A Spacetime Theory of Consciousness

And here is the first site i ever came across which tried to integrate some math to help show the theory behind spacetime theories,

Hypotheses of consciousness and spacetime - Student notes
... "Speed of Thought: Investigation of a Complex Space-Time Metric to Describe Psychic Phenomena." Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 331;354, ...
www.worsula.pl/Hypotheses_of_consciousness_and_spacetime.html - Cached

And for the reader, here is a little excerpt of the scientists mentioned in the references found on the site:

Sir Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff M.D.
An important contribution to the Quantum Theory of Conciousness comes from the collaboration of Sir Roger Penrose and Dr. Stuart Hameroff. According to Penrose and Hameroff, conciousness appears during the Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) of the Wave Function in the Microtubules of the brain's neurons. This definition, even though it seems to be limited to the brain, also allows the possibility of conciousness to exists in the Quantum Field itself, outside the body.
Dr. Hameroff presentation on his view of conciousness.
http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/presentations/whatisconsciousness.html
The celebrated mathematician and physicist Sir Roger Penrose is also the author of the much recommended books The Emperor's New Mind and The Road to Reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Dr. Evan Harris Walker.
Author of The Physics of Consciousness, contributed significantly to better understanding of conciousness from the perspective of contemporary Physics and its implications in psychology and neurophysiology.
http://www.parapsych.org/members/e_h_walker.html

Professor Fred Alan Wolf.
Professor of Theoretical Physics and author of several books about the relationship between Quantum Mechanics and Conciousness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Alan_Wolf

The following list presents an important group of scientists whom are focusing on psychic research from the perspective of the Physical Sciences.

Dr. Russell Targ.
One of the pioneers in the development of the Laser, confounder of the Stanford Research Institute, has participated in many studies about Remote Viewing and Healing. He has written several important books on these subjects.
http://www.espresearch.com/

Dr. Harold Puthoff.
Coauthor of Mind at Large published by the IEEE Symposium on the Nature of ESP.
http://www.nidsci.org/bios/puthoff.php

Dr. Robert G. Jahn.
Dean of the School of Engineering at Princeton University. Founder of the PEAR laboratory, currently supporting a research program on the experimental effects of the human mind over random number generation equipment (micro-PK). Dr. Jahn has proposed that the idea of wave-particle duality can be applied to conciousness as well as to physical matter.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

More Links and References.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/yi/links.php
http://www.lightlink.com/arpr/links/consciousness.htm
 
And here is a link to the definition of the theory i use where i state there is truely no such thing as the past or future; this is a non-relativistic explanation

Presentism

(This link seems to not be catching) - sorry.
 
Two-Time Physics Concerning Consciousness

Before we continue, I refer you to Kauffman and Smolins work [1] drew two conclusions about the nature of time:

[1] S. Kauffman and L. Smolin: A possible solution to the problem of time in quantum cosmology, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9703026.

1. Time is essentially local.
2. Time is to be identified with the evolution of the system itself (which we can call the local
system).

I believe these conclusion s could be reserved upon extra thought. Time from a mathematical line of thinking does seem very localized with the system at hand. Indeed, the metric of spacetime has a zero separation between the space triangle, so if time is essentially local at small levels, then so should space. Indeed, we have all learned the concepts of local and non-local universes…

But what would a non-local space but local time be? According to an interpretation I created, the observer can only experience anything relevant to a local time dimension. Space and time certainly may not be non-local from a relativistic light, and neither does Bells Equality eradicate by saying both are local. But a local time dimension may hold some descriptive keys of psyche.

Before relativity, humans and physicists alike, believed that everything was localized: And since space and time where two entities of a single coin, both had to show synonymous characteristics due to interpretation of theory. But some freedom was eventually allowed through further studies of the gravitational warping interior of a black hole, where space and time are distorted so badly, they switch roles for an observer! Space would become timelike and time would become spacelike.

But the relativity principle does link space, time, energy and matter as all the same entity, but of differential forms. Even curvature, distortions and acceleration became united as one thing in the presence of matter itself. And in all this, where space and time are dimensions of a single continuum, energy and time also yielded important relationships. But what came with all these concepts, was new interpretations of time itself, including the idea that spacetime was local.

However, in the advent of the first measurement of quantum entanglement performed by Alain Aspect and his team, this crushed any notion of a local time, and soon the universe quickly became non-localized everywhere! But a problem remained, one that may have been overlooked… what if there is a local and non-local characteristic to the universe? In fact, can you have only non-local universe and expect the most complex theories to work? There might be many things we can develop from having one local and a non-local universe.

So perhaps that time is not only localized, but also non-localized. This means space as well, since both are the same thing, what could this help us concentrate?

