Agemoz's Physics Blog

Just to clarify the previous post–what did I mean by being dead or alive just being different states, thus life (and death) are just ideas. This comes from a bunch of previous posts, where I realized that death just involves the breaking of certain ordered sequences of particles. One ordering gives us life and consciousness, but when we die, no particles are lost or gained–it’s just a different ordering that no longer sustains consciousness and thinking and actions directed by the brain. When I realized this, I determined that this would show that life is nothing more than an idea–a construction that sustains life behaviors. Since ideas have different levels of realization (eg, the three I mentioned, those that are realized in a physical system, those that are abstracted in an intelligence’s brain, and those that haven’t been set in either), this would imply that consciousness is an idea–and so is the physical system that realizes the idea of me.

It is such a human desire, probably based in his survival instinct of not wanting to die, to wish that life was more than just an idea–but the contrarian part of me says that a lot of things that people wish for but don’t observe become religions of hope and faith. With enough consensus, a lot of people can establish a doctrine that by sheer weight of documentation can give it an apparent reality in this existence that doesn’t match the behavior of the ideas in the physical realization of our existence. A less wordy way to put that is that religions are ideas, and very often (not provable, though) represent wishful thinking rather than real consequences of the realized idea of our existence. That is, they are ideas realized only in an intelligence’s mind and do not reflect reality.

However, in this post I want to just focus on this direction of life is just an idea in a physical system that provides the particles and interactions that consistently support it. I could spend some time defining what I mean by life and consciousness–you can see some of that earlier in this blog–but really, it doesn’t matter how it is defined. What I think matters a lot more is that ideas are constructions of constructions, a recursive process that should provide deep understanding of our existence if we can determine a starting point. As I’ve recently mentioned, our physical existence is just an idea as well, perhaps a system from nothing or some other field aggregating effect. The question of what sustains life seems to fall out of the consistency of application of rules to a system–a system is more physical the more consistently rules apply to the system.

For example, in our universe, electrons apparently have the same mass and charge throughout a universe who’s count of electrons is beyond immense. What is it that is enforcing that consistency? If you believe the twist ring theory I’ve worked my way through in this blog, it results from the connection ratio of electrostatic and magnetic (Lorentz) forces. But that just pushes it back another step–what establishes that ratio? In spite of all my work that shows that God is not necessary to define a system that emerges from nothing (see my previous posts on scale-less systems, which show that something will emerge from nothing provided there is no boundary–infinitely large or small), there appears to be a rule being enforced in this existence that assures the mass of an electron and the ratio of the Lorentz forces. And, as I’ve discussed previously, if this rule is an axiom, and there is more than one, this cannot arise from nothing. God, in some form, would have to exist to create a system with distinguishable rules).

However, if the universe came from nothing as a result of a single rule, it still seems to imply that God has to enforce the rule. That’s why I call the mass of an electron the God rule–if ideas are realizable, whether by abstraction in an intellect’s mind or as a physical permutation of particles and energies, on a system with a consistency of an axiom, something has to enforce that consistency. It could be an intelligence or a machine, but it appears to be axiomatic that axioms are not axioms. The fact that ideas exist in any number and extent of realization seems to counter the something from nothing existence.

Our consciousness is an idea, and the fact that there is a system of ideas who’s realization has eventually (over the life of this universe) has led to the creation of an intellect that can see that it is in a system of ideas has created a new category of ideas. We had the unrealized ideas, the abstracted ideas, the physically realized ideas (which could conceivably just be an abstracted idea in some intellect’s mind), and now the idea that is realized in such a way that within its realization is an idea that observes the realized idea of existence. This idea (observer) is capable of storing some subset of all possible abstractions in its brain, one of which would be the transcending understanding of what the idea of a system of ideas really is–and the transcending understanding of what axioms, if any, are real. This idea, which includes the storage of transcending ideas, is a new form of idea all by itself–what can I say such an idea, that life, would be? Could it find a path to immortality or God?

Dunno. Time for bed.

Agemoz

Continuing from the previous post on what I find so fascinating about our existence: we live, we die, are just two permutations of ordering in a system that otherwise doesnt really change. And–ideas have different levels of realization. There are ideas that haven’t been formed by an intelligence but could be, ideas that have been abstracted in the mind of an intelligence, and ideas that have been built. Since built ideas are constructed in systems that are themselves potentially ideas (complex constructions of fundamental particles)–which may just be a continuously managed set of abstractions in the mind of an intelligence with no loss of generality. In other words, there is no conceptual difference between an idea that is built on a truly physical set of objects, or an idea constructed in the mind of an intelligence that maintains a set of rules in his mind of what that object does.

This is wonderful stuff! New horizons for me and my philosophical thought, reaching deeply into what it means to be alive–it’s just an idea, anyway! Yow, this is getting profoundly recursive, it’s turtles all the way down or is it? I think not–but I have to go, back in a day or two..

Agemoz

My thinking process has winded its way through a lot of physics in the last several years, and I’m slowly working my way through a computer simulation of some of this work. However, the problem with attempting to work on a problem in physics, even if it’s oriented toward understanding the greater overall picture, is that I must augur in to the problem with such intensity that I miss the forest for the trees. I have to truly prove that my thinking is correct or at least isn’t obviously wrong–and that takes a gigantic amount of time and thinking energy. The problem with that is that in my short life span, there’s not really time to do that, and in fact I’ve begun to realize that it’s not really even necessary.

Let’s look at my goals and whether that effort will contribute to them. Suppose I do find that twist rings have a valid solution space and match what we see in the real world. If I succeed, which the simulation might show but will require an enormous investment of my time, all I will have done is constructed an artifice that better shows the possibility that our existence can emerge from nothing. That is a huge deal, because my ultimate goal has been to try to establish whether this existence (or my existence and consciousness) was self-emergent or whether an intelligence guided it. In other words, is there a God, or not.

Lately, I’ve decided to think more in the direction of what the whole concept of adding to my knowledge about whether God exists or not means. That is, never mind the question of whether God exists or not, but rather what does it mean that I am asking that question. To make a long story short, (that is, a description of the latest bout of my thinking), I’ve realized first that my/our existence that we call reality is really just an idea that has experienced some degree of realization in a medium. For example, I think it is clear that the difference between a “live me with consciousness” and a “dead me with no consciousness” is just a different arrangement of particles–so I’ve concluded that there is not that much difference between reality and an idea.

To attempt to prove this, I think I’ve mentioned in the distant past here that ideas are constructs of other constructs, and the constructs can be expressed either in ones mind or of particle arrangements. Both are ideas and are essentially the same concept, but we happen to call one of those “reality”. One way to see this is to suppose that this existence of particles is just a consistent ordering of thoughts in some God’s mind. I am doubtful that is what is going on here, but the fact that that is a possibility (that our existence is merely sequences of neuronal information exchanges in a God’s mind or even a automated device like a computer) forces me to acknowledge that our reality is really just an idea.

As a result, my thinking has dug into the ideas about ideas, the realization that understanding what it means to have ideas is more critical than whether the twist ring theory has validity, or even whether God exists. You say, whoa, I don’t believe you–whether God exists or not is the most important question there is! And now I would respond “Is it? Suppose we could prove that God does or does not exist? What have we done?” And I think the truth is, not much. Sure, we might discover a purpose in life or get blessed reassurance about life and death and all–big things for us personally, but actually not too meaningful overall when you consider our existences and life and death really are just simple ideas with a complex implementation.

What is far more interesting is to realize that in the end, this existence and my consciousness is revealing the interplay of ideas with varying degrees of consistency. I have only a certain amount of time before the realized idea of me, which is enabling the idea of consciousness/self awareness, loses its consistency and breaks down and I die. In that time, can I form new ideas that raise my level and understanding of my self-awareness. I’ve expanded my ultimate goals, not just to find God, but to understand better what that idea means, and ultimately to understand what it means to be an idea capable of forming new ideas. Kind of a Grand Theory of Theories sort of a thing.

I have this vision that in 2000 years, mankind’s entertainment will be solely mental–manipulating particles (arms and legs in football, playing piano, travelling, etc) will long since have ceased to appeal to minds, but rather, we will engage in games or perhaps better, experiences, of manipulating and interchanging ideas about ideas and existence!

Alright, enough for one post. But you can see where I’m going. My life is heading toward the final stages, and I’m running out of time to put or form any new concepts in my brain. I’m feeling this biological clock that says, hurry–you are a self aware, self computing, self analyzing, sensing brain–but only for awhile. Hurry, hurry, you need to give birth to a critical idea that transcends, but you may not get there in time before the idea of you self-destructs……….

Agemoz

I have taken a huge deep dive into some fundamental physics, found what looked like some pretty interesting stuff, and started a research project that is still ongoing. But I got way too focused away from the original goal of this journal–this is supposed to be a thinking journal, not a science project. So, I’m coming up for air. The physics paper is published on scribd, and after an initial bout of interest, nobody reads it anymore. I’ll continue with the physics project, but it’s time to get back to fundamental thinking.

On a philosophical level, I’ve done a little reading and a lot of thinking. I have a book called History of Philosophy (Julian Marias) that summarises what people have thought about throughout history. While I’m not done with it yet, one thing that really annoys me is how worthless many of the arguments are, because while the arguments seem to be about real issues, the actual problem is that the words used do not accurately define the question. Most of the discussed philosophical questions revolve around how to define a concept. For example, what is “truth”? What is “good” or “bad”? What does it mean to “exist”? What is the difference between an idea and reality”? What does it mean to be “alive”? What is the “meaning of life”? I’ve discussed some of these earlier in this journal, but every one of these questions is simply a matter of definition, of words. It’s annoying to see great mental effort expended on answering questions that aren’t worth asking or thinking about because the answer depends entirely on how the words are defined.

So, here is a question–what questions are NOT a matter of how words are defined? In a rather bizarre recursive way, I’m pretty sure THAT last question is one such question!! Can we define a set of questions that raises an issue that is isolated from the less interesting matter of how words are defined? I started this journal with a bunch of assumptions and rules on how I was going to proceed, and from there headed down a number of paths, all the while being careful to avoid semantic questions. Why are semantic questions so worthless? Because the answer simply lies in how we choose to define a word, and you’ll get different conclusions depending on different definitions. That’s not to say that some of my fundamental questions above “what is truth”, etc, don’t have an interesting issue at their core, but the way the question is asked hides the interesting part.

