matter emerging from mind

[fwh]

Please respond to the following:

"If civilization is to be saved, people must come more and more to realize that our conciousness is not something spatially enclosed in the skin or in the skull or in the brain; that it is not only our inside, but the inside of the world as a whole. That people should not merely be able to propound as theory...but that it should become more and more their actual experience.... That and also the overcoming of the total obsession there is today, with the Darwinian view of evolution -- of conciousness or mind having emerged from a material, but entirely unconcious universe. Putting it very shortly, to realize , not simply as a theory but as a conviction of common sense, that in the history of the world matter has emerged from mind and not mind from matter."

I'm doing a study on the conflicting view of conciousness by the two monisms. I would appreciate your comments.

[MyKell]

And on what evidence do you support your claims?
Are you saying that the universe is conscious and has a purpose?
Until you clarify what you mean, I will be able to respond more on this matter

[Jack the Bodiless]

Putting it very shortly, to realize , not simply as a theory but as a conviction of common sense, that in the history of the world matter has emerged from mind and not mind from matter."
How can this be a "conviction of common sense", when mind has never been observed to produce any matter at all?

[MyKell]

Also, is this a discussion of brain/mind duality?

[Godless Dave]

Originally posted by fwh
Please respond to the following:

".... Putting it very shortly, to realize , not simply as a theory but as a conviction of common sense, that in the history of the world matter has emerged from mind and not mind from matter."

I'm doing a study on the conflicting view of conciousness by the two monisms. I would appreciate your comments.

I would start by going after that last sentence. It claims that matter has emerged from mind but I cannot think of any example, anytime, anywhere, of matter emerging from mind.

[Chimp]

Originally posted by fwh
Please respond to the following:

"If civilization is to be saved, people must come more and more to realize that our conciousness is not something spatially enclosed in the skin or in the skull or in the brain; that it is not only our inside, but the inside of the world as a whole. That people should not merely be able to propound as theory...but that it should become more and more their actual experience.... That and also the overcoming of the total obsession there is today, with the Darwinian view of evolution -- of conciousness or mind having emerged from a material, but entirely unconcious universe. Putting it very shortly, to realize , not simply as a theory but as a conviction of common sense, that in the history of the world matter has emerged from mind and not mind from matter."

I'm doing a study on the conflicting view of conciousness by the two monisms. I would appreciate your comments.

Very interesting fwh, yes, even though I am but a lowly chimp, I will try to provide a meaningful 2 cents worth of contribution, without it being too much of an empty philosophical musing.
:D
Yes, the question becomes is consciousness universal and ubiquitous?

What if we were within a type of "matrix" scenario and could not tell if our reality was actually real or not? Our neural synapses would be directly wired into the "universal computer" such that we could not tell the difference.

We could try various tests in the spirit of Popper's falsificationism eh? What would the test be? How could we determine the "realness" of our predicament? All we could determine was that our virtual computer reality followed certain rules. Rules of logic. It would not help us to get knee deep in the spores, molds, and fungus of the computer reality to "falsify" it. The fungus, spores, molds, etc. would consist of the same basic stuff as everything else ...energy.

There is a fact of life, and it is called the principle of conservation of energy. This law is ultimately something that is totally abstract. There is a certain numerically specifiable quantity called "energy" which remains constant as nature undergoes certain manifold changes.

A mathematical principle.

Abstract.

Nature has a remarkable concordance with logic and mathematics, just as a computer generated reality must have.

:eek:

A universal consciousness could be our reality.

The physicist Frank Tipler explains the universe as a type of universal self simulation, and the simulation need not be run on an actual computer. A computer program is basically a mapping from one set of abstract symbols into another, according to a rule or "algorithm".

I am not quite sure how to provide a conclusive proof of
[reality = abstract], that will be accepted by the disciples of Popper.

Perhaps the infidels can give some helpful advice.

:notworthy

Chimp

[Oolon Colluphid]

Originally posted by fwh
Please respond to the following:

"If civilization is to be saved, people must come more and more to realize that our conciousness is not something spatially enclosed in the skin or in the skull or in the brain;
Why must we? Whence cometh this imperative?
that it is not only our inside, but the inside of the world as a whole.
On what grounds does the claimant make this claim? I have never come across any such evidence whatsoever, and so it sounds like an autoproctological exercise. He / she needs to put up or shut up.
That people should not merely be able to propound as theory...but that it should become more and more their actual experience....
Huh? An exercise in gobbldygook too, is it?
That and also the overcoming of the total obsession there is today, with the Darwinian view of evolution
Which according to this person is...?
-- of conciousness or mind having emerged from a material, but entirely unconcious universe.
That’s not Darwinian evolution, that is just naturalistic, scientific evolution. All the evidence is that this is precisely where ‘mind’ comes from. The proponent of this has some evidence that things are otherwise, of course...?
Putting it very shortly, to realize , not simply as a theory but as a conviction of common sense, that in the history of the world matter has emerged from mind and not mind from matter."
Ah, I see. Look out, here comes god. He thunk it all into existence. This isn’t the cart before the horse, it’s putting the Aston Martin before the Ichthyostega. Demonstrate that there even is some form of external mind, then we can talk about how it may interact with the real world.

