Cosmology

I suppose I would want to know exactly what you think my metaphysics is. I stated all my beliefs a few posts ago. I do not have an opinion on whether electrons are conscious. Remember, it is you who need this opinion. Why are you willing to grant consciousness to an electron, but ready for a death match when it comes to merely considering it for a futuristic machine which only operates on algorithms? Electrons, apparently operate from a more lofty paradigm than mere machine algorithms.

You need to insist there is some kind of magical, mystical threshhold to consciousness, unapproachable, uncreatable by all but god. I do not share this obsession. To you consciousness seems now vested with what is holy about the universe. You have that disguised need for what is holy. I think we all have that need. I try not to let it interfere with my process.

I know what it does, it clears the way for now saying consciousness had no beginning. That consciousness is at the heart of operations in the universe and always has been. That is another supposition I am not pressed to make.

I do not say electrons do not have consciousness, either. But on our thin knowledge of quantum operators I cannot jump out there simply because I would like for something to be true. I only take a stance when there is no other logical choice. Do I have a preference all of the time? Yeah. But not a stance. My stance is that there isn't very good evidence for a firm stance.

I can't wait for replies.

Consider a mosquito. What is its consciousness? I must add another belief to my stated arsenal and say I do not believe it is self conscious. The mosquito is not aware that it is conscious. It does not catch itself thinking. How do I know? I know where a bear makes duty, too.

Is the mosquito really conscious at all, would probably be a reasonable question? If reacting to temperature and hunger pangs and a host of pre-programmed instincts is all that is required, I feel superbly confident those criteria can already be met by our machines. Such are the "decisions" of a mosquito.

Does a dog catch itself thinking? Can't claim to know. But there must be some threshhold more significant than ordinary consciousness, if indeed the mosquito is conscious. That threshhold must be self consciousness.

But will a machine not know when it has been turned on? There you go--self-consciousness. Perhaps we are closer than we choose to accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

I suppose I would want to know exactly what you think my metaphysics is.

---

I don't know what it is. That's what I am trying to find out. For example, I assume you are an atheist. That's fine, but there are different kinds of atheists. I don't know to what extent you are a materialist.

Some atheists believe consciousness can be reduced to unconscious matter. I think this position given quantum physics has been discredited. It is no longer scientific. There are others who promote panpsychism such as Thomas Nagel. They admit that consciousness cannot be reduced to unconscious matter but in order for reductionist thinking to be valid, they must have consciousness at all levels including the quantum level. Then consciousness would not be completely emergent from unconscious matter. I see this as a form of dualism.

My view is idealism: unconscious matter does not exist. Everything is conscious. So panpsychism seems to make sense to me, however, I am not a reductionist. Consciousness not only goes down to the lowest forms of reality we are aware of, but also above beyond what we are aware of. The reason I am interested in this thread is I don't really know what I think is the case until I talk it out with someone who disagrees with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

I stated all my beliefs a few posts ago. I do not have an opinion on whether electrons are conscious. Remember, it is you who need this opinion. Why are you willing to grant consciousness to an electron, but ready for a death match when it comes to merely considering it for a futuristic machine which only operates on algorithms? Electrons, apparently operate from a more lofty paradigm than mere machine algorithms.

---

I don't need quantum reality to be conscious. It just seems that they are making choices and they might as well be considered conscious. However, I think Nagel's atheism would need something like this. He has to get consciousness at all the lower layers of reality. I just need it at the higher levels, but it could be everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

You need to insist there is some kind of magical, mystical threshhold to consciousness, unapproachable, uncreatable by all but god. I do not share this obsession. To you consciousness seems now vested with what is holy about the universe. You have that disguised need for what is holy. I think we all have that need. I try not to let it interfere with my process.

---

I am not trying to disguise anything. I have admitted being a generic panentheist although I don't profess any specific religion. I do yoga, meditate, recite mantras, but that is about it for religious practice. The need is real. Why? Because we wouldn't be here otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

I know what it does, it clears the way for now saying consciousness had no beginning. That consciousness is at the heart of operations in the universe and always has been. That is another supposition I am not pressed to make.

---

Right. Consciousness had no beginning. The universe did. Consciousness is why the universe is here. That is why I am interested in the Big Bang. The Big Bang attempts to show without using consciousness that the universe could have been created from nothing. I want to see to what extent that "without using consciousness" part is necessary. It is a challenge to my idealist position. That would be my interest in papers such as the one you cited by Crawford.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

I do not say electrons do not have consciousness, either. But on our thin knowledge of quantum operators I cannot jump out there simply because I would like for something to be true. I only take a stance when there is no other logical choice. Do I have a preference all of the time? Yeah. But not a stance. My stance is that there isn't very good evidence for a firm stance.

