joigus

Can you formulate your hypothesis in a simple sentence? I'll give you an example of a hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat's_principle

No. Inertia is locally indistinguishable from the gravitational field. (Equivalence principle.) (My emphasis.) I was talking quantum mechanics, which the way we know Nature to behave. That's not how science works. If you want to have people consider your new concept, first understand all that's been already understood. Doesn't seem like you really understand inertia, gravitation, and their intimate relationship; or 'quantum' vs 'classical', or chirality/helicity, or gauge charge. You want to build physics from scratch, and there's no change in the world that this will ever work. If you think it will, as Swansont said, make a prediction, or a derivation of some long-known feature. Neither Einstein, nor Copernicus, were fools on a hill. They were very knowledgeable about the status of physical theories at their time. All experiments are limited, of course. Do not ever trust any statement that represents itself as unlimited.

They don't have inertia? How come? Field degrees of freedom exchange energy via couplings. The reason we say that is that there's a precise mathematical definition to hypothesize it; and methods have been developed to check the predictions. In physics, you can't just utter a sentence and hope it will make sense somehow. Example: space-time gains acceleration via vacuum energy. Yeah right, but that responds to a mathematical model. You haven't shown us a mathematical model, however crude. You have a motion cartoon and a bunch of intuitions. That's not what I hear. LIGO's still active, ATLAS at CERN, James Webb Space Telescope, and so on, and so on.

The question of what consciousness is hasn't been settled IMO. I would assume that such a question is even farther from being settled.

I think you both overlooked my words: 'Then human kind as a whole is superconscious, so to speak. And the internet too' is not my stance* here. My point is Koch's criterion is kind of a loose-ended one to me. Any higher-level structure could, under right auxiliary assumptions, be considered a meta-consciousness by that token. Not that I consider it an absurd idea --if cells could think they would be none the wiser about what's going on at the tissue --> organ --> organism levels. According to Daniel Dennett, neurons are not very much collaborative agents. So it's not exactly coordination between them, as much as a process which is a competition of sorts. But I may have misunderstood his claims. But my main point has been missed: What exactly is the mechanism by virtue of which firing of neurons in different areas of the brain result in this overall one-faced projection, so to speak, that any conscious being experiences as the 'illusion' --if you will-- of I am here and now? It's obvious that neither the growth of my nails, nor the activity of my smooth muscles makes it to my state of awareness. So which exactly are those signals and how do they coalesce into that unmistakable impression of here's 'I' here and now? * I apologise. I should've said: 'Then human kind as a whole would be superconscious, so to speak. And the internet too.'

That still puzzles the simple minds (like mine). I'll take a back sit, for the time being, and learn more. @MigL, make some room for me, please.

You've just arbitrarily re-defined 'unexplained' as 'supernatural'.

I actually was thinking about deep physics. I have a feeling that whatever consciousness is about, it must be deeply ingrained in something physical that divides systems and their local environments according to information. And information is physical, as we now realise. The tree in the forest question, the 'is my blue the same as your blue' question, the question 'is a kelp colony aware', the question of time, that seems to be challenged by solving a dynamical problem and plotting it à la Descartes... All these are questions that don't require a high degree of sophistication, and seem to be standing in the face of all scientific analysis so far, and are very ancient. This is very interesting, and it does seem to be going in that direction. I should've paid more attention to those paragraphs. But by that token, if, Then human kind as a whole is superconscious, so to speak. And the internet too. Does that make sense? Then, how does it feel to be that superconscience now? I'm missing the part that --for lack of better words-- I will express as, 'that integrated projection of sensorial data into one consistent flow of here and now these things going on'. No matter how much it takes a particular conscious being to forget: I do believe a person suffering from Alzheimer does experience that same projection, even if they forget a couple of seconds later. Imagine this taken to the extreme: No consistency at all, and yet I'm here and now, being alive. Thanks a lot! I'm very positive about these attempts. I think they're kind of converging towards necessary --if not sufficient-- criteria. I'm certainly no expert; not even close. But somehow I have this feeling that something very primal about the whole thing escapes us. Me too, of course. I'll be following closely, because I'm learning a lot. Agreed. I think most of us agree on this. And that we all are quite ready to accept other varieties, or as you say, flavours, of awareness, consciousness, etc. @beecee was very honest in trying to address the OP's concerns. Unfortunately that would lead us back to downright dualism. I have enough problems detecting sneaking dualism.

It's pay-walled, and I can't see an abstract. I've caught an abstract from a paper* developing the same idea, apparently: It seems to be applicable only to humans --what about octopi, or jellyfish?--, and I don't seem to find the idea of grading levels of consciousness in it. You know: Does an ant have some kind of limited, more 'pixelated' version of consciousness? That kind of question. Certainly an ant reacts to past events and is affected in some way by its past, even though it hasn't got a hippocampus... *Same paper.

Polarity is directional; charge is a scalar (it has no direction).

🤣 I can only quote Christof Koch at this point: Being sexy? It's more of a Rod Stewart problem.

Scalars and vectors are particular (if trivial) examples of tensors, so don't worry too much about that. Every time you say 'vector' or 'tensor' to talk about an invariant or scalar, it makes your argument so much less convincing. You should worry a lot more about how your model fits any known features of particles. I still don't know what you mean by 'polarity'.

Well, I'm not implying it. It just cropped up somewhere on similar matters and I'm incorporating it to the discussion.

I don't think the problem of consciousness is going to be solved any time soon. And yet I value immensely all these discourses on the matter by people like Searle, and Dennett, and Koch. If nothing else, they clarify the discussion and I hope they converge towards a much less naive setting. My poor man's version of the problem of (perception of) colours: R,Y,B Primary colours. Any combination of these reproduces any perception of colour I may experience. Let's introduce a permutation of primary colours, for example, a cyclic shift: \[\pi\left(R\right)=Y\] \[\pi\left(Y\right)=B\] \[\pi\left(B\right)=R\] How do I program a machine to perceive the colour blue exactly as I perceive the colour red, and so on? My poor man's version of the problem of (perception of) time: A second ago, I can see in its wake. My nephew's just smiled, my sister's cat's just yawned. But I have no idea what she will do next. Even less of an idea of what he will do*. My nephew's quite unpredictable. How come? I don't think beta decay has much to do with my nephew's behaviour, TBH. ------------------- The deepest questions, the nature of time, entropy, chirality, and internal charges, physical horizons, and perhaps other physical variables as yet undiscovered must have something to do with these puzzling questions. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that consciousness, in all likelihood, must be very deeply ingrained in very deep physics. Some level of description in which the boundary between being and knowing gets blurry. I suppose my battle cry for this questions (as I can't help significantly) would be: Go deeper! Entropic horizons, Maldacena dualities, ambiguity between interior and exterior physical variables à la HUP, stuff like that. But hey, who knows. *Probably poke my neck with his tiny finger. I somehow picture this 'downward causation' as a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for consciousness. Can consciousness be graded? is another interesting question that our grumpy member Holmes introduced previously in a thread I forget, only noticed by @studiot. You're getting dangerously close to the interesting question: Can consciousness be graded? 👍

I know this from a documentary by Iain Stewart.

I need a coping mechanism right now.

I don't have a very sophisticated knowledge of this. I can distinguish two types: a priory probability (when you have a knowledge about the make-up of the system. In that case, you can predict the probabilities. Laplacian probability for the proverbial die being just one example of a system in which, from symmetry, you can infer equiprobability. Other example is quantum mechanics, in which you have a dynamical law (the Schrödinger equation) which allows you to predict the probability density. It doesn't have to be always symmetry. Mathematics makes all this a lot less vague, of course. In the case of pre-bigbang scenarios, the statistical hypothesis would come from extrapolations of the known physical laws that are particularly 'natural' or 'simple'. And I do know how vague terms as 'natural' or 'simple' are. But I also think you can get an idea of what I mean by that. The other version of probability is the phenomenological one. You reproduce the experiment over and over again, and get an idea of how sound your probabilistic hypothesis is. This is the kind of concept that universe, and time itself with it, is not amenable to. The example you mentioned of the Monsoons is one that perhaps resists a simple criterion. On the one hand, Monsoons are regularities, but OTOH, there are exceptions. We know Monsoons fail from time to time. Now, please, tell me about the third one.

Very interesting questions. Give me some time to ponder and then react, please, because I think an attempt at an answer to that must have to do with a subtle distinction that some people make between aprioristic probability and empirical probability. I would like to say more on that, hope we're not getting too off-topic, and would be interested to know your opinion, as well as other users'. I would also be very interested to learn what @Eise makes of all this.

So, what's your answer to the perennial question, If a tree falls in a forest...?

Trying to answer to @Intoscience's question 'what's your take on this?', and leaving aside the ongoing discussion based on the nonsense of spacetime being a scalar... I understand 'emergent' as a variable that's derived from relationships among more fundamental variables, and it's not present in those variables. Very much what Swansont stated. It is derived from the overall dynamics of those variables. The variable that's really bothersome, especially when trying to combine cosmology and quantum mechanics is time, not space. Because: The universe cannot be instantiated/re-instantiated There were no observers* [?] No really good explanation for initial conditions of the universe Meta-laws (laws previous to physical laws as we know them): What does 'previous' even mean? Time, in combination with QM, really seems to stand in the way of anything meaningful we might try to say in very early cosmology. It's not a practical matter for everyday physics. It's about very early cosmology. That's precisely why most prominent physicists who are concerned with cosmology support the view that spacetime, or maybe just time, is emergent. Namely: it hides something in it, so to speak; it derives from a more fundamental, structure. The three questions, time asymmetry, chiral asymmetry, and charge asymmetry in the universe must be related, as the CPT theorem of quantum field theory relates them all very clearly. If/when we find out why time is a one-way pathway, because we get to understand how it emerged that way, we will probably understand the other two. Maybe it's something completely unsuspected. Maybe instability and spontaneous breaking of symmetry are at the core of why we perceive the universe as a history, the actual underlying level being something much more symmetric, and observers only making sense as stretched over time. I'm approaching my dangerous 'push the envelope' mode. * The now popular view of measurement as decoherence between alternatives doesn't even start to tackle this problem IMO, as irrespective of whether the universe is in a mixed instead of a pure quantum state, a quantum state for the whole universe doesn't make a lot of sense, at least with the usual operational rules that go with it. This is the problem of the pointer states, can be formally swept under the carpet for anything other than the whole universe, but is clearly posed in Wheeler & Zurek.

You keep saying tensor... It's not like the 10th time you say 'tensor' it becomes one. OK. I'm tired. Maybe tomorrow.

Massive or non-massive. It's just that we don't know of any spin-1/2 massless particles. Think of helicity and chirality as elementary-particle versions of the property of a corkscrew: Normal corkscrews are right-handed; if you rotate it in the clockwise direction, it goes downwards. Left-handed particles are like the corkscrew that you see in the mirror. The area per unit time swept by the line joining a and b is the angular momentum per unit mass, and it's conserved (Kepler's second law). No mystery there, I guess.

No, spin in the direction of motion more like. Although not exactly. There is a property of an elementary particle called helicity. It is the (normalised) projection of spin in the direction of momentum. \[ \lambda=\frac{\boldsymbol{S}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}}{\left|\boldsymbol{S}\cdot\boldsymbol{p}\right|} \] When studying massive spin-1/2 particles, one introduces another similar quantity that has to do with handedness. It's called chirality, and only in the limit of v-->c (approaching the speed of light) both observables coincide. Chirality is a bit more subtle. It has to do with handedness (whether you have a given 'right' version of the particle or its mirror image). It's made up of so-called gamma matrices from the Dirac equation.

Yeah. Sorry. Right. Here's the correct statement: Only left handed electrons couple to the weak force. Same happens to quarks. So left and right handed electrons (and quarks) are treated as different particles in the standard model. It's neutrinos that exist only in left-handed version. I think I got it right now. Thank you, Swansont.

Deviations from Kepler's laws for Mercury are due to \( \frac{1}{r^3} \) terms. Gravity is very different from Coulomb's law at strong fields. The right statement would be: gravity with general relativity, locally, is no force at all.