Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By MeteorWayne

Thread: Consciousness and fundamental physics

  1. #1 Consciousness and fundamental physics 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    Hi,
    in the following you can find my thoughts about this problem.
    Sorry for my bad English.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Why not to imitate Karl Marx, in this occurrence ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Karl Marx himself had abandonned the manuscript of an early book "to the gnawing criticism of mice".
    Why not to imitate Karl Marx, in this occurrence ?

    You should acquire the basis in neurosciences.
    You should acquire some insights in your motivations.
    You should no more fall in traps of words, as you did.
    Please do not hesitate to ask some professionnal aid, to help you in getting more insight, to understand why your motivations are so heavily misleading you.

    I wish you a better luck, further !


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 more insight 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    Karl Marx himself had abandonned the manuscript of an early book "to the gnawing criticism of mice".
    I could abandon the particlon theory like the Karl Marx as you said, of course.
    But first of all I would have to have some good reason to do this...
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    You should acquire the basis in neurosciences.
    Well, I studied some basis in neurosciences. They say that brain is likely to be the most complicated thing in the universe... (in other words, it is unclear, what's happening there
    The possibility that they know something, what could clearly disvalue the particlon theory seems almost incredible to me... The other thing is that in the neurosciences there are a lot of controversial ideas. One says there's no QM in the brain, the other one says brain is a quantum computer.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    You should acquire some insights in your motivations.
    Well, I don't know, what you mean now. My motivations were ok, I believe.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    You should no more fall in traps of words, as you did.
    If there's anything unclear in the text, you can ask, I can clarify it, write it in a higher detail.
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    to help you in getting more insight, to understand why your motivations are so heavily misleading you.
    Ok, I want more insight to know what is misleading me :-). Until now it was nothing, what could disvalue the particlon theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    You are juste dealing with the traps of words they have put in front of you feet - the QM folks. This is not science at all, and you will never step into science by believing such stupidities.

    They talk silly, but calculate well. You have not learned to calculate well, but you just imitate their silly talking. It's a blind alley. Any scientifical innovation begins by an intellectual sweeping of the craps, and keeping the precious ore. You grabbed only the craps, alas...

    I do not know what is you mother language.
    I think in french, and my works are in french. That's so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    Your "arguments" are just offenses. You call my work "stupidities", because I use words. Thank you for your insight :-)

    You might say "Consider two bodies and the sum of their masses."
    or
    "Consider two bodies, the first with mass m1, the second with mass m2. Further, consider the total mass of these bodies M, where M=m1+m2."

    I used the first kind of description believing in the readers intuition. And as I write in the article, it would be possibly better to use the second kind to avoid any confusions.

    Obviously, you don't know, what I am in the article talking about. Because in this case you would understand it and not talk about "traps of words".
    I could rewrite the article using standard mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics if I wanted.

    Ok, I know your opinion, and I am not going to reply to your possible further arguments. Our conversation is a waste of time for both of us. Have a nice day...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Particlonist
    Your "arguments" are just offenses. You call my work "stupidities", because I use words. Thank you for your insight :-)

    You might say "Consider two bodies and the sum of their masses."
    or
    "Consider two bodies, the first with mass m1, the second with mass m2. Further, consider the total mass of these bodies M, where M=m1+m2."

    I used the first kind of description believing in the readers intuition. And as I write in the article, it would be possibly better to use the second kind to avoid any confusions.

    Obviously, you don't know, what I am in the article talking about. Because in this case you would understand it and not talk about "traps of words".
    I could rewrite the article using standard mathematical apparatus of quantum mechanics if I wanted.

    Ok, I know your opinion, and I am not going to reply to your possible further arguments. Our conversation is a waste of time for both of us. Have a nice day...
    "Particlonist", you have not understood anything.
    Nothing at all.
    Your starting point is the stupidities they say.
    But you were not able to notice that the mathematical formalism they use is in complete contradiction with the semantics they teach.
    The formalism is right. The semantics they teach and you naively believe, is pure craps.
    Garbage in,
    garbage out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    Party people,

    here is the second article I have just written about the particlon theory (the article is not complete, maybe I am going to write the missing parts later replacing this one).

    I wrote the article in such a form that it should be comprehensible to a common student with university education in physics (involving quantum mechanics).