---

The only reason I think an electron could be conscious in its limited way is that its behavior can be modeled as a choice. It looks conscious more so than a machine that passes the Turing test does. Sure, that machine might fool me, but once I know it is a machine and operating under deterministic or even random algorithms, then I know it is not conscious based on Searle's Chinese room argument. With the electron I can't reduce its behavior to either deterministic or random processes. There are no hidden variables at that level of reality. So, I can't invoke Searle's argument against its consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

Consider a mosquito. What is its consciousness? I must add another belief to my stated arsenal and say I do not believe it is self conscious. The mosquito is not aware that it is conscious. It does not catch itself thinking. How do I know? I know where a bear makes duty, too.

---

I don't know what it's consciousness might be. It moves around and avoids my hand when I try to brush it away. The only criteria I have for saying that something that is initiating changes is not conscious is whether those changes are determined by an algorithm. I don't think a mosquito or even a virus is so determined. Why? Because a quantum particle is not so determined and they are much smaller.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

Is the mosquito really conscious at all, would probably be a reasonable question? If reacting to temperature and hunger pangs and a host of pre-programmed instincts is all that is required, I feel superbly confident those criteria can already be met by our machines. Such are the "decisions" of a mosquito.

Does a dog catch itself thinking? Can't claim to know. But there must be some threshhold more significant than ordinary consciousness, if indeed the mosquito is conscious. That threshhold must be self consciousness.

But will a machine not know when it has been turned on? There you go--self-consciousness. Perhaps we are closer than we choose to accept.

---

Thomas Nagel considered similar questions in an essay "What is it like to be a bat?" http://organizations.utep.edu/Portal.../nagel_bat.pdf I have not read it with enough care, but his essay "Panpsychism" in "Mortal questions" I have paid more attention to.

Let me state for the nth time I consider myself an agnostic. That's okay, it probably seems hard to believe at times. I can lean both ways, which gives me the flexibility to play devil's advocate in either direction. If you were not advocating some of these ideas I would have to be doing it myself. I think they are great ideas.

What I want out of this is sight. Such a journey is made almost entirely alone in the company of others. I want a picture to believe in. Strangely, people find such pictures for themselves all the time. The mind can make almost anything it wants. I don't ask for much--I just want the picture. I view much lovely art, but I do not think I have seen the picture yet.

We can go far without the right picture. I do not actually need to find the right picture, I only need to be allowed to search for it forever.

If we knew these things that drive our curiosity we would no longer be curious.

To say electrons have consciousness "of a type," is a lot of wobble room.

I go back to my mosquito friend. It may be conscious but it is not self conscious. What is consciousness without self consciousness but a bunch of programmable instincts entered as parameters which determine behavior? We could easily model that, and I believe the machine would be every bit as conscious as the mosquito, if not a little more. The mosquito, always starting anew, has no concept of yesterday or time past, but the computer does.

Our machines already have primitive consciousness, what they lack are actual emotions we would construe as genuine. Concepts like willfulness and awareness are pretty abstract and vague anyway, not to mention consciousness itself. Words we used forever without bothering to define them precisely. What is consciousness to you?

I doubt that the mosquito is even conscious. It has an on and off state. It reacts, it tries to preserve itself--but does it need consciousness for that? It does not think of itself, it does not reflect on its thoughts. I do not believe the mosquito is making willful choices, but following its programming, so of course I find reason to doubt the electron too. Making a choice really is a matter of definition.

Some people do not find it appealing that consciousness could arise from lump matter. I find it immensely appealing that so much could be enfolded that would never be suspected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

Let me state for the nth time I consider myself an agnostic. That's okay, it probably seems hard to believe at times. I can lean both ways, which gives me the flexibility to play devil's advocate in either direction. If you were not advocating some of these ideas I would have to be doing it myself. I think they are great ideas.

What I want out of this is sight. Such a journey is made almost entirely alone in the company of others. I want a picture to believe in. Strangely, people find such pictures for themselves all the time. The mind can make almost anything it wants. I don't ask for much--I just want the picture. I view much lovely art, but I do not think I have seen the picture yet.

We can go far without the right picture. I do not actually need to find the right picture, I only need to be allowed to search for it forever.

