Esoteric Principles & Modern Theoretical Physics: Different yet Similar in Universal Essence (original) (raw)
Related papers
Theory of everything must include consciousness. In this Part I of the series of three articles, we introduce the subjective experience (SE) and/or proto-experience (PE) aspect of consciousness in classical physics, where PEs are precursors of SEs. In our dualaspect-dual-mode PE-SE framework, it was hypothesized that fundamental entities (strings or elementary particles: fermions and bosons) have two aspects: (i) material aspect such as mass, charge, spin, and space-time, and (ii) mental aspect, such as experiences. There are three competing hypotheses: (1) superposition based H 1 (SEs/PEs are superposed in the mental aspect of entities; when a specific stimulus is presented to the neural-network, the associated specific SE is selected by the matching and selection process and experienced by this network), (2) superposition-then-integration based H 2 (only PEs are superposed, which are integrated by neural-Darwinism leading to specific SEs) and (3) integration based H 3 (each entity has its own PE, which keeps on transforming appropriately as matter evolves from elementary particles to neuralnetworks; it is a dual-aspect panpsychism). We found that the followings, in classical physics, are invariant under the PE-SE transformation: electromagnetic strength tensor, electromagnetic stress-energy tensor, the electromagnetic theory (Maxwell's equations), Newtonian gravitational field, the entropic force, Special and General Theory of Relativity. Our analysis suggests that (i) SEs are embedded in space-time geometry for the structure of space-time (empty space or the vacuum without matter).
Theory of everything must include consciousness. In this article, we focus on the subjective experiences component of consciousness. In Vimal (J Integrative Neuroscience, 2008: 7(1), 49-73), it was hypothesized that fundamental entities (strings or elementary particles: fermions and bosons) have two aspects: (i) material aspect such as mass, charge, spin, and space-time, and (ii) mental aspect, such as experiences. There are three competing hypotheses: superposition based H1, superposition-then-integration based H2, and integration based H3 where superposition is not required. In H1, the fundamental entities and inert matter are the carriers of superimposed fundamental subjective experiences (SEs)/proto-experiences (PEs). In H2, the fundamental entities and inert matter are the carriers of superimposed fundamental PEs (not SEs), which are integrated by neural-Darwinism (co-evolution, co-development, and sensorimotor co-tuning by the evolutionary process of adaptation and natural selection). There is a PE attached to every level of evolution (such as atomic-PE, molecular-PE, … genetic-PE, … bacterium-PE, … neural-PE, and neural-net-PE). In H3, a string has its own string-PE; a matter is not a carrier of PE(s) in superposed form as it is in H2, rather matter is a proto-experiential entity and has two aspects at every level; H3 is a dual-aspect panpsychism. These two aspects are rigorously integrated together by neural-Darwinism. One could argue for H3 that the PE keeps on transforming appropriately as matter evolves from elementary particles to atoms to molecules to eventually neural-networks. For example, when long wavelength light is presented to the V4/V8/VO neural-network, the neural-net PE takes the form of SE redness, in analogy to water takes the shape and color of the container. However, one has to unpack this mystery.
Quantum Curiosities of Psychophysics
I survey some of the connections between the metaphysics of the relation between mind and matter, and quantum theory's measurement problem. After discussing the metaphysics, especially the correct formulation of physicalism, I argue that two state-reduction approaches to quantum theory's measurement problem hold some surprises for philosophers' discussions of physicalism. Though both approaches are compatible with physicalism, they involve a very different conception of the physical, and of how the physical underpins the mental, from what most philosophers expect. And one approach exemplifies a a problem in the definition of physicalism which the metaphysical literature has discussed only in the abstract. A version of the paper has appeared in Consciousness and Human Identity, ed. John Cornwell, OUP 1998.
A unifying theory of physics and biological information through consciousness
This article represents a transdisciplinary theory that attempts, in a nonmathematical way, to reconcile some contemporary concepts of physics with a novel theory of the mind. It represents a thought experiment that consolidates complexity by melding certain unifying natural science concepts into a coherent reality. The foundations of quantum mechanics and the cosmological mysteries of dark energy, dark matter, and normal matter non-dogmatically explained may be accessible to individuals other than those immersed in mathematical formulas. Through reasoning and models, terms are defined and illustrations provided, further clarifying concepts. In this theory, consciousness represents dynamic differences that come to an end. It exists through interdependent relationships between dark energy, focal points of dark matter (FPDMs), and normal matter with associated states of mind: pure awareness, pure mental state, and mental images state, respectively. Consciousness enables the emergence of an observing ego, a viewpoint that defines conscious events but which is not consciousness in and of itself. For topics described throughout the article, there is a mental and physical aspect that through relationship produces change that makes a difference. In this way, the reader, an 'observing ego,' with a human cognitive viewpoint, may bridge the 'gap' connecting the mental and physical domains. Although the theory can be developed mathematically in more detail, the main emphasis is to provide an intriguing explanation of how physics melds with 'mind,' thus laying the foundation for future explorations into how this theoretical framework of the mind reciprocates with other areas of science.