I also smell a rat or two. At base, I suspect a deep ignorance of the subject at hand, and (creationist?) antipathy toward Darwinian evolution in particular (else why mention it?). The mere fact of its borderline unintelligibility shows that the person is not thinking clearly and understanding what they are saying. There is also an attempt to clothe theistic navel-gazing in scientific attire -- referencing some imaginary fault in evolutionary theory, implying that the author understands it -- to make it sound like it’s actually saying something. It is not. It is vacuous nonsense.

It is not even very original. All it is actually saying is, ‘If civilization is to be saved, we need to reject science and accept (“not simply as a theory but as a conviction of common sense”) that mind preceded matter.’ In other words, to believe in god. Well excuse me if I don’t faint in the presence of such an incisive critique.
I'm doing a study on the conflicting view of conciousness by the two monisms. I would appreciate your comments.
There ya go :). Maybe you ought to look up and read people like Daniel Dennett too.

TTFN, DT

[Deep Junior]

Please pardon me for my immense level of ignorance on this specific topic.... but... hasn't matter already emerged from the mind time and time again throughout the history of humanity?

I mean... I thought I was typing to you on a computer (invented by man), posting a message to this forum via the internet (invented by man)...

I guess neither a computer or the internet are considered to be "matter".

So, what exactly is an invention then?

[john_e]

Hmm...I think I know what someone's been reading:

"A virtual entity can become real and observable if energy is added to it."

"Electromagnetism has been shown by Kaluza-Klein theory to actually exist in the fifth dimension. In other words, EM itself is hyperdimensional. It flows in the fifth dimension, which is "wrapped around" each point in our ordinary space. It is—to the first approximation—the external environment of every normal point in our 3-space."

Try looking up Sheldrake's morphogenetic theory for some seemingly mad stuff, or certain aspects of Tom Bearden's work.

[Happy Wonderer]

Originally posted by Deep Junior
Please pardon me for my immense level of ignorance on this specific topic.... but... hasn't matter already emerged from the mind time and time again throughout the history of humanity?

I mean... I thought I was typing to you on a computer (invented by man), posting a message to this forum via the internet (invented by man)...

I guess neither a computer or the internet are considered to be "matter".

So, what exactly is an invention then?

Mind can certainly rearrange matter. I do not believe that we have yet converted energy into matter, but the physicists here can correct me if I'm wrong.

I wouldn't consider "the internet" to be a material object. Switches, routers, cables, phone lines and computers are material objects composed of good 'ole stuff we have dug out of the ground. "The internet" is an abstract idea that refers to a way that these material objects can be made to communicate. Does the internet matter is another question. :)


HW

[mosaic]

This is a quotation from philosopher Owen Barfield, and cannot be understood fully without some study, i.e. charitable research of his writings. A naked quote like this gives no context, and affords no palpatable refutation or provides for good discussion of his ideas. You can check out more about him at www.owenbarfield.com. As is common on this site, most of you will immedieatly reject his ideas because of his affliations to occult Christianity( antrosoposophy) but I'll stand as someone completely unconvinced of his theology, but who thinks his ideas should receive greater attention. There is no neccesity to be a Christian or even believer in god( he was raised as an agnostic) to accept his ideas. In fact, he wrote two of his books Poetic Diction and History in English Words before his conversion to Christianity, both of which contain the same ideas he argued through the whole of his life. Basically, as he says in his writing, his philosophy lead him to Christianity rather than the other way around. He's not a Creationist, a proponent of "design" arguments, or denies evolution. Moreover, his theology is entirely heretical so these rather quick attempts to lump in with whatever carciture we make of 'general' Christians is at the outset highly inappropriate.