If we knew these things that drive our curiosity we would no longer be curious.

---

I will assume you are agnostic rather than atheistic. I don't have the picture either and what I understand now will likely change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

To say electrons have consciousness "of a type," is a lot of wobble room.

---

Yes. It is very vague. I don't know what consciousness is. An electron is not conscious or aware the way I am.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

I go back to my mosquito friend. It may be conscious but it is not self conscious. What is consciousness without self consciousness but a bunch of programmable instincts entered as parameters which determine behavior? We could easily model that, and I believe the machine would be every bit as conscious as the mosquito, if not a little more. The mosquito, always starting anew, has no concept of yesterday or time past, but the computer does.

Our machines already have primitive consciousness, what they lack are actual emotions we would construe as genuine. Concepts like willfulness and awareness are pretty abstract and vague anyway, not to mention consciousness itself. Words we used forever without bothering to define them precisely. What is consciousness to you?

I doubt that the mosquito is even conscious. It has an on and off state. It reacts, it tries to preserve itself--but does it need consciousness for that? It does not think of itself, it does not reflect on its thoughts. I do not believe the mosquito is making willful choices, but following its programming, so of course I find reason to doubt the electron too. Making a choice really is a matter of definition.

Some people do not find it appealing that consciousness could arise from lump matter. I find it immensely appealing that so much could be enfolded that would never be suspected.

---

I don't know how the words "consciousness", "self-consciousness", "willfulness" and "awareness" serve to differentiate something. I can only experience my own awareness, willfulness, consciousness and self-consciousness and they are all filtered through my being a member of the human species.

Every species has its own set of constraints on how it can interact with the world. We have different constraints than a mosquito but that doesn't mean the mosquito is any less able to make a choice within its own species constraints. All individuals within species, including humans, have dispositions to act in certain ways, but that doesn't mean there is no choice available. I choose between chocolate or vanilla ice cream perhaps disposed today to pick chocolate 60% of the time. The wave function for that choice would imply those probabilities today if one bothered creating it. But I still make a choice. The mosquito is disposed to move in multiple directions when my hand approaches. I have no reason to claim it has no choice in the matter except to support a metaphysical belief that it can be reduced to a machine.

However, I don't think a machine has any choice. And I can say that with more certainty than I can say anything about the mosquito because I can trace back the machine's programming to a real programmer. I disagree with using this programming metaphor when talking about reality that someone has not actually programmed. Programming implies the existence of a programmer or an "intelligent designer". If I cannot identify a programmer through some historical records, there is no justification to say something was programmed.

I know some theists like how the programming metaphor implies the existence of an intelligent designer, but I think accepting that metaphor comes at too great a cost. I am not a 19th century Christian apologist facing a scientific view that is totally deterministic with an underlying reduction to unconscious matter. That scientific view changed within science almost a hundred years ago. With determinism undermined there is no need to continue with intelligent design. Whatever God is real, He or She is far more interesting.

The mosquito weighed the options carefully, then went right instead of left.

I do not see water charging from a dam's gateway into a divided sluice-way having any more choice about where it goes than it had on its own composition. But give me all the weights, angles and forces involved, and I will give you back a probability wave for a particular molecule's likely "choice" of sluices.

What constitutes a choice and what constitutes consciousness appear to be mere definitions, when one peers behind Oz's curtain.

If it is left up to me, then, I will make the line of demarcation at self consciousness--the ability to reflect on what one is thinking about. Anything else would be defined as pre-consciousness. The worm and the mosquito are pre-conscious, but other life forms have varying degrees of consciousness. Saying just which ones, though, turns out to be difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

I do not see water charging from a dam's gateway into a divided sluice-way having any more choice about where it goes than it had on its own composition. But give me all the weights, angles and forces involved, and I will give you back a probability wave for a particular molecule's likely "choice" of sluices.

---

Probability is useful in two different contexts. One is where we do not have all the information we theoretically could have and so make a prediction based on what we do know. That is the kind associated with the water example you mentioned above.

The other is the kind where there is no additional information to obtain, no hidden variable is left to consider. We have all the information and the results are still indeterminate. That is the kind associated with quantum uncertainty. Some say this is "random", but that is a misleading metaphor. The distributions also are not uniform such as the flip of a coin. This makes it difficult to work with the uncertainty and why speculations such as many worlds have a hard time establishing themselves as consistent. That is, they could be modeled as choices and not reduced to mere chance.