Well, since these studies are of conscious origin, it shouldn’t be too surprising to know that these attributes could answer a lot about how we experience time and the time at large beyond the mind of the observer. One thing this can incorporate is an explanation to how we can experience linear events in real time. Let me explain.

When the universe spontaneously arose in a great expansionary phase, was not only matter, energy, time and space, but Hawking reminds us in his famous book, ‘’A Brief History of Time,’’ that also information arose within the mix. Taking this as a stance for the following idea, this means also the information capable of holding life either was determined at big bang, or was one of the potential ‘’possibilities’’ that could happen. But if we take a Bohmian Interpretation, the wave function does in fact follow a predetermined path, because the wave function collapsed at big bang, defining every real event in spacetime. So in this interpretation, the information capable of creating an observer, lay in this predetermined primordial mix of quantum waves of information.

This means that what we require psychologically, has to be provided by some information in spacetime! This is a basic truth I speak here, because we certainly can’t arise completely independent of the spacetime around us. The matter and energy side of things could be debatable due to experimental confirmation of the mind acting before any chemical entropy has arisen in the brain of the human – see Dr Wolf’s interpretation of Libet’s experiment on his website.

But let’s keep this as less complicated as possible, and focus on space and time. For us to do anything in our lives, would require that information has these actions ‘’all ready written down!’’ I know at first glance for many, this will seem ridiculous to the point of surely being pseudoscience, but, I argue there are good reasons to think this way. As already explored earlier, space and time has a physical theory and a relativistic theory which changes their roles from different perspectives, including the role of some observer-reference. The ability to do anything according to these interpretations means that determinism is a true thing to accept, if one wishes.

The universe must have at its disposal the correct information for a consciousness to arise; to do this, it may have created for itself on local nature and another non-local. The non-local nature would satisfy quantum actions, whilst a local side could serve its purpose for a description of what the observer experiences. My theory would allow consciousness to experience a past and a future because we would be ‘’localized’’ in a sense to the present time only. This would mean that time is certainly localized and a property used by consciousness, while the non-local nature remains an aspect of matter, but both must be the same thing, but different sides of the same coin.

The reason why it could happen is akin to the nature of linear time and non-linear time. The presence of some observer in a model of physics, changes on how we can view them. But maybe more importantly, as I deducted before, perhaps we need a new mechanics describing consciousness, so there is evidence that the laws of quantum physics do not hold to the experience of the observer (non-relativistic effects), so perhaps there is also an evidence suggesting that a local space is the result of some violation in physics!

To experience some local effect in a non-local universe, you would have to have an observer who experiences some linear existence along a localized path through history. But the universe isn’t like this at all, as it has no localized attributes whatsoever, where matter does abide by the quantum rule book, and follow non-local laws. I am sure by the deduction of logic, that this is certainly what would become of such a theory.

Two-Time Dimensions?

And this now brings me to a geometric model of consciousness. If The mind experiences the freedom allowed by localization and the external following non-localization in time, would mean that two different sides of time is being witnessed here. Since my entire argument of the spacetime theory was to introduce (where needed) a description of the experience of the observer, would now also require two different descriptions as time dimensions all together.

It seems that the very act of the observer to perform some linear existence compared to the non-linear of time in the physical world would mean to me, anyway, that the mind is some sub-time dimension. The human mind is certainly not an extension of time in space. It has it’s own degrees of freedom; it’s experience of time, is somehow ‘’outside’’ of the normal dimension of time. And if we take relativity seriously, then this also must indicate a sub-space quality to mind.

It is known from extensive experiments that the brain somehow creates this three-dimensional world, and we do not observe the real universe at large! We only interpret information that we receive from the electromagnetic signals being bounced off the retina, creating a whole serious of molecular splittings and electrolyte conductivity. So to understand the mind as some sub-spacetime reality only akin to the world at large in subtle ways isn’t so difficult, when you weigh the evidence that this mind of ours does not float about in a physical relation to spacetime.

This for my model, suggests that we should develop a two-time theory of consciousness, also integrating the visual concept of psychology into vector analysis. Next was to find some mathematical model - or some outline of a two time dimension metric theory.
 
Last edited:
Gluon,
Firstly let me say that I respect the effort you must have gone to in putting all this together. I haven't read it in detail and can not do so as the language is almost entirely foreign to me.

However I will say that IMO because you are caught in the relativity trap as I call it [4 dimensions for energy flow] you will continuously hit a wall of ever increasing complexity in any attempt to derive a TOE that includes consciousness and perception.
In my opinion the universe is much simpler and by many factors incredibly more clever in it's make up than we humans tend to think.

For example:
Does your theory describe the constants that underpin this universe?

If not then why not?

If you can not see how consciousness and those physical constants are intertwined then obviously we have a problem as the seat of consciousness is also a constant.
 
