Thoughts on economics and liberty

Simple proof that our brain is an existential quantum computer that both creates and is managed by deep consciousness

[Long post  – apologies in advance]

Alex said something about “An electrical device that has none of those qualities can be conscious as well.”

This implies (unless, by ‘electrical’, Alex implies the broader forms of energy) that ‘electrical signals’ can create consciousness.

Consciousness is definitely a product of the brain (i.e. a material, not ‘spiritual or paranormal thing.

But it is FAR MORE COMPLEX than Alex seems to have in mind, with qualities far in excess of mere ‘self-awareness’ in some primitive or advanced form. This is not about the Turing test, which is extremely feeble. This is about all sorts of existential qualities.

I believe that robots will never (or almost never) lose their dependency on man. If a robot misbehaves it can be disabled/destroyed by man in a moment. It will be defenceless against human innovation, no matter how ‘autonomous’ it becomes.

A human can develop a further category of technology and innovation to defeat an ‘autonomous’ killing robot. The robot can’t. No robot will never have the will to take over and rule mankind. No robot will have the vision of living forever, of escaping from Earth. No robot will write fiction, science fiction. No robot will love or care for another robot, nor have cute baby robots. No robot will “get up” in the morning, make new plans as the situation changes, organise itself, eliminate waste from its body, brush its teeth, eat breakfast, digest and produce energy efficiently, get ready and “go to work”.

Its dependency on the HUMAN is its only design feature that cannot be overcome. It will never be autonomous in the true sense – of being INDEPENDENT.

I still haven’t outlined the full range of qualities that consciousness/will-to-live implies. But it is FAR more comprehensive than the feeble Turing Test.

Leaving aside this issue, on which Ray Kurzweil is mistaken (there will therefore be NO “singularity” – possibly never), I want to think for a moment about the mechanical functioning of the human brain.

What I’ve said has probably been commented upon by more knowledgeable people, but the ‘electrical’ concept must be questioned.

The brain does generate electrical energy (and indeed, operates on electrical and chemical energy) but that is not, I suspect, the basis of consciousness/sense of existence or the extensive calculations it makes (roughly 35,000,000,000,000,000 floating point operations per second) to regulate the body and consider a million other issues simultaneously.

The issue is not merely the calculations it makes. The issue is its enormous storage capacity.

This can happen only if the brain operates as a quantum computer (or something on that line). I believe we are an EXISTENTIAL quantum computer (one that generates a sense of existence).

But first, let me offer three proofs of our brain being a quantum computer:

1) We make decisions instantaneously that would totally defeat computers. Forget the decision about whom to marry, or which movie to watch. Those are complex enough. But consider a world level tennis player who can run at great speed, brake suddenly, turn around and hit a moving ball into a corner of the opposite court without pausing for a moment to ‘think’. [Btw, this is also true of cheetahs or even other minor animals. The cerebellum is the most advanced spatial computer in the world].

2) We absorb ALL information that we see, perfectly. Stephen Wiltshire’s work proves this point. See my comments after these pictures.

There is no doubt that not only does our brain perform 35 quadrillion calculations per second, it stores everything it ever sees. Well, it could: it could, and does, in some types of brain that are missing a further critical component: ability to erase unnecessary memory.

Without a strong erasing system, the brain would not have enough capacity to perform the enormous storage and calculations required in order to ABSTRACT principles and create theories/ knowledge from raw data.

So the brain stores the raw data, processes and condenses it (as appropriate), and erases unnecessary information.

Stephen Wiltshire will never create a General Theory of Relativity because his erasing system is either missing or not effective enough.

But the key point I’m making is that the magnitude of storage space required to contain the massive amounts of data the brain absorbs each day would simply not exist without access to quantum states of atoms found inside the brain.