    I hope some of you share my fascination by this theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Please describe at least some of your argument here. This forum does not exist to direct traffic to your website.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    I don't know where to start now. There are a lot of arguments in the articles. Someone else can also start to discuss one of them.
    I am not going to post the changed articles as new replies, don't worry, just edit the posted one.
    Today I have added some ideas to the second article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    You may know something about neuroscience: you know nothing about marketing. If you wish anyone to take the time to read even part of your articles you must offer something of value up front. you need to arouse interest and demonstrate that you may have something worth listening to. The best way of doing that is to either summarise your hypothesis, or focus on a particualt aspect of it and lay that out here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 About neurosciences ? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    France 69120 Vaulx en Velin
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    You may know something about neuroscience...
    I doubt very much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: About neurosciences ? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau
    I doubt very much.
    Yes, we understand this is fundamental to your thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    In the first article I treat the problem of description of consciousness in physics coming to a concept of a particlon.
    It follows that particlons are equivalent (the same physical laws hold for every particlon) and it is possible to separate them experimentally.
    By exclusion method I come further to the conclusion that interference phenomenon known from quantum mechanics is the only candidate, which could be the phenomenon distinguishing different particlons (consequently it is possible to separate them experimentally).
    Further in the text I discuss experiments and basic quantum mechanical laws (experiments and argumentation are similar to those known from Feynman lectures of physics volume 3) obtaining transparently consistent quantum mechanical laws of the particlon theory.
    Further I am focused on the problem how particlons exchange particles. Solution of this problem leads to (among other interesting things) the second law of thermodynamics and a special case of the law of conservation of energy.

    In the second article I reformulate the theory using standard quantum mechanical formalism and prove some interesting laws - third Newton's law and the principle of detailed balance as consequences of the particlon theory. I plan to do more, later, maybe (replacing here the second article).

    For some other overview see abstracts, contents, in the first article also "Basic conceptual line of the article".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Byron Bay, Australia
    Posts
    18
    I'm also very interested in this topic, however I have very little understanding of neuroscience or quantum physics. I read your first insights but I became lost rather quickly, however this probably was more due to my lack of understanding and comprehension rather than your lack of "insight". However what I did read did trigger certain positive qualifications in my own mind.

    I am a very skeptical thinker, always trying to find the science behind everything, and recently I've started reading a book called "Of Water and the Spirit". It's about a Dagara (Burkina Faso) man who was born in a traditional village and was stolen away in early childhood by missionaries only to return at 18 to be initiated as a Dagara man. Now the reason this is relavent to this thread, is that it deals with questions like these in a completely different way. And of course I am skeptical, but I think it is useful to understand that our species evolved for tens of thousands of years in a completely different way to which we live at present. In all ancient cultures (and I mean far beyond anything in Western recorded history), particularly in Africa and Australia, humans developed incredibly complex ways of communicating ideas. Now of course, it is impossible to look at these forms of communication from a scientific perspective, because for the most part they are lost (destroyed by this modern way of living and the "white man's" culture). But I still find it incredibly interesting, and I think in discussions such as these it is important to entertain the possibility that humans may have evolved consciousness far beyond what this (unless you are a Dagara man on a laptop) culture currently comprehends.

    Another hypothesis I've been thinking about (I know, it's a pity there is little evidence on this subject), is that if humans wish to survive the next millennia, we must go back to the way we lived for tens of thousands of years before advanced technologies, and combine the understanding of those times with the knowledge and technologies we now hold. What little evidence for this theory there is (and that is, in this last fraction of human evolution, we've come to destroy ourselves and the planet we live on, very quickly) could suggest that from an evolutionary perspective, the ancient cultures of Africa and Australia were actually more advanced than the culture we currently live in. Even to myself this is a challenging concept, but an evolutionarily advanced consciousness may have something to do with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    I read your first insights but I became lost rather quickly, however this probably was more due to my lack of understanding and comprehension rather than your lack
    of "insight". However what I did read did trigger certain positive qualifications in my own mind.
    Good to see your or anybody else's interest. It is much easier to understand the articles for people who know well quantum mechanics.
    it is useful to understand that our species evolved for tens of thousands of years
    The evolution theory is interesting. I would suggest some generalization of the evolution theory for the particlon theory
    The genetic variation within a population of organisms may cause some individuals to survive and reproduce more successfully than others. This causes the evolution
    to the more advanced species.
    In the particlon theory, every animal has its controlling particlon. One can imagine something controlled by a particlon, reproducing with little variations but not an ordinary animal. The evolution theory would also work.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Third paper 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    Dear random visitors of this thread,

    today I have written for you the third article about my own personal pet theory:

    http://media1.mypage.cz/files/media1..._operators.pdf

    I hope you are going to enjoy it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Seems unlikely.
    adelady likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    Hm, I wanted too add some example from standard QED and compare. Interaction operator versus some second order QED process. Then it should seem more likely.

    Other interesting thing to do would be to formulate the theory on bigger Hilbert space, because the introduced strange sum might become a bit cumbersome later.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 Next article 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    15
    New article (30.7. 2012)

    I have finished this one today, hopefully some of you are interested..

    ..I should say, that there are probably some mathematical mistakes around the treatment of the Hilbert spaces. I don't consider the article finished, because I still don't feel entirely comfortable with some mathematics there. I had to put it there before I made everything clear, because I ran out of time, sorry about that. This is a minor thing, the text still contains a lot interesting ideas to think about.
    Last edited by Particlonist; August 2nd, 2012 at 02:42 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •