it means that even we can’t decide

a given statement is decideable or not[4].

In addition, most of scientists just thinking about Computation in a

classical way, but we know that, there is a stronger kind of

Computation that its name is Quantum Computation.

At least, with a reductionist’s position one can try to models and

understanding things with reduce them to Quantum Computations

instead of classical one in Cognitive sciences.

I think, in order to have a better understanding first of all we

should change our point of view about meaning of some accepted

concepts like space, Space-time and review some of our

negative definitions like the concept of “chance” and its family

randomness.

My suggestion is to reconstruct these concepts in a special

mathematical framework that is strong enough to figure out what

we understood from Quantum Theory about reality and universe

and the meaning of space, position(super position) and … .

Also this special mathematical framework should be flexible

enough to keep our classical tools of computation and beside of

our new understanding indeterminism. This mathematical

framework is called Topos Theory.

I don’t want to talk what is the Topos theory here and how it may

help. I just tried to show the necessity of a review to our

understanding about Computation, fundamental concepts of

Quantum Theory and open a new door toward study of

Consciousness. This door is Topos Theory. Changing our point of

view about space in this framework that has own internal non

Boolean logic and is flexible enough to switch from one

philosophical choice to another when we arrive to a deadlock.

References

[1]. http://hixgrid.de/groups/profile/67436/theoretical-physics-for-new-energy-it-energy-cluster

[2].Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, Consciousness in Universe:A

review of the Orch OR theory, 2013

[3].Donald D.Hoffman and Chetan Parakash, Objects of Consciousness,

2015

[4].A.M Turing, On Computable Numbers with application to the

Entscheidungproblem, 1936

To

Maziar Esfahanian

PhD student,Pure Mathematics,Università degli Studi di Torino - Dipartimento di Matematica "Giuseppe Peano"

As you have pointed it out correctly, "topos theory" is what we are talking about in quantum physics: when we observe seeminlgy 2 or more particles or quantum states connected on a "distance" of many light years or more, locality and non-locality is what we are talking about (see also Violation of Bell's inequliaties), these are seemingly states at a long distance, but in an interpretation as speed of light as a photonic quantum threshold (no tranport through space) we are talking about dimensional topological transitions in a phase transition (in short) .. of ghost virtuals at horizons..... and as you have pointed it out correctly, this is very similar ot the "same" fundamental principle in "biology" concerning "neurons", because it is not decisive to conceptualize neurons but the phase transition within (as an energy matter transition).

Exactly by this transition within locality and non-locality, space is spanned and starts to unfold in an n-fractal topological transition.

Sincerely Yours

Professor Oliver Thewalt

Dark Matter Research Cluster

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/consciousness-computation-understanding-theoretical-physics-thewalt