Well I can not comment properly on either unfortunately, however what I do know is that until there is a clear connection made between mind and matter in a way that make total and utter sense he is going to be pushing a stick up hill backwards...

I would suggest that the first step is to thrash it out philosophically first so that the ideas can be presented with clarity and then move into a mathematical support.
 
I truely hope that peoples opinions of my theory are not drawn from alphanumerics usual boring escapades. Thank you quantum quack for your time in this subject.
 
This theory by the way, will be published at the beginning of august alphanumeric. Maybe you will take the time to realize this very complex area of physics?
 
Quantum Quack said:
Gluon,
Firstly let me say that I respect the effort you must have gone to in putting all this together. I haven't read it in detail and can not do so as the language is almost entirely foreign to me.

However I will say that IMO because you are caught in the relativity trap as I call it [4 dimensions for energy flow] you will continuously hit a wall of ever increasing complexity in any attempt to derive a TOE that includes consciousness and perception.
In my opinion the universe is much simpler and by many factors incredibly more clever in it's make up than we humans tend to think.

For example:
Does your theory describe the constants that underpin this universe?

If not then why not?

If you can not see how consciousness and those physical constants are intertwined then obviously we have a problem as the seat of consciousness is also a constant.
Click to expand...

One result of this theory, which might seem reduntant to a totally ''physical physicist'' is that the tangible constants of this universe simply cannot answer and indeed, cannot be answered by the fundamental constant laws. This may seem a bit fudged, but i draw conclusions that quantum physics breaks down upon some observational science, where the ghostly and the tangible meet together to deny each others existences.

On one hand, we have consciousness that could have a discription that is totally non-physical, but we also have the underlying principles of the universe which require some physical theory. Sceintists to this day have been investigating the science behind their investigatiion without due care of a description of their observational work. This leaves a theory incomplete; one of the main focal points of discussion.

My theory cannot answer for fundamental physics; however, it can answer to how we may approach a unified theory conerning consciousness in the mix.
 
gluon said:
One result of this theory, which might seem reduntant to a totally ''physical physicist'' is that the tangible constants of this universe simply cannot answer and indeed, cannot be answered by the fundamental constant laws. This may seem a bit fudged, but i draw conclusions that quantum physics breaks down upon some observational science, where the ghostly and the tangible meet together to deny each others existences.

On one hand, we have consciousness that could have a discription that is totally non-physical, but we also have the underlying principles of the universe which require some physical theory. Sceintists to this day have been investigating the science behind their investigatiion without due care of a description of their observational work. This leaves a theory incomplete; one of the main focal points of discussion.

My theory cannot answer for fundamental physics; however, it can answer to how we may approach a unified theory conerning consciousness in the mix.
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that the fundamental universal constants issue can not be resolved under the existing scientific paradigm as it is currently stuck if you like in a never ending logic set that inevitably maintains a dead end with out being obvious about it. Your theory is a classic example to me of how this problem is manifested in attempts to extend beyond the current level of understanding. An incredible contruction of inherantly complex and inevitably flawed premises.
A fundamental shift in this scientific paradigm is needed if any progress is to be made on those constants. This is highly unlikely. IMO
 
Last edited:
This is a very sage outlook of my theory. God bless you for your intellectual insight of the theory.
 
Time is Relative to the Observer

Even though in these studies I have come to use the phrase ‘’time is relative to the observer,’’ from strictly a geometrical sense where we feel or sense some flow to time, the term has also meant to distinguish something larger as well. On the cosmological scale, or universal scale and even possibly a multi-verse scale, time according to a famous equation is not really relevant.

It’s only when you come to the observer and how the observer uses time as a useful tool to catalogue events made in instantaneous frames of space. On the grand scale of the universe, the Wheeler-de Witt Equation – with these measuring devices, the only interpretation of time arises from being relative to an observer!

The Wheeler-de Witt equation is given as:

$$\hat{H}|\psi >=0$$

The Wheeler-de Witt equation uses a non-relativistic approach to its parts $$\hat{H}|\psi >$$ and $$|\psi >$$ . The equation put in simplistic terms, does not care for any time-evolution as would be found in a time-dependent description of the Schrodinger Wave Function (who created the first wave-function of matter). The psi-wave function $$|\psi >$$ does not refer to the spatial wave function which is a complex-function. Instead, it refers to all properties of a relativistic universe, such as its geometry and the distortions inherent in the quantized vacuum of space. This would mean that any time-dependence would fail. It’s not concerned with how things unravel inside it.

Ultimately, the Wheeler-de Witt equation is non-local; this means that asymptotic time (the time we all come to experience) would be best described as a local theory, making time essentially local relative to any observer. So we do indeed end up with a local and non-local description of time. You may also remember my theory suggesting that the universe may not have a preferred origin being local or non-local, but rather both.