[Chimp]

The abstract contains the concrete. Likewise, the concrete contains the abstract:

x^n + y^n = z^n

x^3 + y^3 = (x+y)[x^2-xy+y^2]

A more general identity for primes p, and numbers, n:

A*B means A times B

A/B means A divided by B

+ and - , we all know...

follow the order of operations:


x^p + y^p

equals

(x+y)*[(x+y)^(p-1) + [{(x^p+y^p)/(x+y)} - (x+y)^(p-1)] ]

for all p and n >= 1

Question:

Let T be a metric space with distance function r(x,y) expressing the definitive predication that involves T with the real numbers, R. Therefore the juxtaposition of left and right hemispheres resonates in perfect accordance with the proposition that T and R are embedded simultaneously in the full structure of manifold M. Ergo we pass on to an enlargement *M of M, whereby the non-standard metric space is diffeomorphism invariant.

So if f(x) is a homeomorphism from T onto S, then for every point p in T, does f(u(p) = u(f(p)) ?


If the universe cannot be expanding in any absolute sense, then it cannot be shrinking in an absolute sense, because there is no external frame of reference. All relations would be intrinsic to the universe. There would be no extrinsic perspective. So the question becomes, What exactly is space? Does separation between objects exist in an absolute sense?

A metric space is a set of points such that for every pair of points, there is a nonnegative real number called their distance that is symmetric, and satisfies the triangle inequality, which states that the sum of the measures of any two sides of any triangle is greater than the measure of the third side. Space is then a tranformation[invariant]. Two objects with relative velocity will have a relative measure that transforms into the other. In effect, the separation does not exist in an extrinsic sense. ABC = BCA = CAB

We then realize that an absolute spatial separation cannot exist, therefore, the EPR paradox cannot actually exist. Space[distance interval] is a type of dynamic relation. So, relativity is really a theory of invariants. Space is a set of invariance principles which, has a boundary that is zero. Yet, with the self embedding manifold[universe], information[structure-complexity] is increasing as a function of time. Information is also a type of relation, in that certain invariants must hold..

So to describe tautologies of logic e.g. X or ~X , as absolute truths would not be a complete definition. A tautology is an invariance principle. A rule that transforms according to a choice of truth value, which is an invariant, in that it is always true.


Yes, the force called gravity is actually "geometry" , non-Euclidean geometry, where spacetime becomes anisotropic and inhomogeneous in the presence of mass-energy.

Then the question becomes "what is space?" "What is time?"

Space is relational. Time is change.

Heisenberg Uncertainty:

DxDp >= hbar/2

The relation becomes totally "chaotic" below the Planck length. So yes, you are correct, space could be described as a self similar relation which is generated by the quantum foam, and forms Penrose's "spin networks".

The curvature of spacetime could be represented as a Gaussian distribution? If mathematics only is an approximation of reality, then the mathematics of probability corresponds "exactly" with reality.

The Riemann tensor explains how a tangent vector, parallel translated around a tiny parallellogram is changed. So, to say that spacetime is "curved" means how much a tangent vector changes during parallel transport around a loop. Parallel transport is the translation of an infinitesimal tangent vector along a geodesic. So the probability distribution should agree exactly with Einstein's relativity.

Is the universe a closed system? The million dollar question

A point without another "reference" does not exist; the opposite of a thing distinguishes it from the thing itself. What is the dynamic of space-time? Is it a ratio?

When space is taken as a measure of length, space/time is the speed of light in vacuum for a photon of light:

space/time = c


Where, length = perception of separation between two reference points.

E = mc^2

E/momentum = E/p = c

energy/momentum = space/time

What is the EPR "superluminal?" connection? A shortcut through configuration space? Phase space?

A point can be defined as an "infinitesimal". The Topological spaces are defined as being diffeomorphism invariant. Intersecting cotangent bundles[manifolds] are the set of all possible configurations of a system, i.e. they describe the phase space of the system.

Potential infinity is defined as a limit via Newton's calculus, while actual infinity is a Cantorian Cardinal number, which is a Platonic form, which is also a type of potential.

[abstract representation]--->[semantic mapping]--->[represented system]

[axiomatic]--->[Isomorphism]<---[Induction]

An abstract representation is exactly that, "abstract". It is not a space, or time, but is instead a product of consciousness, or a mental construct; topologically it is equivalent to a "point". The abstract description contains the concrete topology. Likewise, the concrete contains the abstract.

A duality?

A point contains an infinite expanse of space and time?

Could it be, that the "absolute" infinity, is actually a dimensionless point?

[point]/[set of points] = point ?