3) Shakuntala Devi. For anyone who has heard about her I don’t need to point out what I’m trying to suggest. [Examples of the problems presented to Devi included calculating the cube root of 61,629,875, and the seventh root of 170,859,375.[3][4] Jensen reported that Devi provided the solution to the aforementioned problems (395 and 15, respectively) before Jensen could copy them down in his notebook]. Only modern computers are probably as fast as Shankuntala Devi was. But in addition, her brain continued the 35 quadrillion calculations per second to support her existence, her consciousness, her daily decisions. Not only are we able to exist, but we can deploy the same computing power towards ‘real’ mathematical problems: in some cases.

The point is that in order to perform these astounding feats the brain must have access to a level of physical reality (quantum states?) that we are simply unable to fathom today.

I would like to think of this as an EXISTENTIAL quantum computer. Existential, since it creates a self-booting, self-reflecting, self-directing and self-managing system.

The other day I was reading that to perform only the 35 quadrillion calculations that a brain makes per second, we would need a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT to supply energy for a comparable assembly made out of the kind of computers we have today. Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but our brain uses less energy than a faint light bulb. Despite that it performs more calculations – and creates existential awareness/action – than any computer we have been able to create.

CONCLUSION

I do not (even remotely) mean to imply that the creation of these quantum calculations is ‘super-normal’ or out of the world. I do mean to suggest, however, that the brain/consciousness issue is not ‘child’s play’. It is not something that is going to happen in the next thousands of years.

We’ll get closer and closer, but ever remain far away from replicating it in any meaningful way.

We first have to invent powerful quantum computers. Then condense them into an infinitely small size. Then create (or discover) a way to create ‘life’ (consciousness at some level).

This is NOT going to happen anytime soon (thousands of years). Be prepared to become cyborgs, but the ‘base’ will remain human.

ADDENDUM

The Case Against Reality

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
28 thoughts on “Simple proof that our brain is an existential quantum computer that both creates and is managed by deep consciousness
  1. Atul

    ->For starters read this article So ? Computers can claim similar things with regards to the problems they excel at solving. Do you think this is a proof of mind being a quantum computer?? The basic difference is this, human brain is a combination of both a digital functioning and associated analog units. All the things which are you talking about for a tennis player is a combination of both of these. A digital circuit is bounded by the speed of its clock but an analog circuit is only limited by the fundamental speed of light. When you put this fact in perspective you will realize brain is not so extraordinary after all. In fact its very slow from an optimum possible configuration.

    2) We absorb ALL information that we see, perfectly.
    This argument is not even work discussing. Google cloud now stores 100 times more information than your brain can and ever will. And this is just starting, it has been predicted by year 2025 that will increase by another two order of magnitudes. It can filter and retrieve it a meaningful throughput rate (bits/second) more than your brain can. … and year you guessed it right , nothing is quantum about it.

    3) Shakuntala Devi. – Seriously?
    Put the numbers in perspective and you will know she is not faster than the slowest super computers today. You can find facts about computational power of brain in FLOPs.. it is definitely not more than peta flops . Check the total flops your graphics card can churn out, you will be surprised. Suddenly brain will start looking not so great to you. It is interesting to put this into the perspective of contemporary technology. The ‘clock speed’ of a neuron is abysmal by technological standards. The central processing unit in the machine on which I wrote this comment has a 2 Ghz. clock speed, which means it runs 2000 million clock cycles per second. If we divide 2000 million by 200, we see that the CPU on my computer is 10 million times faster than the clock speed of a neuron. Of course the computational power of our brains comes from the fact that we have a lot of neurons. Nevertheless, the gap between technology and neurons is closing fast. It has been estimated many times by many different people, using uncontroversial projections into the future (the exponential growth curve suggested by Moore’s law), that we will have a computer that can process as many bits per second as the human brain within a few decades at most. Soon thereafter, computers will exceed human beings in raw processing power. If you are under 50 years old as you read this, then you can reasonably bet that you will own a cheap desktop computer that will process more information than your brain does before you die

    You started sounding more like Deepak Chopra in this post.
    The myth of quantum consciousness and quantum mind should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons.

    And yes Alex is still right, a feeble turing test is still enough to shatter all your beliefs about consciousness.

     
  2. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Atul, it is certain that quantum mechanics is involved. Even plants use it: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/quantum-mechanics-discover-kill-switch-in-algae/story-e6frg8y6-1226956500842.