Here’s probably the most interesting one to me right now: the question of the difference between reality and an idea. I’ve talked a lot about this previously in this journal, but let’s revisit it, because most of the other concepts are built on this. The first thing we need to do is get semantics out of the way. The definition of these two words requires assumptions about reality, and as I discussed long ago, I can envision a universe in God’s mind where reality is just a consistent sequencing of God’s thoughts. It should be easy to see that there is not necessarily any difference between an idea and reality, and we need to start from here if we are actually going to do any useful thinking about these concepts.

Let’s save that for another post…
Agemoz

It’s starting to occur to me that as much as I try to be original and all-inclusive in my thinking, I really am just as confined as everybody else. I’m having trouble because while the scale-less system thinking and the phase shift for construction of quantum entanglement make a lot of sense, they lead to an inescapable conclusion.

A good theoretician will construct theories that are deeply based on what he observes. I’ve tried very hard to make sure my conclusions follow readily from what I see–one of my principle tenets is, trust your eyes–if a theory doesn’t follow cleanly from what I see, it’s not likely to be a good theory. But with this latest work in the previous few postings, I have run into a very serious problem. Quantum entanglement inevitably leads to the conclusion that distance is not what it looks like. Distance clearly is a property of this existence’s collection of entities, such that some of the entities’ interactions with each other are not affected by this property (distance). This inevitably leads me to the understanding that I cannot trust my eyes anymore. I see these incredibly vast collections of electrons and protons making up our existence, and I see incomprehensible repeatability over incredibly vast scales–what is enforcing that repeatability (for instance, electron mass, charge, speed of light, etc). But entanglement says there must be a point of view that shows that this repeatability is an illusion.

A good explanation could be that all of the particles are in the same place oscillating using a common driver that does not know of the distance principle. Another is the Fourier shifting of unitary phases over the frequency spectrum such that delta functions emerge–so even though there’s no actual distance, the Fourier decomposition of these shifting phases creates a symmetry breaking effect, with distance becoming an emergent property of such a system. Such a system readily gives entanglement using the wave group velocity forming solitons yet can allow non-causal interactions (see previous few postings).

I look about me, though, and have a great deal of trouble thinking that the miraculousness of a collection of electrons and protons making up a Core 2 Duo processor, or a fusing star, or a 30″ LCD monitor that I’m viewing and editing this on, can all be explained by a massive set of oscillations all in the same place. My eyes, and my comprehension of the vastness of the quantity of pointlike entities present here, make me suspicious.

But then I had an insight. We are so utterly confined to our anthropomorphic boxes with our sensors (eyes, touch, ears, etc) that are built out of the very particles those senses try to sense and brains, made of the same particles, that are trying to draw out conclusions what the senses seem to see. It is very hard to see or to trust my eyes in this situation–I’m beginning to think that at this level of thought, we must depart–we cannot transcend our box until we do so.

As I began to realize this, it was with some astonishment that it suddenly occurred to me that the concept of quantity, especially that vast quantity of particles making up our existence, has no meaning apart from distance. If there is no distance property, there is no concept of unique entities that are countable. The quantities that we think must be present and are completely incomprehensible in scope only make sense when a property of distance is introduced–but quantum entanglement shows that there must be some point of view for which there is no distance, so I’m beginning to think that our concept of quantity is artificial to this existence and is not real. It is a symmetry breaking effect that simultaneously includes distance and time, and actually requires a complete system, including sensors and brains made of the same apparently unique particles, before the very concept of multiple entities make sense. Quantum entanglement indirectly shows (probably not conclusively, but I think likely) that this extreme level of complexity of the particle assemblies and interactions between assemblies is likely only an illusion. We can’t trust our eyes anymore–or can we? Did I take a wrong path to get to this conclusion? Possibly–but the logic appears to be fairly sound, and there’s no question, entanglement is an upending observation that shows that I am passing from the realm of conclusions that can be drawn from trusting my senses.

Something is wrong, or perhaps better would be to say, something does not connect theoretically–what I see cannot match what is verified to happen in quantum entanglement. Something has to give–and I think it has to be complexity. Complexity of physical structures can only arise when distance exists (permitting vast arrays of particles) for every possible observer–yet I believe I have shown that a type of observer (quantum entanglement) does not connect or interact with distance. This means there is a point of view, an observer, for which complexity of physical structure does not exist.

Now here is where it *really* gets interesting. My son, a math major, presumably will not like this at all. Math is a collection of concepts built on various classifications, postulates, and derivations based on the concept of quantities and sets of entities. If my thinking is on track, the very concept of the mathematical discipline is strictly dependent on the emergence of quantity, which can only have meaning in a system where there is distance. The discipline of Math itself is based on the existence of quantity, distance, and unique entities. Math has emerged, it is not intrinsic. Do I buy that rather outrageous conclusion? Wait for more postings…