0/N = 0


Since it is possible for a "computation" to be self aware, there must be platonic forms that are types of self aware algorithms:


The description of any entity inside the real universe can only be with reference to other things in the universe. Space is then relational, and the universe, self referential. For example, if an object has a momentum, that momentum can only be explained with respect to another object within the universe. Space then becomes an aspect of the relationships between things in reality. It becomes analogous to a sentence, and it is absurd to say that a sentence has no words in it. So the grammatical structure of each sentence[space] is defined by the relationships that hold between the words in it. For example, relationships like object-subject or adjective-noun. So there are many different grammatical structures composed of different arrangements of words, and the varied relationships between them.

Language describes the universe, because the universe is isomorphic to a description on some level, and reality can only refer to itself, because, there is nothing outside of ..."total existence" which becomes equivalent to a self referential system, which must be a self aware system. Since descriptions make distinctions, or references to other entities, and distinctions are tautologically logical, [A or ~A], reality is logical, in that its contents can be described by a language. The contents within reality are distinctive entities, individually different from the others, yet consisting of the same foundational substance.


[<-[->[<-[U]->]<-]->]

Universe = Zero



On one level of stratification, two photons are separate. On another level, of stratification, the photons have zero separation.

Instantaneous communication between two objects, separated by a distance interval, is equivalent to zero separation[zero boundary] between the two objects.

According to the book "Gravitation", chapter 15, geometry of spacetime gives instructions to matter telling matter to follow the straightest path, which is a geodesic. Matter in turn, tells spacetime geometry how to curve in such a way, as to guarantee the conservation of momentum and energy. The Einstein tensor[geometric feature-description] is also conserved in this relationship between matter and the spacetime geometry. Eli Cartan's "boundary of a boundary equals zero."

Einstein's equation basically says

Einstein Tensor [G] = Stress-Energy Tensor [T]

[spacetime geometry] determines [matter-energy's path] = geodesic.

[Matter-energy] determines [spacetime geometry] = non-Euclidean geometry.

.
Conservation of momentum energy is explained as an automatic consequence of the zero boundary of a boundary. Where conservation of energy-momentum means no creation or destruction of energy momentum in a 4D region of spacetime [4D cube] The integral of "creation events" i.e. the integral of
d*T for energy momentum, over the 4D region is required to be zero, and gives the conservation of momentum energy. The mathematical machinery for identically meeting the conservation laws is the boundary of a boundary equals zero.

[spacetime tells mass]<===[geodesic path for particle]===>[mass tells spacetime]

Waves are ripples in a basic medium. Einstein explains that the ether is unecessary as a medium, so the ripples are vibrations of spacetime itself, if, mass-energy is a form of condensed space-time.

As the ripples intersect with each other, it becomes a domino effect with the ripples continually increasing in density. Very similar to taking a penny and doubling it as an iterative sequence.

2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, ... 2^n

Since the ripples are increasing in density they are "compressed" . As spacetime becomes compressed, matter is re-configured as a balancing effect, so the force of gravity and accelerations are perceived as they presently are.

[<->[<->[<->[U]<->]<->]<->]

The increasing spacetime density must be background independent.

Actually, spacetime does not really need to be "sliced up" in that it can proceed in discrete steps, yet, still be continuous.

[density 1]--->[density 2]--->[density 3]---> ... --->[density n]


A quote from the book "The Expanding Universe" by Sir Arthur Eddington:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All change is relative. The universe is expanding relatively to our common standards; our common standards are shrinking relatively to the size of the universe. The theory of the "expanding universe" might also be called the theory of the "shrinking atom" .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quantum mechanics leads us to the realization that all matter-energy can be explained in terms of "waves". In a confined region(i.e. a closed universe or a black hole) the waves exists as STANDING WAVES In a closed system, the entropy never decreases.

The analogy with black holes is an interesting one but if there is nothing outside the universe, then it cannot be radiating energy outside itself as black holes are explained to be. So the amount of information i.e. "quantum states" in the universe is increasing. We see it as entropy, but to an information processor with huge computational capabilities, it is compressible information.

Quantum field theory calculations where imaginary time is periodic, with period 1/T are equivalent to statistical mechanics calculations where the temperature is T. The periodic waveforms that are opposed yet "in phase" would be at standing wave resonance, giving the action.

Periodicity is a symmetry. Rotate into the complex plane and we have
real numbers on the horizonal axis and imaginary numbers on the
vertical axis. So a periodic function could exist with periodicity
along both the imaginary AND the real axis. Such functions would have
amazing symmetries. Functions that remain unchanged, when the complex
variable "z" is changed.

f(z)---->f(az+b/cz+d)

Where the elements a,b,c,d, are arranged as a matrix, forming an
algebraic group. An infinite number of possible variations that
commute with each other as the function f, is invariant under group
transformations. These functions are known as "automorphic forms".

Topologically speaking, the wormhole transformations must be
invariant with regards to time travel. In other words, by traveling
backwards in time, we "complete" the future, and no paradoxes are
created.

So when spacetime tears and a wormhole is created, it must obey
certain transformative rules, which probably appear to be
discontinuities from a "3-D" perspective, but really, these
transformations are continuous?


[v1+v2]/[1+ v1v2/c^2]

c+c = c

aleph_0 + aleph_0 = aleph_0

0 + 0 = 0

Gravity exists because the information density of space-time is increasing. This creates a "pressure force" where processed space, compresses mass-energy, and mass-energy reacts by compressing space. The process is "time", which becomes dilated due to the increased information density of massive objects.
Stephen Hawking's excellent book, "Universe in a Nutshell", explains holography as a phenomenon of interference of wave patterns. Light from a laser is split into two separate beams, one bounces off the object and gets reflected onto a photo-sensitized plate. The other beam is reflected into a lens and collides with the reflected light of the object. When a laser is shone through the developed plate, a fully three dimensional image of the original object is created.

According to conventional theories, the surface area of the horizon surrounding a black hole, measures its entropy, where entropy is defined as a measure of the number of internal states that the black hole can be in without looking different to an outside observer, who can only measure mass, rotation and charge. This leads to another theory which states that the maximum entropy of any closed region of space can never exceed one quarter of the area of the circumscribing surface, with the entropy being the measure of the total information contained by the system. So the theorists came to realize that the information associated with all phenomena in the three dimensional world, can be stored on its two dimensional boundary, like a holographic image.

S' = S_m + A/4

Since entropy can also be defined as the number of states within a region of space, and the entropy of the universe must always increase, the next logical step is to realize that the spacetime density, i.e. the information encoded within a circumscribed region of space, must be increasing in the thermodynamic direction of time.

The entropy of thermodynamics and entropy of Shannon, are equivalent concepts, because the number of arrangements that are counted by Boltzmann entropy reflects the amount of Shannon information needed to implement any particular combination, or arrangement. The two entropies also appear to have differences, superficially. Thermodynamic entropy interpreted in units of energy divided by temperature, while, the Shannon entropy is interpreted in terms of bits, being essentially dimensionless. The difference is a matter of convention.

Chimp

Russell E. Rierson

analog57@yahoo.com

[fwh]

mosaic

Me:

I completely forgot I had started this thread and apologise for not responding to your mentioning Barfield being taken out of context. My thanks to Chimp for posting right above and bringing the thread to my attention again--although I must admit to understanding little of what he posted!!

:)

I have come to appreciate Barfield very much. For the purposes of my thinking I was just interested in getting views re objective idealism. I wrongly neglected to cite him as the source because of the inherit difficulty which comes about with his connection to Rudolph Steiner and Anthroposophy. I apologize for possibly slighting a view which is the product of such a great mind.

[Jet Black]

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer
Mind can certainly rearrange matter. I do not believe that we have yet converted energy into matter, but the physicists here can correct me if I'm wrong.


interesting aside: it has been done. iirc the experiment was done by firing a stream of high energy electrons through a laser. some of the photons riccocheted off the electrons and then turned into particles, electron positron pairs if I recall.

technically we have done it even before this in more conventional particle accelerator experiments, but that tends to be mashing particles into one another at high kinetic energies, some of which is converted to new forms of matter, such as top quarks and so on, but the first example is literally turning photons into matter.

[KeithHarwood]

Originally posted by Jet Black
interesting aside: it has been done. iirc the experiment was done by firing a stream of high energy electrons through a laser. some of the photons riccocheted off the electrons and then turned into particles, electron positron pairs if I recall.

technically we have done it even before this in more conventional particle accelerator experiments, but that tends to be mashing particles into one another at high kinetic energies, some of which is converted to new forms of matter, such as top quarks and so on, but the first example is literally turning photons into matter.

Energy can be converted into matter rather more simply, by breaking up medium sized nuclei into smaller ones. For example, bombarding carbon nuclei with carbon and splitting them into helium (alpha particles), the three helium weigh more than the original carbon by a small amount. Some of the energy of the bombardment is converted into the extra matter of the helium. I saw it done back in 1967.

You could also do it by squishing fairly heavy nuclei together to make even heavier ones, but this is in the Not Too Terribly Easy catagory and I don't think it has been done yet.

(Ed for spelling. Curse this tiny typeface.)