If you could theoretically be an observer who could sit outside of space and time*, you wouldn’t notice an expanding universe, in fact, it would seem essentially frozen to itself. So the observer would note ‘’the universe is essentially unchanging.’’

However, the presence of an observer inside the universe dictates that the universe is not frozen internally within its curvature. Quantum systems are seen to (with the apparatus of time) to flow along a path of evolution. It is then more or less accurate to say the universe is both a local one and also a non-local one. Indeed, one might even speculate a non-local case could not exist without a local one, and vice versa.

*An observer outside of the universe (even though speaking hypothetically) might even be lucky enough to observe the universe with a fixed amount of energy. Indeed for any universe to have an energy, one would need to measure it from outside, Doctor Wolf reminds us in his book, Parallel Universes, so how could the universe have a definable energy?

For some local observer, we could denote it as $$\Pi$$ - For a non-local system, we usually represent it with $$\Lambda$$. We use these symbols in determining gauge symmetry and transformations. For the observer, a local and non-local side to the universe maybe very helpful.

We know with the theory of disturbing the wave function upon measurement, it seems that we may even totally describe a new light to the system. I contend that upon some observation, measurement always deflates systems into local natures. The local mind-like nature of the observer upon some measurement ‘’entangles’’ with the observed system, where properties are totally frozen or vanish completely.

[work taken for analysis]*****

The incoming field cited as psi star, interacts with a local wave function during the measuring event. The coupling $$J(t)$$ here is simply a local collapse in the wave function, and it’s conjugate is the incoming field. Local and non-local effects in the universe might play roles like this all the time together, constantly switching in different situations.
If time and space are both to have an equal chance of being local and non-local, then concerning material systems it seems apparent that they are also subject to existing in a localized state or a non-localized state. The pure act of measurement will deflate the possibilities from an observer’s point of view. This also means consciousness, and in this theory, consciousness is purely local.

So from a cosmological analysis, we can see that the universe Φ is a frozen entity, a system that is completely unchanging. The Wheeler-de Witt equation is a proof of non-localized dimensions and existing alongside it, is the Schrodinger Equation, which for some observer posits a linear time and also a local frame of reference (or dimension, if you like). Since quantum mechanics states that everything must follow its rules, that must mean that consciousness follows a specific condition where it does not exist in space, but is part of a linear existence of observations through time. This linear existence measures motion within the universe Φ and some usage of time as a measuring rod, but most importantly, it exhibits a local nature to time, which would mean time in general is local.
 
Last edited:
Deducing Points from Speculative Physical Theories

So far, I have investigated many points of view concerning the observer. Up to date, we have learned that there maybe no such thing as a real past and a real future. It seems the observer shatters the simultaneous-nature of time and events in time, as a whole, and the illusion of past and future arise from it; it also goes to explain also that our minds attention on the world is drastically reduced also by the amount of events one mind can handle at a time, in a given frame of space. I have shown there maybe no such thing as a non-determined universe and our ability to have choice may also be a delusion of the human observer. I have shown how this connects with ‘’linear time’’, where our ability to have a choice may well distinguish the ‘’psychological nature’’ behind the unfolding of events in such a uniform fashion and may even ultimately mean there is no true linear unfolding of events. In short, the world of the observer is very unique in what it experiences; the observer appears to be a totally new world fit for a description in science, just as the non-living world has its own.

There remained a few problems however, which I was unable to solve to myself until just recently. One may come to realize that there is indeed a ‘’participatory problem’’ (as I called it) concerning the ‘’reference principle’’ of the consciousness-universe relationship of the unfolding of linear events upon measurement of the observer. In the equation;

$$k=\frac{(t<t_0)-(t>t_1)}{\int_{t_0}^{t_1} dt J(t)$$

I attempted to explain the relationship between in the internal experience or observation denoted by $$k$$ as being a phenomena which ‘’coupled’’ to the time dimension. This coupling was represented by $$J(t)$$ in the equation, and could be considered to be non-zero in small amounts of time. Again explained, a coupling in physics is defined by two systems that interact. Whilst this has been a convenient way to describe physical systems, it also helped give some kind of reason why interaction between the observer and the observed occurred at all.

But how would two seemingly independent phenomena know simultaneously that the system is being observed? Surely a description of how the coupling should manifest itself is needed? Well, physics today deals with a new kind of entity, as Doctor Wolf reminds us about in his book, ‘’The Yoga of Time Travel,’’ are the quantum waves of information.

These waves contain the possibilities of all the objects in the universe, including the human mind. Such waves he reminds us, can be super-positioned together (added) to create entirely new possibility-waves. They can also be squared, meaning an integral with a boundary is created, and they collapse probabilistically; also known as the probability-density.

It may now seem clear with a little thought, that the coupling between mind and the measured system can have such a interaction because of possibility-waves decohering ‘’out there’’ and ‘’in here’’ squaring and creating the real probability.

What I am suggesting is that a geometric model of consciousness can interact with the geometry of the universe through a collapse in the wave function. This wave function is the world of possibility-waves, which could be imagined to undulate through space and time, much like ordinary waves do and upon squaring with their conjugate waves, create all manifested and tangible properties of space and time, such as the solid matter that seems to be entangled into the fabric of the universe, to even this inner-world of the conscious observer.

And even though, plenty of times I have said that consciousness is not an extension of space and more peculiarly not an extension of time itself, quantum waves of information could tunnel from the mind and into reality, or if you like, they could undulate between both worlds.

The probability density, which is defined as a collapse in the wave function, is mathematically defined as:

$$<\psi|\psi>=\sum_{i} |\psi_i|^2$$

In popularized science books of today concerning this phenomena refer to it as being called ‘’the observer effect’’, and each time some observation has been made, such as a photon hitting off an atom, changed quantum events and makes possibilities into actualities. The simple act of a human observer, therego, also deflates the statistics into a real value of 1. The equation above does in fact come from the Born Probability given as $$|\psi_i|^2$$ and is found in good use within the Copenhagen Interpretation. It should also be noted, that the whole equation is closely related to the equation of the dot product of vectors √a•a =|a| earlier in my work, because both equations are considered orthonormal (1). I know physics can seem very obtuse sometimes with these estranged words; orthogonality is simply something which is perpendicular to another thing, and geometrically form a right angle.

(1) – Technically-speaking, the $$|i>$$’s s specify the different quantum alternative conditions that could be at hand, and they form an orthonormal eigenvector basis, which implies $$<i|j>=\delta_{ij}$$ ). The collapse of the wave function can also be seen as an arrow of time because the process is irreversible.
 
Last edited:
The River of Time
Isaac Newton defined his notion of time in the Principia, as follows
(1962, p. 6):

Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year

It has been known, concerning the physicist Sir Isaac Newton that he was very advanced for his time concerning physics. In fact, a great deal of the physics we work from today we can give credit to this man. He is arguably, the most intelligent physicist who has ever graced this area of science.

Reading from this passage I quoted, Newton brings to our attention ‘’the flow of time.’’ Even though it may seem that time has indeed a flow throughout the universe, where it has no relation to anything external*, it turns out that time may have no flow at all. In fact, all previous attempts to view time as a river that flows throughout the universe may turn out to be seriously erroneous.

If time has a flow, what is it flowing relative to? It seems that the only system time could move relative to, is some observer. What if the flow of time, is simply the illusion, or creation of a mind? Maybe this is what is meant by ‘’time having a flow relative to the human being,’’ but rather more accurately being, ‘’time having a flow to some conscious experience.’’

In fact, taking these premises seriously, it leads one to state that the only reason why time has a flow at all is due to our ability to make choices. I am an advocator that everything in this universe, including everything in its history, both future and past is all predetermined. This must mean that choice for the observer is somehow an illusion. A recent conversation with my best friend and partner helped me realize this on more pragmatic terms. After discussing the nature of what relativity predicted concerning the non-existence of past and future, (and also including a previous conversation concerning the nature of choice for the human observer), it seemed that our ability to have choice was determining our inability to see the past and future as being illusions of the active mind.

We make many choices in one day. These choices are all present to us along some linear set of events which unfold for the observer. The way we make choices must happen in this fashion, for if it did not, we would not be able to make intellectual distinction between an event which had just passed, to one that is yet to happen, located of course in the future. This is of course, a cause and effect principle of experience.

But if there is no such thing as a true, or absolute choice, would then suggest that our minds eye has a veil over it. This veil exists within actions made over a linear time, with causal events taking fold in our applied everyday lives. As I speculated earlier, if this veil of deception was not true for the observer, we may have no such thing as an ordered memory or even a workable consciousness as we know it. We would be bombarded by signals – quantum signals – and these signals would be coming to and fro our consciousness in an oscillating manner with no particular directionality through space and time and thus, cause and effect in experience would break down.

So, to summarize, choice does not exist in my theory, but the mind’s ability to fool itself into having such a choice in matters, helps us distinguish some past and future, even if the past and future are truly an illusory of the human mind. This also creates the illusion of some particular flow with time in space. So time may be very essential to be described a river, but may not be reality at large.
 