At the quantum level it is easy to know that we have all the information. At the level of our species or any other species it is not clear whether a choice was made (inherent indeterminacy) or whether additional information could have predicted the results accurately. I assume any living organism can make a choice within the constraints set up by its species. Others don't make that assumption. I think the assumption is justified based on the fact that at an even lower level, quantum indeterminacy exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

What constitutes a choice and what constitutes consciousness appear to be mere definitions, when one peers behind Oz's curtain.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

If it is left up to me, then, I will make the line of demarcation at self consciousness--the ability to reflect on what one is thinking about. Anything else would be defined as pre-consciousness. The worm and the mosquito are pre-conscious, but other life forms have varying degrees of consciousness. Saying just which ones, though, turns out to be difficult.

---

I think that might be too restrictive.

Some changes do not involve consciousness. I grant that. The changes that a machine or computer make are not conscious. We really don't want our machines making independent choices. They can be explained by their design or programming. As Nagel would put it when he asked what is it like to be a bat, it would be like nothing to be a computer. That means the computer is not conscious. What this goes against is a behaviorism which tries to reduce consciousness to objective forms of behavior. Consciousness is subjective, not objective.

Rather than behavior, I would place the line of demarcation at the ability to make a choice. I will define a choice as a behavioral change for which indeterminacy has to be accepted. A choice is something that cannot be completely determined given all the information. The most we can construct is a probability distribution. This would exclude the flow of water through the dam's gateway. It would exclude a computer passing the Turing test. It would exclude weather patterns. However, it would include any living creature until we get more information to prove that they can be reduced to machines. It would also include quantum reality.

I think Descartes put the demarcation where you would like to put it, but I can't remember exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Probability is useful in two different contexts. One is where we do not have all the information we theoretically could have and so make a prediction based on what we do know. That is the kind associated with the water example you mentioned above.

The other is the kind where there is no additional information to obtain, no hidden variable is left to consider. We have all the information and the results are still indeterminate. That is the kind associated with quantum uncertainty. Some say this is "random", but that is a misleading metaphor. The distributions also are not uniform such as the flip of a coin. This makes it difficult to work with the uncertainty and why speculations such as many worlds have a hard time establishing themselves as consistent. That is, they could be modeled as choices and not reduced to mere chance.

At the quantum level it is easy to know that we have all the information. At the level of our species or any other species it is not clear whether a choice was made (inherent indeterminacy) or whether additional information could have predicted the results accurately. I assume any living organism can make a choice within the constraints set up by its species. Others don't make that assumption. I think the assumption is justified based on the fact that at an even lower level, quantum indeterminacy exists.



I agree.



I think that might be too restrictive.

Some changes do not involve consciousness. I grant that. The changes that a machine or computer make are not conscious. We really don't want our machines making independent choices. They can be explained by their design or programming. As Nagel would put it when he asked what is it like to be a bat, it would be like nothing to be a computer. That means the computer is not conscious. What this goes against is a behaviorism which tries to reduce consciousness to objective forms of behavior. Consciousness is subjective, not objective.

Rather than behavior, I would place the line of demarcation at the ability to make a choice. I will define a choice as a behavioral change for which indeterminacy has to be accepted. A choice is something that cannot be completely determined given all the information. The most we can construct is a probability distribution. This would exclude the flow of water through the dam's gateway. It would exclude a computer passing the Turing test. It would exclude weather patterns. However, it would include any living creature until we get more information to prove that they can be reduced to machines. It would also include quantum reality.

I think Descartes put the demarcation where you would like to put it, but I can't remember exactly.

---

If something cannot recognize it is making a choice, I don't think it did. I do not accept gobbledy-gook language such as "it makes a choice within the constraints of its species."

A choice is something that cannot be completely determined given all the information, is another one, that bothers me. Which information? All information? I don't have to accept that behavior is indeterminate at all, just very complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

If something cannot recognize it is making a choice, I don't think it did. I do not accept gobbledy-gook language such as "it makes a choice within the constraints of its species."

---

By constraints of a species I am just pointing out that we are limited by the species we belong to. We can't hear, for example, all the sounds that members of other species can hear, nor see the same range of the electromagnetic spectrum as members of other species. Those are constraints that are specific to a species. Bats for instance hang by their feet and fly. We don't.

So the choices we can make are limited by these constraints.

That is all I am trying to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

A choice is something that cannot be completely determined given all the information, is another one, that bothers me. Which information? All information? I don't have to accept that behavior is indeterminate at all, just very complex.