    Quantum computers are already being tested and will become a reality very soon. Why would nature have ignored quantum computing (and even further, deeper computing, if possible), in billions of years of evolution? By accident each of these would have been discovered and (being successful) replicated.

    The key failure in your argument, Atul, is the ENERGY consumption. The current computing capacity of the brain reportedly requires (using digital computers) the energy output of a nuclear plant. A brain uses 20 watts, less than a faint light bulb.

    My point is that even with quantum computing (which is not very far away), there will be NO “singularity” – for much longer than Kurzweil imagines; possibly never. There are properties of life that simply are too complex to imagine, leave alone expect to see in any man-made gadget. This is not about Deepak Chopra’s nonsense. I have no doubt about the PHYSICAL nature of reality – entirely from one material: energy. But there are wheels within wheels. A few thousand years may be too little to unravel them.

    Instead of debating with me (I’m a novice in quantum physics) you’ll be better off doing something with your knowledge. Leave speculators like me alone. We don’t count. 

    This is not even of immediate economic value to anyone. 

     
  3. Alex C.

    Sanjeev ji,

    How would you feel if I told you that Quantum Mechanics (the natural phenomena) are indeed responsible for semiconductor behaviour, thus all our computers in fact depend on QM for functioning? Do not mix Quantum mechanics (a respectable field in Physics) with “Quantum computing,” which involves switches at such a microscopic level that QM effects become predominantly the basis of calculation. “Quantum Consciousness” is Deepak Chopra’s speculative balderdash.

    QM is highly pervasive—all solid structure, actually any substance other than ideal gas, depends fundamentally on QM effects.

    Regarding energy, I know that “computer” energy requirements may seem to be excessive compared to human brain, but when you pause to think that the computational power predicted to need its own POWER PLANT (by Vannevar Bush, no less) in the 1940s, now exists in the palm of your hand—check out a Micromax Canvas Knight smartphone—multi-gigahertz octa-core goodness at less than a watt! Bush would have given his right eye for one of these. There is no reason to expect that the trend of exponentially increasing computing power at exponentially decreasing electricity consumption at exponentially decreasing prices has any logical conclusion. In fact, neural implants (for the blind to see, for example), may soon be available for which the feeble electrical power of the optic nerve may be sufficient. At that point, people with biological eyes will be at a severe disadvantage. Similarly, a Micromax phone-equivalent 60s computer would have required a power plant. Now it runs on a rechargeable cell you can easily charge at the wall socket.

    My point is that even WITHOUT “quantum computing,” we’ll very probably reach a state when bio-mechanical hybrids will be the norm, and the question of whether one’s ancestors were “pure biological humans” or highly advanced (for today) “artificial intelligence” will be as immaterial as if we were to discuss today if your ancestors and mine were the same type of monkeys or not.

    There are qualities of life too difficult to imagine, FOR US. In fact, I believe I may not even have realised that the Earth moves around the Sun, had I lived in Copernican times. The fact remains—we’re not geniuses. The “fact” that you and I can’t write the Mahabharata from imagination does not mean that NOBODY can write it. It is a failure of OUR imagination, not Ved Vyasa’s.

    As for “immediate” economic value of human-equivalent AI, let me quote Sir Charles Darwin (grandson of the famous Darwin), regarding computers in 1946: “it is very possible that … one machine would suffice to solve all the problems that are demanded of it from the whole country.” Before 1953, IBM alone had orders for more than 10, to say nothing of other major manufacturers like UNIVAC. A seven-year timeframe would seem pretty “immediate” for a business proposal to me. It took Google longer than this, for example. In AI, it is not a question of its value, but rather how soon we can fully develop and commercialise it. It is all the more tantalising now that sufficiently fast hardware is available to test and refine the 60s AI theories that languished for want of fast-enough chips.

    I end my part in this discussion here. Life is wonderful as it is, even if we know all about it. For example, many people find steam locomotives wndrous creatures, even though their simple mechanism is fully known. Life is far more complex and enrapturing! However, if you want to believe that “life” is inherently something special that can never be fully understood, I’m not stopping you. But all the same, it’s not (with apologies to Galileo).

     
  4. Atul

    Ohh I totally missed the energy argument.
    While it is true that computers that are used to simulate human brains need megawatts, the converse is also true. For example, take a Cray 1 computer, which came out in 1976, that could compute 160 million floating point number operations a second (FLOPS), and used 115 kilowatts. If a mathematical human prodigy could add 20 numbers in a second, that would be 20 FLOPS, which means that you would need 8 million human mathematical prodigies to match the performance of the Cray 1. These 8 million prodigies’ 20 watt brains would require 20 watts/brain*8e6 brains = 160e6 watts or 160,000 kilowatts, which is over a thousand times more than the Cray-1. Humans simulating a computer would use millions of times more energy, and computers simulating a human would use millions of times more energy.
    The point is this energy argument you are giving is no proof that human brain is quantum computer. The answer is in algorithms which are running , computers are designed to run different algorithms then human brain, so is true for the argument other way round.
    Why I said you sounded like Deepak Chopra is this ..
    Quantum mechanics is bizarre, has phenomenon like entanglement, decoherence Deepak Chopra’s theories about reality and consciousness are equally bizarre, non-local etc etc.
    So he purports, they are related to each other. He conveniently ignores the fact that quantum theory has falsifiable predictions and has stood all experimental tests for half a century while his is totally crappy and unscientific.

    You are giving a similar argument about nature of brain, its computational power, its energy consumption etc and finally concluding from all this that “yeh it must be quantum”.

     
  5. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    In my mind I’m referring to quantum COMPUTING, not quantum mechanics alone – which is just part of “normal” life in many ways.

    I appreciate that quantum computing might not be needed to reproduce the computing power of the brain. I’m no expert on this issue. I also realise that quantum computing as we know it operates only at extremely low temperatures.

    But I have strong doubts about the feasibility of normal computing to explain the brain, mainly [apart from the energy consumption issue] due to the case of Stephen Wiltshire and some other such cases of photographic memory which demonstrate MAMMOTH capacity to store information, while being unable to process ideas and principles equally well.

    That means that in the ‘normal’ circumstance, vast quantities of information are stored inside our head but most of it is distilled/ erased in order to create higher order ‘principles’ or ‘concepts’ which are vital for our survival. The computing power to create principles (logic) – in addition to the power to manage our body spatially – seems to me to be sufficiently resource intensive to require removal of unnecessary storage of data.

    Imagine a very high resolution video of ALL your life being stored, plus all knowledge you acquire. Plus ability to manage the body etc. (This would be the case if the information was not ‘erased’ and filtered). Plus emotions, etc. 

    To me the computing load on the poor brain is just too much to expect it to occur at the molecular/atomic level. It must be supported by storage at the sub-atomic level. That would also explain the superb power of the brain even of a tiny flea. Even a bacteria seems to have a short term memory. 

    It does not appear surprising to me that life would have ‘mastered’ quantum computing at an early stage. But as I said, that’s speculation from my end, and should not be taken seriously enough to spend further time on it.

    Suffice it to say that I don’t believe life is ‘extra-normal’, and can – and will be – explained through the laws of physics. It might take far more time than Ray Kurzweil imagines, though. That’s my current judgement – also supported by at least a few other – more scholarly – people.

    s

     
  6. ramesh

    //Consciousness is definitely a product of the brain//

    And the problem begins (the biggest fraud that can ever be imagined)!

    Is it a dead material (brain) or consciousness (though through dead material medium) which takes THIS decision about the very dead material?

    If the dead material were to take this decision WHY is it then still a ‘dead’?

    If it is consciousness then it should be the foundation for the dead material and not as you claim.

    What logic and reasoning did you use, Sanjeev Sabhlok?