Spacious Present

Today while surfing the internet, I was quite surprised to come across a particular literature that seemed to mirror my theory of the present time and linear time in identical ways. Interestingly enough, the following idea where posited by medium! With the theory I presented within strict terms of physical sciences, I was surprised to see it coming from such a lucrative member of society, as Wikipedia (an on-line source of information) gives:

‘’ Time and space are "root assumptions" of this plane of existence according to the Seth material ie. They are essentially illusory, and both the past and future coexist with the present in what Roberts, as Seth, referred to as the "spacious present". Therefore, a person’s incarnations in different time periods are actually lived simultaneously, not consecutively. The materials claim that communication among the various past, present and future selves occurs during "the dream state", and that time only appears to exist in a linear form because of limitations inherent in the physical human brain. Therefore development, expansion, growth and change do not require time in order to occur.’’

• In regards to the American author and psychic Jane Roberts

Truly amazing, I thought at least. It is common to come across idea you have had concerning a theory, but you hardly ever come across one that mirrors your own hypothesis. Shame however the theory had not been posited by someone a little bit more recognized in the science community, if not at all.

Though I had never speculated on the dream state, it is true my theory deducts the same conclusions saying that past and present are illusions of the mind, that both the past and present really exist synonymously alongside the present experience, and the limitations of the human mind in ‘’cataloguing’’ events creates a linear nature to the time dimension. In the previous part I also explained how the universe at large (mathematically speaking) did not require time in the Wheeler-de Witt equation and at the bottom of the excerpt, the medium would conclude that development and expansion and growth and change do not require time, is almost identical I meaning, I believe.
Maybe the medium just knew her relativity…? Either way, it’s rather refreshing to see someone draw essentially the same conclusions. But she also makes another interesting discovery, one I also contemplated from a geometrical view. She makes note of the ‘’spacious present,’’ we come to observe daily in our lives. Of course, she missed out why exactly the present mind seemed stuck in the present but not conscious and why the ‘’I’’ part of our lives tends to stay personally within the present, even though there is no real boundary in time.

I answered this by explaining that immediate consciousness is the same as unfolding knowledge, thus, the proverbial ‘’I’’ is ‘’here’’ because ‘’I know’’ turns out to be ‘’me’’ and ‘’now’’. The ‘’I know’’ part, is to know the information of the outside is entering my consciousness as knowledge. The more I observe in the now, the more the now tends to unfold to me upon a series of ordered measurements in both time and space. From now on, one can seriously take my next proposition as a basic possibility. That possibility is that time is only entangled into space through the presence of an observer!

How Do Memories Work?

How we come to know and process into memory is one of the major problems concerning the theory of consciousness, simply because any model that deals with psyche in such a fashion inexorably finds itself dealing with ‘’abstract’’ parts.

I propose that the existence of true time (not in the absolute sense), but rather in the sense of the time that exists in the world at large without any observer exists as a dimension which must be non-local. That must mean as far as it is concerned, it oscillates because it takes large steps through time. If the local dimension of the mind (the world of perception and sense of time) is implied to exist alongside a non-local entity like the universe, we often don’t remember that the non-local aspect takes on the form of existing alongside each other without any distinction of a past or future.
The ‘’real’’ view of time and events says that everything is happening now. The illusion of the present is created by the disturbance of the observer, and really, consciousness itself is all spread throughout the past and future assembling one whole present time.

This ensemble of consciousnesses, are not all existing in the present time in this universe, because somehow we have manifested that ability so carefully from remembering events. I don’t believe in the multiverse theory, as many do, where consciousness is then located in present time in different universes… but I do believe that our ability to remember events is what makes the distinction of some past event and ultimately the distinction of the proverbial ‘’me’’ in the ‘’here and now’’ – because I have knowledge of some previous event that took place before ‘’me’’. But my main exploration of thought has gone into the idea that a non-local space and time would be important agents in the phenomena of memory.

It might go to add that psychology finds that there is not only a conscious being, but there is an element of subconsciousness as well. It’s like the deepest crevice of the human beings thoughts which are not necessarily due to any consciousness. The subconscious may have a non-local attribute to it as well, since consciousness does not pervade its way of computation. Might this be a source of how we can process memories? Through a level of consciousness which is essentially non-local, making sporadic thinking and mindless ponderings a probability to occur?

*I define the subconscious as a level of semi-unconsciousness. This is how I define the subconscious, but I see it also as a zero-point world. Zero-Point as being ‘’origin’’ in definition; a place where the thoughts and emotions arise from!

This hidden world of the conscious mind hold secrets to how simple things like memories occur to us. We do no such think as going back into the past to collect a memory, but we create the experience we once had and make it as a memory here in the present time. It may seem adequate to believe that the mind delves into these non-local realms, which help concepts like thoughts and wishes become evident upon the simple will of the observer.