---

This goes back to uncertainty in quantum physics. It depends on having all the information that is available to us and still we cannot determine what the quantum particle will do exactly. In other words, we can't repeat the experiment expecting to confirm the result. We can only assign a probability to what might happen. For example, measure the position of an electron. Then measure the momentum. Then go back and measure the position. That second measurement of position cannot be predicted exactly.

I define situations like that as having enough freedom to make a choice. It is just a definition based on my ability to determine the outcome of a measurement. I don't know if the electron has a subjective state, but based on this definition of choice, I will then assume the electron has a subjective state. Having a subjective state based on Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?" is just the claim that it is like something to be an electron, but I don't know if that is the case or not. It is only what I could derive logically from the definition of choice and assumption of subjectivity. If I keep deriving statements hopefully I will be able to come up with a statement that I can test empirically. At that point I could claim that this budding theory is falsifiable.

If I thought for sure there was a God, I would be mighty angry at that entity for leaving me so ignorant, for expecting me to believe garbage like the Koran on faith.

God owes me an explanation, and not the phony one in holy books. C'mon, almighty, you can do a little better than that, or are you just a two-bit, limited God who gets your jollies torturing those you call your children? Explain yourself, rat!

The rat God, that is who we worship. The rat God who expects more than is reasonable. It seems to me the devil and God are the same entity.

God is so wicked that those old books that try to put a good face on him fail miserabley. He still comes out Joseph Stalin. It is time for God to declare himself openly or GTFO of our universe.

Oh, I must be very angry today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desiresjab

Oh, I must be very angry today.

---

Walks and slow breathing sometimes help.



Regarding cosmology, I recently found out that black holes might not exist.

On the one hand there are theoretical objections to their existence.

Here is one claiming that Hawking does not believe in them around January, 2014: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ace-astronomy/

In September, 2014, there was also a report from Mersini-Houghton that they cannot exist: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

On the other hand there is one failed prediction assuming the radio source at the center of our galaxy, Sgr A*, is a black hole:

In early 2014 a cloud called G2 was supposed to head into Sgr A* and calculations based on black hole theory claimed the black hole would absorb the cloud. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitt...cretion_course) described the event and reports that the gas cloud survived the encounter. Of course, Sgr A* may still be a black hole and the theory or calculations used in the prediction just need some modifications.

But all of this makes me wonder if Sgr A* is really a black hole and whether black holes are even possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

Walks and slow breathing sometimes help.



Regarding cosmology, I recently found out that black holes might not exist.

On the one hand there are theoretical objections to their existence.

Here is one claiming that Hawking does not believe in them around January, 2014: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ace-astronomy/

In September, 2014, there was also a report from Mersini-Houghton that they cannot exist: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html

On the other hand there is one failed prediction assuming the radio source at the center of our galaxy, Sgr A*, is a black hole:

In early 2014 a cloud called G2 was supposed to head into Sgr A* and calculations based on black hole theory claimed the black hole would absorb the cloud. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagitt...cretion_course) described the event and reports that the gas cloud survived the encounter. Of course, Sgr A* may still be a black hole and the theory or calculations used in the prediction just need some modifications.

But all of this makes me wonder if Sgr A* is really a black hole and whether black holes are even possible.

---

I will have to get back to you after I have read the links. (I actually do read them). I have very similar doubts about black holes. They were a possibility found in the field equations for the first time by Billy Sidis, I believe, when he was a fourteen year old at Harvard.

As we know, the mathematical existence of something does not prove something physically exists.

After all, infinite mass at a singularity is a mathematical convenience or extrapolation. No one can really believe in infinite mass, but maybe in something we say mathematically approaches it.

Black holes are one of our most beloved cultural icons by now. Let's see how easily we can shake them.

When one author says he has proven mathematically the impossibility of black holes, that was under a particular model under a particular system of constraints. I truly doubt it is as final as a universal proof yet.

The abstracts below some of the papers point out the tools they are using. No surprise that all the tools were named after great mathematicians. Because that is the only way we make progress, after all the talking. Hamilton quaternions, Hilbert spaces and Abelian groups and matrices in a framework of Lie algebra. It does not get more clear than that what the tools are.

Science will take an awful public flogging when it needs to change its paradigm again. Many powerful people believe cosmological research is a waste of time and money anyway. They would like strictly practical research with no long range vision. Do we really care about better and better cellphones if we cannot search for our origins?