     
  7. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Came across a sceptic view about the future power of robots here: http://blog.pmarca.com/2014/06/13/this-is-probably-a-good-time-to-say-that-i-dont-believe-robots-will-eat-all-the-jobs/. I tend to agree with it, as you can imagine. This doesn’t mean robots don’t pose a threat to jobs, but no, they don’t pose any existential threat to mankind. Not anytime in the medium-term future.

    ===

    What that means is there is still an enormous gap between what many people do in jobs today, and what robots and AI can replace.  And there will be for decades.

    Second, even when robots and AI are far more powerful, there will still be many things that people can do that robots and AI can’t. For example: creativity, innovation, exploration, art, science, entertainment, and caring for others. We have no idea how to make machines do these.

     
  8. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Ramesh, life is a set of properties that are derivative of (physical combination of) ‘dead’ material. A simple example is the food we eat. These ‘dead’ cells and ingredients from food are processed and converted into our (living) body. The entire process of life is dependent on ‘dead’ material.

    The only question is whether ‘life’ itself is created form ‘dead’ material.

    Ignore complex life forms like the human, for a moment, and consider the smallest baterium or – preferably – virus. The building blocks for these are all proteins.

    Remember that water molecules have some PROPERTIES, which include being a liquid at certain temperature. There is no reason to believe that ‘life’ is not just another property of certain combinations of atoms/proteins. To expect it to be ‘additional’ would confound things, just like it would confound things to say that the liquidness of water is an ‘additional’ property.

    And so on, up the chain. Once self-replicating matter that has properties of life is created, more advanced forms can be created through evolution. 

    I don’t see consciousness as anything beyond one of these properties – of the combinations in our brain. Therefore when the brain ends, all consciousness ends. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I may find advaita a plausible theory, but it has to compete with the much simpler and even more plausible theory of consciousness being a produce of matter (energy).

    I don’t believe, however, that consciousness can be created at the large-scale level of ‘big’ robots without mastering the creation of viruses/bacteria (or soch simple creatures) from scratch.  Therefore don’t expect a ‘singularity’ any time soon.

    But one day, surely, man will work out the entire chemistry/physics and readily replicate all life/ intelligence – and create even more advanced forms.

     
  9. ramesh

    Seems this comment lost which was posted earlier than your latest comment! I repeat:
    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    An arrangement of atoms which makes a life (or consciousness) cannot happen unless and until every atom is conscious in their particular way. A matter is never dead (non conscious).

    Sub atomic particles and matter do not exist because of the laws of science work. Instead WE infer laws of science from the observation of matter.

    That’s key difference which puts consciousness prior to matter (brain).

    Your logic, Sanjeev Sabhlok?

     
  10. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Thanks, Ramesh. I noticed your previous comment by accident at the top of the ‘spam’ messages (around 2000 per day, so I just delete them), so I went back and brought it back into the system. This one came in fine. No problem.

    Re: “Sub atomic particles and matter do not exist because of the laws of science work”.

    Science can’t explain the existence of energy. However, once energy is assumed to exist, the rest of it (everything else in the world) CAN be explained. That is the job of science, which it is incrementally perfecting. 

    There are some scientists who suggest that the laws of science (e.g. the constants in the universe) are implausibly ‘perfect’ and can only be explained if the PURPOSE of the universe was to create man (John D. Barrow: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle). This is, however, nonsense, since of trillions of zillions of possibilities, only the one that creates us will be observed by us. The others – in the infinity of time – will remain ‘observer-less’.

    So the real question you are asking, Ramesh, is: “Why is there SOMETHING and not nothing?”.

    The answer to that is that no one knows nor can ever know. At that point science ends. Everything requires AN assumption. In science it is the assumption that energy exists.

    Once energy is assumed, the rest is mere ‘mechanics’ at some level – whether simple or complex (usually very complex).

    If at all any scientific conclusion can be derived from this, it is that we are all part of the universal energy. That, however, is a tautology.

    We CANNOT derive that energy (photons) is conscious. 

    Consciousness is a property of CERTAIN arrangements of energy. It is a subset of the universe, not the universe itself.