But where is this non-local side of reality? I was surprised to learn that the zero-point field could be such a place, and that many may take its validity seriously.

Zero-Point Energy Field

There was a time when a concept in physics called Aether Theory had gone through some spectacular turnabouts. It was believed that during the 1900’s that the Aether was required to answer for the wave propagation of light. But with Einsteins 1926 special relativity papers, people soon began to give up on believing in the Aether as a real thing. All attempts to measure the aether had failed.
What is 'Aether Theory' all about?

Einstein wrote a paper on what was called, 'The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields'. I find it a most interesting paper. I believe it was originally devised contemporaneously for [one] of his uncles.

Also known as 'Ether' from the Greek Word (aio'np), which basically means 'upper' or a.k.a. 'pure fresh air,' - it was believed to be an all-spacetime filling field. They refer its effects as a 'transmissional medium'. The Aether hypothesis has come in numerous forms, through the multiple interpretations throughout history.

The orthodox Aether Interpretation is that it is a physical force/medium that permeates every corner of spacetime thus indicating an influence on all materialistic bodies contained within all spacetime. Another result of Aether presents properties that give rise to the electric, magnetic and gravitational potentials, and also determines the propagating velocity of their effects.

It gets even more complex: it states that the propagating effects throughout all of the universe, are determined by the physical field of the Aether - which acts in a manor analogous to sound waves, such as the wave properties of a photon. Any developing propagation and potential effects within spacetime due to their velocities are viewed as having real effects. Thus, fundamental interactions depend on this Aether Force.

The rippling or ''propagation'' of the Force of Aether also presents time directionality, reflected in the 'Radiative Arrow’ - found in quantum evolution. This was an attempt to answer for the wave function of light in a vacuum, but experiments performed by The famous Michelson-Morley experiment failed to find an Aether wind. Because of these results, it was generally believed that the Aether Field was a flawed concept; that was until Einstein’s general theory of relativity. This theory, in Einstein’s own words was ‘’unthinkable’’ without Aether.

So what is Aether then, if it isn’t what we thought it was?

Well, Aether theory has taken a new form in physics called ‘’The Zero-Point Energy Field.’’ The Zero-Point field is a soup of virtual energy. It pervades every corner of the universe, and is ultimately the source of all tangible matter in the universe. Therefore, the origin of energy and matter that we observe today, arose from Zero-Point Energy Field.

The ZPF (Zero-Point Field) can be considered as an infinite sea of virtual energy, that even if you took a bit of energy out, you are still left with an infinite amount! It can be seen as a virtual vacuum that is non-local, and in many respects, holds the information of the potential universe (and that must mean consciousness as well). This leads one to realize that maybe if my theory is correct, then the universes non-local nature takes the form of this Zero-Point Field, and the non-local attributes arise from some measuring observer.

I am not however the first to propose that maybe consciousness comes from the Zero-Point Origin. Dr Shuiji Inomata of the Ministry of International Trade and Industry Electrotechnical Laboratory of Japan who sees the Zero-Point Field as being closely connected to thoughts and feelings as much, as Doctor Wolf describes it, ‘’responsible for the appearance of matter and energy. It is also in constant interaction with everything in the universe.
 
The Materialistic Scientist

Whilst thoughts, dreams and wishes are explicitely non-tangible in a materialistic sense, some physicists believe that the mind could have a totally physical working theory. This is obsurd. Before i discuss the implications of zero-point field and mind, i want to discuss the physical nature of the mind, if indeed it requires one at all.

When Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, he helped the world realize an equation (which had been going around for a few years before) that would have unique importance in our everyday lives, even if we never come to think about it often. This equation was $$E=Mc^2$$, and it showed that from a little bit of mass, you can create a whole lot of energy, or if you like, the equivalence stated also that from a lot of energy, you could create a longer-lived fluctuation*.

The human body contains a massive amount of energy therego. In fact, there is enough energy (going by $$E=Mc^2$$) in your body to power New York for an entire day! It’s quite impressive to know this fact. We know it’s a fact, because we have converted matter into energy, and energy into matter in the lab.

*The term ‘’fluctuations’’ simply refers to tiny bits of matter, from the proton to the neutrino. Energy takes on forms of photons and gluons, among other particles.

Concerning the human mind, many physicists are coming to believe that perhaps the mind is not completely physical at all. When we talk about something as abstract as the mind being physical, we are then referring to the particles (these solid bits of matter) inside the head which may seem to give rise to the function of a conscious being. But the mind may not be completely physical! There may be some aspects of the mind which still remain undoubtedly beyond both space and time, and therefore, beyond matter and energy. We must speculate all four entities here, since relativity knots all of the ingredients, space-time-matter-energy as all components of a single vacuum.