You have to admit, this subject is more interesting than social philosophy, which is now PC from top to bottom. I sure hope there are not too many suicides by marginalized people unable to cross the George Washington Bridge one more time. You know, them danged monuments is going to have to come down too.

I took a recent peer at Einstein's field equations. They are not as daunting as some mathematics I have looked at. I see partial differential equations. Anyone familiar with differential equations and what the variables stood for would basically understand the mechanics of the math. Of course understanding those variables well would require a lot of advanced physics. There are powerful ideas relating to many fields of mathematics and physics embedded in those innocent looking equations. Somewhere within the manipulations all the tools I mentioned in the last post are likely to come into play along with many more. Unfamiliarity with any of these individual elements dooms deep understanding of the subject. That is why almost all of us will remain railbirds to the real action, including myself, of course...

One doesn't have to understand these equations at more than a superficial level. As I see them they are just maps of some objective part of reality.

I'm looking through a few books to try to understand the link between black holes, dark matter and the singularity at the big bang. My suspicion at the moment is that there is only circumstantial evidence for black holes and the encounter of G2 with Sag A* would have been the only direct evidence regarding them so far. Also I think dark matter comes from missing matter assumed to be there from the big bang, but does not seem to be needed for gravitation within our own galaxy. What I am trying to find out is how much of all of this is speculation and how much is based on real observations.

Some links from EarthSky.com on all this about black holes, dark matter and the big bang. The last is about a nearby Dark Matter Galaxy: go figure.
http://earthsky.org/space/dark-matte...c77b-394044013
http://earthsky.org/space/the-cheshi...p-of-galaxies?
http://earthsky.org/space/a-nearby-d...c77b-394044013

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamwoven

Some links from EarthSky.com on all this about black holes, dark matter and the big bang. The last is about a nearby Dark Matter Galaxy: go figure.
http://earthsky.org/space/dark-matte...c77b-394044013
http://earthsky.org/space/the-cheshi...p-of-galaxies?
http://earthsky.org/space/a-nearby-d...c77b-394044013

---

With so many results in hand and people pushing different models, the real job is in sifting through what we already have and running the appropriate experiments where possible.

Filaments of dark matter emerging from the earth might be a testable idea, since the highest concentration of the hair roots lies only 600,000 miles out in space from us.

As I understand it, one of the difficulties of finding dark matter, which I doubt exists, is that although there is more of it than regular matter it is more smoothly distributed through space. It doesn't collect since it can't stick together not reacting to electromagnetic forces. Without those forces, it goes through everything. So it is diffuse, but the Sun which is relatively close to us is locally so massive the amount of dark matter is too small compared to it to be picked up by our measurements. However, I think that should be still the case at the galactic level.

It occurred to me that dark matter is like a field. One should be able to replace it with a variable G value and not have to worry about supposing there is a form of matter out there.

Given our record with less advanced cultures, a cosmic speed limit at the speed of light imposed on our kind makes sense from the point of view of beings advanced enough to actually live up to the Star Trek prime directive.

I think I should point out again that Curvature Cosmology eliminates the need for dark matter and dark energy. As one of Dream Woven's links pointed out, black holes are not a reality in some workable models.

The possibility that vastly distant celestial objects might be equally well expressible under dual and opposite exclusive interpretations raises the possibility again that there may be no further reality than our models. Whatever we think of as "out there" is only a matter of interpretation and which model we use, and either model is eqaully valid, like waves and particles are in the study of light. There is something vaguely scary about that.

We are animated postulates.

Here is Stephen J. Crothers explaining why there aren't any black holes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA It's a little long, but I found it entertaining. It looks like the only way to bring theoretical physicists down to earth when they start dividing by zero is satire.

I don't know if all of the competing models are equally valid, but until one gets some experimental data there is only the model's internal logic and one's personal metaphysics to justify it. I understand the Planck data has not provided for example any evidence of a multiverse and the lambda CDM standard cosmology model is still standard from this lecture by Charles Lawrence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCZdrfDHwgU This one is also long.

Good stuff. Only viewed the first one so far. Crothers is someone at the spear point of research. Great to hear him speak with such authority. Much of his talk inadvertantly illustrates another idea I have been talking about. He and his fellows are still hashing out the details of papers published in 1916. They are translating overlooked Russian papers from the 1940's. You see what I mean? See how long it takes humans to hash out truth in these difficult matters. With cyborg researchers, everything we are painstakingly piecing together would be accomplished in a matter of days or even hours.

I like Crothers also. As I see it, we are the cyborgs.