     
  11. ramesh

    //Science can’t explain the existence of energy.//
    //Everything requires AN assumption. In science it is the assumption that energy exists. Once energy is assumed, the rest is mere ‘mechanics’ at some level – whether simple or complex (usually very complex).//

    Thanks for this! That’s truth in principle and makes it easy to understand what I am trying to say.

    Now as you say and I agree assumption predates the energy (matter or brain) how would like you to classify this very ‘assumption’ either as ‘conscious’ or ‘(dead) matter/energy’?

    Note: It is absurd to say that Energy assumes energy! So you will have to say that consciousness assumes this energy/matter and hence primacy of consciousness over the matter! Now that dead matter doesn’t appear as live/conscious to us is our (entire life’s) limitation (including that of science which is our creation) and not that of so called ‘dead’ matter!.

    [Sincerely speaking I do not want you to drag into debate, just wish you answer the key questions which you have either failed to understand or have skipped! (Sorry to say so)

    Sorts of this type discussions are led by logic and reason alone and seldom by material evidence or proof since it exactly about their nature. It is absurd to ask for the same in the name of science]

     
  12. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    hence primacy of consciousness over the matter” 

    Matter is nothing but energy, Ramesh. And energy is neither dead nor living. 

    Life, though, is a specific CATEGORY of energy (based on certain chemical combinations). Consciousness is a property of life. 

    Therefore the entire world only has ENERGY, with a subset called consciousness. 

    I’m sorry if I’ve not understood what you are saying. Pl. be very specific.

     

     
  13. ramesh

    //the entire world only has ENERGY, with a subset called consciousness.//

    Earlier you have said //In science it is the assumption that energy exists //

    Please note that the AGENCY making this assumption of energy is consciousness.

    Now concluding this agency to be of the nature of matter or energy is preemptive act. This agency has to be of non material nature (nor para-natural).

    Thus consciousness predates energy. This is the point you are exactly missing.

    If you agree to this you will say that energy is subset of consciousness.

    Expect proper rebuttal of this reasoning.

     
  14. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Ramesh you make a basic chronological error here. If consciousness was the main ‘thing’ and energy a subset, it would never have taken 14 billion years to reach this point where you and I are having this discussion. Not only that, there are potentially an infinity of ‘WASTED’ universes in which no observer could ever be created. 

    Concsciousness – if it existed without the body – would have found a way to manipulate energy to suit its ‘desires’ long ago. But that didn’t happen.

    Instead, ‘consciousness’ (of the form that exists in you and I) had to wait 14 billion years. That’s a lot of time for something that is the ‘superset’ of energy. Consciousness implies at least a modicum of intelligence. If God is treated as having consciousness, then He is presumably rather intelligent and can manipulate energy rather efficiently. But even God failed to do anything with this consciousness, and 14 billion years ticked by before you and I could talk. 

    I trust  you realise that your ‘belief’ in consciousness as wishful as anyone’s belief in God.  It is simply illogical and turns the chronology of the world up side down to suit your wish.

    Finally, let me say this: Agnosticism is a very USEFUL ‘belief’ system since it insists on finding all answers by itself. It doesn’t assume any consciousness, nothing. If someone says there is consciousness, it demands PROOF – through a testable theory. 

    I don’t need any belief in consciousness to work out that life is a bunch of atoms and molecules organised in a particular way. Indeed, this is a very hard challenge to resolve, but it is a theory that compels me to keep drilling into the secrets of the world. In that process I will find everything that can possibly be known (I’m using “I” to represent critical thinkers, scientists).

    On the other hand, your belief system is not only illogical but STERILE. It can’t lead us to ANY discovery that can be of any use. 

    Given a choice among two beliefs: in energy vs. consciousness, I choose energy. That ‘belief’ is very potent, and allows me (mankind) to ACHIEVE something useful. Your belief system is capable of producting nothing of any value. Zilch.