Abstract: This article demonstrates remarkably similar methods for linking mind and body to address the “hard problem” in the 11th century Indian philosopher, Abhinavagupta with a currently prominent neuroscienctific theory, Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory 3.0. Both Abhinavagupta and Tononi and Christof Koch hinge their theories on the identity of phenomenal subjective experience with causality. Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory is remarkable precisely in its method for dealing with the mind-body problem; namely, Tononi’s mathematically-oriented systems neurology proposes something we typically do not find in neuroscientific literature —that we start from a phenomenology of experience. Abhinavagupta’s sophisticated and, for his milieu, novel way of linking subjectivity and objectivity in the concepts of knowledge (jñāna) and action (kriyā) also offers a way of understanding how subjectivity can be linked to causality. This particular configuration is mostly absent in Western cartesian models for understanding consciousness and in Indian philosophical speculations on consciousness. However, this, in any case, is precisely the move that Tononi makes when he proposes that information is both “causal and intrinsic.” Abhinavagupta’s similar linkage of subjectivity with causality can help us to think about Tononi’s neuroscientific mathematical model.
Origin of consciousness and contemporary physics
2020
All great religions used the light as a symbol of transcendence and characteristic of divinity, talking about “divine spark that is inside us”. Light indicates the life; the symbol of light pervades the Bible from the first to the last page, it is the principle of creation. God has been called in various ways, but the light is the metaphor used to talk about His nature. From the point of view of physics, the light is an electromagnetic wave; the electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces known today. Recent insights consider our physical universe as appeared by a phase-like transition from a universe with 10 space-time dimensions. Relatively to a new appeared model, called B-DS model, consciousness would be created by the electromagnetic field in relation to the SU(6) x U(1) symmetry group. The human brain is conceived as an interface organ receiving informations, an element of interference from incoming data and already existing data (the subject’s memory).
Mathematical physics and metaphysics of mind and pure consciousness
Elsevier SSRN
The physicalism of brain structures and processes would however put some information entropy limits on our measurements of absolute truths and reality. But human brain can transcend itself to go beyond the self limiting physicalism through its mind states . Thus we can contrast between the self consciousness and pure consciousness states. The former is reductionist and physicalist ,rather ,while the latter is holistic and metaphysical in nature ,though consciousness is a mix of both with some phenomenological quality of subjective feelings and experiences being more disembodied than embodied,and not easily explained by physicalism and reductionist models that are brain based. This is reflected in formulations like Hard Problem of consciousness by thinkers like Chalmers to counter the likes of Dennett who swear by material and physicalist brain based neurological and cognitive mind models. Nobel Prize wining scientists like Roger Penrose have suggested that we can experience quantum consciousness and entanglement with universe in higher consciousness states. In his 1989 pioneering book on consciousness, Emperor’s New Mind, Penrose first proposed the idea of a retroactive effect. It could be that,as I would argue here, superluminal and imaginal fields are involved in mind like states.
Unity of Consciousness Experience, Nature of the Observer and Current Physical Theory
….the wise man looks into space, and does not regard the small as too little, nor the great as too big; for he knows that there is no limit to dimensions.-Lao-tse …it is by logic that we prove, but by intuition that we discover.-Poincairé He liked watching the glorious stars, thinking " there must be myriads of worlds out there ". Then one night he shifted his awareness toward and into himself. " By God, " he whispered, but only to himself, " there are myriads of worlds there, too! " [1]. We in the western scientific culture have just begun, en masse, to explore our inner cosmos. Inner exploration has been an intellectual activity in the relatively recent past, has been associated with psychotherapy. Now inner exploration is beginning to enter the domain of emotional and spiritual development as well. Certainly, the nature of our inner being, the nature and structure of our consciousness, shapes and determines our concept of reality. This realization is having a vast impact on the world societies and us, as individuals. One manner in which we internally organize the mental, emotional and spiritual information we receive is by mental system of concepts or categories of information and their causal relations. We address the fundamental nature of conscious perception and how we comprehend existence. Techniques such as yoga, meditation, and processes of spiritual awakening have opened the horizons to the consideration of the attributes of the consciousness. There also appear to be clues as to the nature of consciousness in the structure of physical theory. In fact, the co-called internal journey and external validation system of science may be leading us onto a similar path of knowing. 1 Role of the Observer in Modern Physical Theories In this chapter, we explore some of the basis of the structure and representations of human thought and thought processes in order to better understand the scientific method and other modes of inquiry. If we can better understand the relationship between our inner thinking, feeling modes on the external world and our universal connections, we will be able to better move to world peace, personal peace and freedom in time. What should start our discussion of the possible relationship between states of consciousness and modern physics? Let us start from a concept so well expressed Eddington: " Physics is the study of the structure of consciousness. " [2] It is the mind that is the ultimate instrument for " doing " physics. Not only do concepts in philosophy, psychology, and perhaps neurophysiology lead us to the conclusion that the structure and content of physics may depend deeply on the relationship of physical theory and the structure of consciousness. Also, recent discoveries in physics itself indicate a need to examine this relationship. Discoveries, and/or creations of new concepts in physics lead to the observer/participant issue. Quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic microcosm, is a description that may imply that the state of