The belief in dark matter can be traced to big bang nucleosynthesis, BBN, (distinct from later stellar nucleosynthesis) and the discrepancy between the baryon-photon ratio observed in the microwave background and the way galaxies appear to behave now: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis It is interesting that the standard BBN theory matches the data for hydrogen, helium, but not for lithium, however, the non-standard models apparently mess things up even more. It is good to see data putting limits on speculation.

I have to reply before I have properly viewed everything. But I must say I wish Crothers had gone even longer. He taught me some things about the tensor calculus supercripts and subscripts. As I inch my way along, I can get closer to the mathematical ideas that inspire these guys. There are some gaps in my understanding so confusing I cannot even point out what they consist of yet. But as I creep along, unexpected tiny parts of the cavern are suddenly illuminated from various investigations. Maker of collages, I take what I can to patch my understanding of existence into a coherent picture. I am sure that is what we all do.

I feel the cynic coming on. Contemplation of diverse models which each offers a reasonable view of the universe can do that, methinks. It's enough to make one go religious!

The thing is, most of those models got one or more things wrong. They each have flaws. There may be no such thing as truth. Can't define existence, can't define consciousness, can't define intelligence--we have a ways to go. The search itself is what is exciting, and I am disappointed that the vast majority of people miss out on all of the excitement and anticipation that goes with cosmology watching.

I'm following the cosmology debate, and enjoying it!

Here is a collection of conundrums for your interest: http://www.space.com/topics/expert-v...lawrence-kuhn/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamwoven

Here is a collection of conundrums for your interest: http://www.space.com/topics/expert-v...lawrence-kuhn/

---

I took some interesting rides there. At the moment I list slightly toward our being a type of simulation or auxillary consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamwoven

Here is a collection of conundrums for your interest: http://www.space.com/topics/expert-v...lawrence-kuhn/

---

I looked at Kuhn's video about information in this link: http://www.space.com/29477-did-infor...he-cosmos.html

I liked the way he presented the issue about what is fundamental and that there should be something that is fundamental. Also the title was interesting: "Does Information Create the Cosmos". That's the challenge. What is the most fundamental reality that creates what we experience right now?

Rather than "information", I would say the fundamental reality is "consciousness", in a general sense, not our human example of it, that is the fundamental reality. However, that would require finding a way to get electrons and photons from consciousness. This is not simply that they are "conscious" themselves in some way, but that they are a manifestation to us of consciousness. I don't know how that happens, but I don't think information works as the fundamental reality because of Searle's Chinese room argument and Nagel's discussion of what it is "like" to be something subjectively.

Another one of Kuhn's topics is consciousness: http://www.space.com/30937-when-robo...conscious.html

This is a good overview containing video interviews with some of the key people involved. What I found most interesting was Kuhn's separating the different positions into five categories. This is how I understand those categories.

1) Materialism. The only fundamental reality is unconscious matter. Consciousness emerges from unconscious matter.

2) Qualia Fields. Consciousness is not reducible to unconscious matter, but it is a separate field interacting with physical fields.

3) Panpsychism. Consciousness is not reducible to unconscious matter. Matter contains consciousness as a property at the smallest levels. There is some emergence involved to get from primitive to more complicated forms of consciousness.

4) Dualism. Unconscious matter and conscious souls exist interdependently. Both unconscious matter and consciousness are fundamental.

5) Idealism. Consciousness is the only fundamental reality. Unconscious matter does not exist but what appears to be unconscious emerges from an underlying consciousness.

Most people would agree with either 1 or 4. They are either materialists or dualists. I would agree with 5.

As I see the idealist position, not everything that we have a name for is conscious as that object, but the object emerges from simpler reality that is conscious. Consciousness is characterized by an ability to make a choice, no matter how constrained that choice would be. For example, a table is not conscious as a table, but the physical reality making up the atoms of the table are conscious or emerge from a deeper consciousness. Similarly the brain is not conscious as an objectively functioning brain although the cells within the brain would be conscious as cells. Nor is a robot conscious as a robot. If the object can be identified with a programmer who determined its behavior, then it is not conscious.

Positions 1, 2 and 3 are reductionist positions while 4 and 5 are not.

I went to Kuhn's "Closer to Truth" site for more interviews: http://www.closertotruth.com/ The interviews are short and give me a better understanding of the key people involved by listening to them speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I went to Kuhn's "Closer to Truth" site for more interviews: http://www.closertotruth.com/ The interviews are short and give me a better understanding of the key people involved by listening to them speak.

---

I used to watch the Kuhn show every chance I got.

We got rid of cable some years ago. I never heard of Kuhn before this thread.

One of the psi experiments reminded me of the Turing test. Unfortunately I can't remember which person was being interviewed. The experiment used two people in different rooms. One was talking about whatever came to his mind. The other was just thinking about something he was viewing and tried to influence what the other was saying by using his thoughts. He could hear what the other was saying, but the speaking person could not see him.

Also it looks like Ray Kurzweil didn't think that recent Turing test success met his standards: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-re...he-turing-test

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

We got rid of cable some years ago. I never heard of Kuhn before this thread.

One of the psi experiments reminded me of the Turing test. Unfortunately I can't remember which person was being interviewed. The experiment used two people in different rooms. One was talking about whatever came to his mind. The other was just thinking about something he was viewing and tried to influence what the other was saying by using his thoughts. He could hear what the other was saying, but the speaking person could not see him.

Also it looks like Ray Kurzweil didn't think that recent Turing test success met his standards: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-ray-re...he-turing-test

---

Yikes! Look at this. I do not think I have posted it before.

http://www.tony5m17h.net/SiragMcKayE8ID.pdf

There are some prose sections to this long paper that are readable. This is the Lie alghebra they are using to try to connect consciousness to quantum mechanics. At first I was under the impression that they were using seven and a half billion dimensions. But, ah, no worry. These are regular square matrices. Do not be discouraged that one of the matrices would be seven miles wide if each entry position were given one inch of room. Get your pencil out and start calculating!

I have no idea exactly how difficult this Lie algebra might be, because it is hard to even get an inroad. But I do know that p-adic theory may be the toughest I have looked at in terms of mastery. In p-adic theory (which is used within Lie Algebra), 48 and 1000048 are exteremely close numbers when p=10. Not sure how close 47 and 1000048 are, but I believe they are not considered close at all.

Lie Algebra evolved out of differential geometry. It is simply amazing how closely Gauss is tied to all these advanced maths that developed, some long after his death. The hand of Gauss is still all over conteporary research.

I didn't understand the paper. Since it referenced many worlds multiple times I assume it is false. Or possibly even a prank.

Edit: Looking more at the paper, I don't think it is a prank, but I don't trust it because of the many worlds references.

Here is a link to a more readable account of Frank Dodd (Tony) Smith, Jr's theory: http://www.soebooks.com/11/240-of-25...Theory-of.html

I presented that link as a look-see at what the top dogs are using mathematically. To say they are wrong would be the height of presumption for me, since I understand the math slightly better than a third grader understands algebra.

I actually could not tell you what the author believes, after perusing the article, only that some very sophisticated tools are at work. I have wanted to get a look at the how researchers were approaching unraveling any connection between quantum mechanics and consciousness. I was curious as to what kind of tool the great researchers would feel had some kind of chance at discovering these truths. Now I know. That is all. I do not side with anyone because I do not know enough to side with anyone.

This article summarizes quantum mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

Smith's theory seems to be related to the Penrose-Hameroff position which I assume is still being pursued although its original version has encountered some falsification.

My gut feeling suggests that the brain is itself not conscious nor does it allow for consciousness to emerge from it. I don't think this is a quantum mind position, but I don't understand the quantum mind well. Regarding the brain, I suspect I would be closer to Chalmers on the issue. No physical theory, quantum or classical, can reduce consciousness to something objective and unconscious.

I was looking for more information on quantum whatever and found this interview with Amit Goswami which made some sense to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnQ63AOrs6s

It is about an hour. Some of the notes I took were:

1) Objects are possibilities.

2) Consciousness chooses without any signals.

3) There was some research done by someone called Greenberg (?) in 1993 that I would like to look up showing that human brains interact non-locally. EDIT: I think I found the paper: http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Grinberg1994.pdf

4) I didn't understand his reference to Hofstadter's "Godel, Escher, Bach", but I will have to look further into that regarding "tangled hierarchies" which has to do with perceiving and memory both being necessary for each other to exist.

5) Nothing becomes something.

6) Sheldrake's morphogenic fields allow for something I was unclear about although I have heard about this concept before.

Anyway, just something else that is hopefully related to the topic.

These gentlemen all have a lot of pretty ideas. If consciousness cannot unfold from the brain, then it seems clear you do not believe in a creator. For the creator itself would have had a schematic in mind from which it created us.