     
  15. ramesh

    //If consciousness was the main ‘thing’ and energy a subset, it would never have taken 14 billion years to reach this point where you and I are having this discussion. Not only that, there are potentially an infinity of ‘WASTED’ universes in which no observer could ever be created. //

    Time- isn’t it an offshoot of assumption in Energy? You know well that energy (mass), time and space are related and not independent. Isn’t an ASSUMPTION of energy calculates the age of universe to be 14 billion years or so? Please confirm your’s is well reasoning. And thus the fate of rest of your comment based on time.

    Now about belief and God. I never wished to bring it into the picture on rational issues like consciousness and matter. Please leave them outside.

    //It can’t lead us to ANY discovery that can be of any use. //

    Primacy of consciousness over energy do not reject science, it cannot happen. It only places the science in its proper perspective of utility ALONE and over! And utility is relative concept.

    Wished you could have been more logical in approach! Still try if you can.

     
  16. ramesh

    In short I am saying that like energy, space and time are also assumptions for science (they are interrelated and not independent). So you cannot compare and cite any of these entities to the agency (awareness; consciousness) which assumes these. Therefore consciousness predates energy, space and time.

    See if you can get my line of reasoning.

     
  17. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Ramesh, while space and time are related, energy is said to be eternal and unchanging (it may convert into mass, etc.). The multiverse is a more plausible explanation of the big bang. However, I’m unable to throw any useful light on this given my ignorance of the relevant equations.  You will need to speak with an up-to-date physicist. At a minimum I’ll need to spend time reviewing the secondary literature and have no time for it.

    I think you are using any ‘logical’ lever to “prove” your hypothesis (advaita, essentially). The onus is on you to explain – very scientifically, through relevant equations – not through ill-informed hand-waving, how consciousness converts into energy, space and time.

    Till you do so, there are FAR BETTER AND COHERENT explanations of matter and the evolution of life that require no intervention from pre-existing consciousness, but actually CREATE consciousness through essentailly mechanical processes.

    You claim that primacy of consciousness doesn’t reject science, but it does. Its only claim is that it precedes other things. NO theorist of consciousness (mainly Indian advaita followers) has EVER contributed ONE useful piece of knowledge to mankind.

    Just repeateting that consciousness comes first like a mantra is STERILE and pointless. It is far better to not believe in such STERILE hypothesis and to try to explain things without it. You’ll be surprised how much more PRODUCTIVE that pathway is. You might, with the balance years of your life, be able to contribute something meaningful to humanity, instead of the pointless chanting of the mantra of ”consciousness’ which is unproductive and unhelpful.

    s

     
  18. ramesh

    OK,

    1. //while space and time are related, energy is said to be eternal and unchanging (it may convert into mass, etc.)//

    This contradicts your scientific statement: That energy is an assumption.

    2. //……………how consciousness converts into energy, space and time.//

    Please note that consciousness is an Agency which makes an ASSUMPTION of energy so basic to science. Talk of its conversion into energy is absurd.

    3. There cannot be energy without space. So the moment you make assumption about energy assumption about the space stands made and using this we have derived the relation between space and time.

    So long you refuse to understand the concept and definition of consciousness as above (An agency making the fundamental assumption of energy and without which energy, time and space lose relevancy) you can’t understand what I am saying.

    In the light of the above fact absurdity of your above comment is should reveal.

    However given the tone of your comment, I don’t think any progress can be made in this post now!

    Anyway thanks!

     
  19. ramesh

    Here goes simplest explanation:

    Premise 1: Assumptions do no happen on its own.

    Premise 2: Energy is an assumption- a scientific fact.

    Conclusion 1: There exists an agency (let us call it as consciousness) which assumes energy.

    Conclusion 2: We cannot derive how consciousness comes out of energy since it contradicts conclusion 1.

    Note: There cannot exist energy without space. And with space comes the time. Therefore space and time stands on the same footing of energy that of an assumption.

    Hope this may help you.

    Only pure logic, reason, critical thinking and THEN science but no advaita, no Hinduism and religion. Evidence and Proof are means of science. Thus they come WITHIN the Assumption.

     
  20. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. ” [https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html]. Space comes into existence from energy, not vice versa.

     
  21. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    At the Big Bang “the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with an incredibly high energy density”. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang]

    The energy and related fields created space-time, not vice versa.