In five to several years, the human will have totally new bodies – and therefore, entirely new physical minds – and that’s a lot of particles, around $$10^{26}$$! This is because cells and the constituents of cells (such as protons and neutrons, and then atoms) will eventually be replaced by entirely new matter. Knowing this little gem of information, what would it mean when we think of a physical mind? Does this not mean that whatever we call the mind, experience and self may not actually be regulations to a total value of mass?

The statistical averages that compute the brain matter may be very simply on the scale of protons, neutrons and electrons – but their overall activity in the brain is very complex; in fact, it would be nigh on impossible to ever hope to track a collection of more than a handful of quantum particles, never mind the $$10^6$$ or more that make the human brain up. But if we have completely new brains (talking physically here) every so many years, wouldn’t that suggest that the human mind concerning experience and thought is not necessarily tied to matter, never mind energy?

It may not be wise for physics to treat the mind as being completely non-physical; after all, we know that damage to parts of the brain can indeed disturb and destroy many computations a human being can perform. Doctor Wolf, theoretical physicist and professor once described the human mind as being like a field that surrounds the mass of the brain. Indeed, mind does not appear to be everywhere concerning a human’s self-reflection, simply because the mind does appear to arise from a collection of carefully-arranged brain matter.
 
gluon said:
The River of Time
Isaac Newton defined his notion of time in the Principia, as follows
(1962, p. 6):

Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year

It has been known, concerning the physicist Sir Isaac Newton that he was very advanced for his time concerning physics. In fact, a great deal of the physics we work from today we can give credit to this man. He is arguably, the most intelligent physicist who has ever graced this area of science.

Reading from this passage I quoted, Newton brings to our attention ‘’the flow of time.’’ Even though it may seem that time has indeed a flow throughout the universe, where it has no relation to anything external*, it turns out that time may have no flow at all. In fact, all previous attempts to view time as a river that flows throughout the universe may turn out to be seriously erroneous.

If time has a flow, what is it flowing relative to? It seems that the only system time could move relative to, is some observer. What if the flow of time, is simply the illusion, or creation of a mind? Maybe this is what is meant by ‘’time having a flow relative to the human being,’’ but rather more accurately being, ‘’time having a flow to some conscious experience.’’

In fact, taking these premises seriously, it leads one to state that the only reason why time has a flow at all is due to our ability to make choices. I am an advocator that everything in this universe, including everything in its history, both future and past is all predetermined. This must mean that choice for the observer is somehow an illusion. A recent conversation with my best friend and partner helped me realize this on more pragmatic terms. After discussing the nature of what relativity predicted concerning the non-existence of past and future, (and also including a previous conversation concerning the nature of choice for the human observer), it seemed that our ability to have choice was determining our inability to see the past and future as being illusions of the active mind.

We make many choices in one day. These choices are all present to us along some linear set of events which unfold for the observer. The way we make choices must happen in this fashion, for if it did not, we would not be able to make intellectual distinction between an event which had just passed, to one that is yet to happen, located of course in the future. This is of course, a cause and effect principle of experience.

But if there is no such thing as a true, or absolute choice, would then suggest that our minds eye has a veil over it. This veil exists within actions made over a linear time, with causal events taking fold in our applied everyday lives. As I speculated earlier, if this veil of deception was not true for the observer, we may have no such thing as an ordered memory or even a workable consciousness as we know it. We would be bombarded by signals – quantum signals – and these signals would be coming to and fro our consciousness in an oscillating manner with no particular directionality through space and time and thus, cause and effect in experience would break down.

So, to summarize, choice does not exist in my theory, but the mind’s ability to fool itself into having such a choice in matters, helps us distinguish some past and future, even if the past and future are truly an illusory of the human mind. This also creates the illusion of some particular flow with time in space. So time may be very essential to be described a river, but may not be reality at large.
Click to expand...


The Frozen River

Time however is essentially frozen. If there is no absolute present, or true present time, then what we call the present is but a false representation of the reality at large. According to relativity, if you could look back on your history, you would see your history, may that be past or future all frozen in time. It seems that there are many present times, existing equally now. The past and future turn out to have their own present time, and thus every frame of existence, past, present and future including all conscious states all exist side-by-side, essentially unaware of the strange reality they exist in.
 
gluon said:
The Frozen River

Time however is essentially frozen. If there is no absolute present, or true present time, then what we call the present is but a false representation of the reality at large. According to relativity, if you could look back on your history, you would see your history, may that be past or future all frozen in time. It seems that there are many present times, existing equally now. The past and future turn out to have their own present time, and thus every frame of existence, past, present and future including all conscious states all exist side-by-side, essentially unaware of the strange reality they exist in.
Click to expand...

Reality is frequently a very strange beast ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top