    Ramesh, in your model everything works opposite to the observed world. In the observed word, consciousness comes 14 billions after THIS universe comes into existence (multiverse theory clarifies that there could be an infinity of universes). In your model consciousness comes first.

    In the real world space-time is CREATED by energy. In your model, space-time creates energy.

    I suggest you outline the equations of your world to those better qualified to comment. Given my lack of time to study the evolution of your type of universe, I’m unable to comment on it, apart from saying that your universe is inconsistent with the known universe.

     
  22. ramesh

    Your own link states that (https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html) :

    //General relativity tells us that what we call space is JUST ANOTHER FEATURE of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field// [[Now hope you won’t disagree that gravitational field is a just form of energy.]]

    This essentially means that space stands on the SAME FOOTING as that of energy (matter) (i.e. JUST ANOTHER FEATURE as your links states) which is exactly what I have stated earlier (my last comment under note-June 19, 2014 at 5:08 pm).

    In the light of your link my statement //There cannot exist energy without space// essentially means that energy and space are just different features of the same ASSUMPTION and doesn’t put up the chronology between energy and space in ANY way.

    Thus there is big big difference between saying: Energy do not exist without space and Space creates energy.

    Instead we have already agreed that ‘energy is creation of our ‘Assumption”.

    With the assumption of energy, its another feature called space gets assumed AUTOMATICALLY (simultaneous)

    Leave alone to study general relativity (of your own link) even common sense tells that for energy to exist there has to be space at least SIMULTANEOUSLY if not earlier.

    Are you still sure you are getting it rightly Dear Sabhlok? It is hardly a matter of research, evidence and knowledge except that of understanding! (Sorry if it hurts you).

    Needless to say I hope you realize the IRRELEVANCY of your statement //I suggest you outline the equations of your world to those better qualified // since the discussion is over and above the very energy and space; about their ASSUMPTIONS.

     
  23. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Ramesh, re: “space stands on the SAME FOOTING as that of energy”, I don’t agree at all.

    There is a BIG difference between space-time (gravitational field) and energy. The energy, at super-normal temperature, has poured into our universe from perhaps another universe through a black hole. Doesn’t matter where it came from. It did NOT bring space along with it. It CREATED space AFTER matter was first ‘condensed’. Only matter exercises gravitation force, hence is capable of “creating” space.

    Pl. don’t confound everything. Stick to the chronology since there is a reason for it. To suggest that “space stands on the SAME FOOTING as that of energy” is not justified. Energy is eternal and remains unchanged. Space varies with time, depending on the matter “available”.

    “With the assumption of energy, its another feature called space gets assumed AUTOMATICALLY (simultaneous)”

    No! This is NOT simultaneous but sequential, because matter must be created first, before space is created.

    Btw, this “assumption” about energy is an EMPRICIALLY testable assumption. There are proper theories, proper tests. You are pushing a “consciousness”-first theory, which is neither a testable nor even defined. What is consciousness? Can you pl. pin it down in a definition?

    s

     
  24. ramesh

    1. // Only matter exercises gravitation force, hence is capable of “creating” space. & This is NOT simultaneous but sequential, because matter must be created first, before space is created.//

    This contradicts your own link https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html which states that ///General relativity tells us that what we call space is JUST ANOTHER FEATURE of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field// which defies the chronology between energy and space.

    You are pushing your PERSONAL point of view against this above scientific fact. Why did you ignore it?

    2. Quite before in this comment trail I have defined consciousness as “That AGENCY which assumes the energy” and argue that with the assumption of energy space and time are assumed in line of your own link.

    3. //this “assumption” about energy is an EMPRICIALLY testable assumption//

    Did you realize how absurd this statement is?

    Can you ever test energy (an assumption) with what you assume i.e. energy (empirical)? You know there is no empirical without assumption of energy/matter.

     
  25. ramesh

    and why you didn’t find these two statements self contradictory?

    1. Energy is eternal and remains unchanged.

    2. Energy is an assumption.

     
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial