Search This Blog

Monday, October 12, 2020

It is very exciting to read a prominent quantum physics paper that finally really unifies charge and gravity forces...or at least is on a viable path for unification. Tejinder Singh has published a series of papers on his quantum matter gravity (QMG) theory that not only unify gravity and charge, but he also shows many measurements that then validate QMG. Furthermore, the principles of QMG are consistent with my quantum matter action theory (shown below, published in three years ago) as well as with the well known continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) theory...QMG is so, so sweet...

Singh’s quantum matter gravity (QMG) unification of gravity and charge is therefore a very exciting development and is especially so for me since QMG has many of the same puzzle pieces as does my quantum matter action universe puzzle. Although QMG is not quite right yet and has not been thoroughly validated by Science, it will be. Basically, QMG defines aikyon particles as the generic aether of the universe and so QMG builds electrons, protons, neutrons, and all else with either fermion or boson aikyon. An 8-D octanion matrix represents each fermion and boson and has the correct quantum spin symmetry for both charge and gravity. Here is the basic action integral, S, which is proportional to the integral of the gravity trace dynamic mass or velocities of fermions and bosons:


Then QMG uses Connes time, , and classical Euclidean or atomic time emerges from QMG. As a result, QMG defines a new constant of = 1.0e17 s or 3.2 Byrs, but in Connes time, not atomic time. Alain Connes proposed t  as thermodynamic time, i.e. entropy or temperature time, as have many others in the past. This is a universe or cosmic time that defines the evolution of the universe and so now cosmic time is different from atomic time.

Another key to QMG is in continuous spontaneous localization, CSL, which is a very well know way to collapse the quantum wavefunction conundrum. So CSL is how the reality of classical gravity relativity emerges from QMG. That is very fun…

The 1e-39th scaling between gravity and charge emerges from the ratio (LP/L)2, and both L and LP are characteristic lengths that each come from known constants. The Planck length is LP and QMG length L is L = ћ/(c m), a characteristic length that scales with inverse mass ћ/c * 1/m. Here is the QMG Lagrangian equation of motion:

Dark matter simply emerges as a vector gravity from QMG and does not therefore need a new particle at all. However, there are many pesky singularities with many aspects of QMG, but QMG does manage to dodge the renormalization problem from gravity in quantum field theory.

Octonions are eight dimensional matrices that unify gravity and charge in this hypothetical 8-D space. Instead of atomic time, Singh uses thermodynamic or entropy time, , which was proposed by Alain Connes and so Singh calls t  Connes time, but many others have proposed entropy as the time arrow as well. Of course, the classical evolution of the universe is what drives thermodynamics and entropy and so Connes time is also equivalent to that universe time as well.

The deep dive of QMG into octonion algebra is quite complex and it is not yet clear if the really simple QMG assumptions really justifies the rabbit hole of octonion complexification. A classical 4-D spacetime emerges from the QMG trace of just half of the 8-D octonion matrix and then quantum spin emerges from the other octonion half. The QMG introduces 4-D aikyons to represent fundamental octonion fermion and boson particles along with QMG length (L), gauge (), and fermi matrices (b1b2). Each 4-D fermion has progress variables that scale with QMG L, qF  and mass from momentum of velocity F and each 4-D boson is on a path, qB with mass B. The dot above the q is a single derivative in Coones time, which is an 8-D velocity and proportional to momentum and therefore mass, and so q̣̈ is the double derivative, which is acceleration.

The next step is to renormalize qB and qF into q1 and q2 to make things pretty and avoid some ugly math...with an even deeper rabbit hole, so buckle up. The QMG aikyons are now either commutating bosons [qBpF] from which classical gravity relativity emerges or noncommuting fermions {qFpF} as quantum field theory emerges. The QMG paths q1 and q2 now have both symmetric and antisymmetric superpositions as well as momenta and all show the classic quantum uncertainty noncommutation: [p, q] = -iћ...and voilá! The Hamiltonian wave equation follows with frequency eigenvalues and so oscillating wavefunctions...oops, QMG still has some convergence issues hiding here and there...and so there are many more papers to write…

The QMG goes down a very deep rabbit hole because multiplying 8-D matrices results in two 64-D matrices with a total of 128 matrix elements. Wow! This will be a lot of papers in the future...

Although QMG has many of the features of quantum gravity, it is not yet completely clear if the complexity of octonion algebra is really necessary. After all, matter action has many of the same features, but only uses 3-D, not 8-D. Matter, action, and quantum phase unite into a very nice quantum universe with a Lagrangian, density matrix, and creation/annihilation operators. The quantum matter action causal set has all of the properties such as a Lagrangian for action. It could be that simply including the Fermi spin matrices in the action integral will provide for spin within just matter and action.

The matter action photon is the basic dipole exchange particle for charge and the universe biphoton is the basic quadrupole exchange particle for gravity. Just like the QMG aikyon, matter action has a pervasive aether particle that makes up the whole universe. Instead of using the dimensionless QMG LP / L for gravity scaling and QMG Connes time, , matter action uses the dimensionless universe radius over the Bohr radius, radius Ru / rB. Thus, instead of an arbitrary QMG L, matter action uses the universe radius. 

Connes or entropy time represents the primary QMG quantum time dimension, t  = 1e17 s or 3.2 Byrs. Matter action universe time is t  = 1.2e-17 s, but comes from the time pulse of the universe size, Ru. Atomic time emerges from both QMG and matter action as the classical time of gravity relativity, and so the second primary dimension of universe time plays a key role in quantum gravity relativity.

The QMG length L is inversely proportional to particle mass and so for hydrogen, L = 2.2e-16 m, which turns out to be too small for CSL hydrogen. Matter action defines the characteristic CSL length as 7.0e-8 m, which is the radius at which hydrogen dipole-induced dipole attraction, which goes as 1/r6, equals hydrogen-hydrogen gravity attraction, which goes as 1/r2. Thus matter action completely agrees with CSL while QMG L for hydrogen CSL seems to be a billion times too small.

The QMG constants are action as ћ / c and time t  = 1.0e17 s from which length emerges proportional to inverse mass. Matter action constants are action as 

ћae = ћ / c2 and aether particle mass mae as

which scales as the ratio of gravity and charge and inversely with the hydrogen Bohr time, tB. Matter action defines universe cosmic time, Tu = ½ * hae / mae = 13.4 Byrs, from the transform of the universe pulse length. However, the inverse Hubble constant determines our current cosmic time as Ta = k / Hubble = 1.2e17 s = 3.4 Byrs with a matter-action luminous distance correction, k. The matter-action luminous correction is not a new constant but simply expresses the acceleration of matter-action light over cosmic time.

Finally, Singh's QMG gives Science a truly significant unification theory. It is very pleasing to finally see this happen, but Science will now fight the coming QMG revolution quite fiercely as well it should...eventually, Science will accept something very similar but much simpler than QMG to finally show unification at long last...

Friday, October 9, 2020

The Measurement Problem

It is quite amazing that the quantum measurement “problem” is still considered a quantum “problem” by a very large number of very smart people. Despite having been explained countless times by countless people in countless ways, somehow many very smart people are still making their careers out of being either for and against the quantum measurement “problem.”

Determinate gravity relativity does not include quantum phase incoherence and so quantum phase precursors are simply not important for classical outcomes, which only involve coherent and not incoherent quantum phase. However, both coherent and incoherent quantum phase precursors are very important for quantum outcomes. Quantum phase decoherence and incoherence are at the very root of the quantum measurement “problem” as well as the many worlds interpretation. 

While incoherent quantum phase precursors seem to play no role in the coherent quantum phase of the outcomes of determinant gravity relativity geodesics, quantum phase precursors and therefore quantum phase incoherence are key to the uncertainties of quantum outcomes. The Mermin device as well as its Stern-Gerlach effect both illustrate quantum phase superposition...

The Mermin device illustrates quantum phase superposition and correlation for two particles patterned after the Stern-Gerlach apparatus, which shows quantum spin superposition for just a single silver atom. The quantum measurement “problem” is all about quantum phase superposition and correlation and, of course, quantum phase decoherence. Quantum reality is all about quantum phase coherence and decoherence while the classical reality of gravity relativity only involves coherent quantum phase. 

A single quantum particle can exist as an incoherent superposition of two quantum phase states before a measurement, but after a measurement, the particle becomes coherent with one phase or the other and so the wavefunction seems to have “collapsed” from incoherence into coherence. This is the essence of the quantum measurement “problem” because a particle spin only seems to have a particular spin reality after the measurement. Thus it seems the measurement suddenly collapsed the particle spin wavefunction, which made the particle quantum spin coherent and therefore classically real.

However, a quantum particle spin both before and after a measurement is a superposition of two spin states. A linear spin state is just a coherent superposition of a right and left circular polarization and so the measurement does not really collapse the particle spin into a coherent linear spin state.The measurement rather correlates particle quantum spin phase the measurement device quantum spin phase. This correlation is not instantaneous and rather occurs over a finite time from an uncorrelated superposition to a correlated superposition of particle and measurement device spin states.

The very typical approximation of a quantum measurement as instantaneous makes it seem like a wavefunction collapses suddenly into a single-spin state. Any actual quantum measurement, however, takes a finite time to create a coherent phase superposition from an incoherent one and that finite time involves the exchange of a large number of virtual photons. The typical statement of the measurement “problem” claims that the reality of a particular phase for a quantum state for a particle does not seem to exist until a measurement of the quantum phase of that particle.

Very smart people have been arguing about the nature of our quantum reality and quantum incoherence for over a hundred years. Really, no classical measurement is ever instantaneous either and so there is a dynamic evolution in any real measurement and a real measurement of a real particle’s quantum phase does not instantaneously change or collapse quantum phase at all. 

However, the measurement problem is not the real quantum dilemma. The real quantum dilemma is about the uncertain nature of quantum precursors and causality given incoherent quantum phase versus that of classical coherent quantum phase causality, which does not include the incoherence of quantum phase. In our causal reality, every quantum outcome has a precursor and there are no supernatural or mystical precursors for any outcomes. However, we cannot always know about the incoherent precursor of a coherent quantum outcome. 

Classically, all causal outcomes have knowable coherent precursors even those outcomes where we might not immediately know the precursor. Classical gravity relativity is therefore determinate and there are no unknowable precursors. Classical noise does typically limit classical knowledge, but classical noise is knowable up to the limit of the classical universe and therefore all determinate classical outcomes are in principle predictable in the universe limit. Classically, there are also no supernatural or mystical precursors for any classical outcomes.

Quantum outcomes, however, are inherently uncertain since quantum precursors can be in an incoherent superposition even though quantum outcomes are also causal and coherent and do have precursors. Therefore, an incoherent quantum phase superposition precursor is not precisely knowable beyond some well-defined uncertainty and therefore a coherent quantum outcome depends on the quantum phase of the measurement device as well as the particle measured. Therefore, incoherent quantum phase represents an unknowable precursor because, before a measurement, the coherent outcomes are only limited by a well-defined uncertainty. 

With incoherent quantum phase precursors, then, it is simply not possible for Science to preclude the existence of supernatural or mystical effects for some coherent quantum phase outcomes. This really bothers many classical materialists because precursors with quantum phase incoherence are not precisely knowable, but that is the nature of our quantum reality.

The quantum measurement “problem” has been a dilemma ever since the discovery of quantum mechanics. All classical particles follow classical determinant geodesic paths in gravity relativity and so all classical geodesic path outcomes have knowable classical precursors. The earth orbits the sun and that orbit consists of all knowable precursors, but all quantum particles that have quantum phase incoherence have a well-defined uncertainty in quantum phase paths. Quantum phase incoherence means that some incoherent precursors exist in quantum phase superpositions that cause coherent outcomes with fundamentally unknowable incoherent precursors, albeit limited by a well-defined uncertainty.

The typical depiction of a superposition of quantum spin = ½ state for a particle starts with a superposition of spin-up and spin-down wavefunctions with coherent phases, so the incoherence of quantum phase is simply ignored. Measuring a spin state, though, always results in either coherent spin-up or spin-down state outcomes despite the existence of an incoherent superposition of state precursors to the measurement outcomes.

The quantum superposition state seems to have instantaneously collapsed or rephased into spin up or spin down upon measurement even though the quantum particle was in a superposition state of incoherent quantum phase prior to the measurement. In other words, measuring a coherent spin-up state does not then mean the particle was in the coherent spin-up state prior to the measurement. The coherent spin phase of the measurement along with many virtual photon exchanges are what transforms an incoherent superposition into a coherent spin-up state over some definite time.

However, the measured coherent linear spin state is also a superposition of two orthogonal spins as spin-right and spin-left circular phases. A superposition of circularly coherent phased spin-right and spin-left states is equivalent to coherent spin-up state. The action of the measurement transforms an incoherent superposition into a coherent linear or equivalent circular spin-right and spin-left superposition.

The measurement then transforms the incoherent circular phases of the two orthogonal spins into a coherent spin up as coherent rcp plus lcp. Instead of a state seeming to instantaneously disappear upon measurement, measurement simply polarizes or phases an incoherent spin superposition into a coherent superposition of spin states.

Gravity relativity does not yet include quantum phase incoherence because gravity force represents only coherent quantum phase. Gravity is similar to the always attractive coherent quantum phase of an dipole-induced-dipole dispersive force between two neutral atoms, but dispersive forces vary as 1/r^6 power while gravity dispersion varies as 1/r^2. Gravity relativity is a coherent dispersive dipole-induced-dipole force, but now between the resultant quadrupoles of each atom wavefunction with the universe wavefunction. Thus the universe size fixes the dispersive attractive gravity force as an attraction of atom quadrupole biphotons or gravitons. Each atom’s biphoton quadrupole attracts all other atom biphoton quadrupoles and that defines the coherence of gravity force.

A single photon has spin = 1 and is always therefore in a superposition of two polarizations, {+1, -1} or {rcp, lcp} and so there are many different polarization wavefunction bases possible. One common basis is linear {parallel, perpendicular} and a second common basis is right circular/left circular, {rcp, lcp}.

A linear polarization is a superposition of rcp(phase1) + lcp(phase1) and rcp is a superposition of parallel(phase1) + perpendicular(phase1+90deg). There is a spin phase factor for each polarization and so a single light photon can actually be in an incoherent polarization state relative to other photons. Another photon of the same color entangled with the first photon has its same incoherent polarization state and this is coherence. That polarization entanglement will persist until there is a decoherence event of either or both photons. 

A measurement is just such a decoherence event and the classical presumption is that the measurement outcome of a single photon polarization then reveals what the photon polarization precursor was before the measurement. However, our cruel quantum logic says the precise precursor polarization is actually unknowable and there are rather a very large, but limited, number of possible polarization precursors. 

Measuring a single photon polarization only reveals its precursor as many possible, but still limited, superpositions. Thus, the action of one measurement seems to have created a new world from the old world with the measurement apparatus that made a single photon polarization coherent and that new world is different from the many possible precursor polarization worlds of an incoherent single photon polarization. How can that be mon ami? That is simply the way of our uncertain quantum world.

A photon polarizer or analyzer, which are the same device but used for different precursors, involves a complex dispersive interaction between a single photon electric field and a large number of bound electrons in an transparent medium. There are many different kinds of polarizers like the Glans-Thompsen, which has two calcite crystals with different orientations and each cut at a particular angle and glued together. An ideal polarizer transmits only linear parallel polarized photons at the interface and reflects only linear perpendicular polarized photons. Assuming the incoming light is incoherent, each photon dipole induces an image dipole in the bound electrons of the calcite crystals interface. Therefore, the polarizer actually changes the photon polarization just as much as the photon polarization changes the electron clouds of each calcite crystal.

Thus, the measurement of a single photon polarization affects the photon polarization in a very well defined way to produce a single photon polarization now coherent with the polarizer spin phase. While the polarizer will only polarize a single incoherent photon into one of two possible path, each photon will still be in a superposition of {rcp, lcp}. Therefore, it is not possible to know what the precursor photon polarization any better than 50%.

Sunday, September 27, 2020

Politics Is Visceral

Politics Is Visceral

Manos Tsakiris has written a very good essay on how visceral emotion and feeling are at the root of politics as opposed to rational thought. This essay notes that people feel increasingly unsafe today and so the emotion anxiety is in play in politics. The essay also notes that anxiety as well as anger in politics are really not rational and so politics is mainly based on how people feel, i.e., politics is visceral not rational.

The essay seems to assert that the visceral politics of today are not driven by any fundamental political disagreement. Rather, it is politicians' persuasive language and not any fundamental political disagreement that drives today's visceral politics. In other words, today's visceral politics not due to political disagreements but rather due to persuasive language of politicians.

The essay mentions the rational Polis of Aristotle as an example of rational politics that has never proven to be true. The essay then mentions the Thomas Hobbes' lawlessness that would result from the irrational war of all against all. Hobbes supposed human nature was first of all callous and not compassionate and callous free choice was fundamentally irrational and needed the social contracts of compassion to limit the natural lawlessness of callous free choice.

The essay argues that modern life undermines the the human well being of the UK social welfare state from the 1942 Beveridge report. Modern life increasingly does not distribute human well-being evenly that is a precursor of many modern day maladies like depression and suicide. The essay uses a Trump rally quote to show how language increases political anxiety and anger.

"The American people are fed up with Democrat lies, hoaxes, smears, slanders and scams. The Democrats’ shameful conduct has created an angry majority, and that’s what we are, we’re a majority and we’re angry."

However, the essay does not show why the Trump quote is not true and therefore not justified. Since there have been Democrat lies, hoaxes, slanders, scams, and shameful conduct, the emotions would then be justified and therefore help people to increase human well being.

The essay ends with a quote from Hannah Arendt, "the ideal subject of a totalitarian regime is one ‘for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (ie, the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (ie, the standards of thought) no longer exist.’"

The essay now argues that somehow, the visceral politics of modern life and human well being depends on distinguishing fact from fiction to preclude a totalitarian regime. 

Nowhere in the essay is there any discussion of the universal political disagreement over conservative individual free choice versus the liberal coerced choices of compassion state, which is the foundation of all modern politics. The visceral politics of modern life seem to be the classic political difference between the conservative Adam Smith of individual free choice versus the liberal Rousseau of enforced state compassion. Rousseau, after all, argues that first of all, human nature was compassionate and not callous, but otherwise followed Hobbes.

There is some purpose and meaning to the visceral politics of modern life. There is, after all, a fundamental recurring political disagreement over the limits of individual free choice versus the limits of state-enforced compassion. In fact, previous outcomes repeatedly shown us that either callous free choice or unfettered compassion can lead to a totalitarian state.

https://aeon.co/essays/politics-is-in-peril-if-it-ignores-how-humans-regulate-the-body?utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AeonMagazineEssays+%28Aeon+Magazine+Essays%29



Saturday, September 26, 2020

Free Choice and Compassion

Emotions that accompany the two main complementary conservative and liberal ideologies of civilization are the complementary emotions of free choice and compassion. All emotions come from the primitive and not the rational conscious mind, but emotions are why we feel the way that we feel and are why we do what we do.

Conservative ideology favors more individual free choice with limited government coercion while liberal ideology favors more government coercion with limited individual free choice. Extreme conservative ideology with unfettered free choice then suppresses liberal compassion and will end up despotic and tyrannical. Likewise, extreme liberal ideology with unfettered compassion then suppresses conservative free choice and will likewise end up despotic and tyrannical.


Thus Nazism or Fascism represent a conservative extreme unfettered free choice by a ruling elite, while socialism or communism represent a liberal extreme unfettered compassion by a ruling elite and have both demonstrated despotic tyranny outcomes. Despite having opposite feeling precursors of free choice or compassion, respectively, both conservative and liberal extremes both end up as despotic tyrannies. This is also why successful free market capitalism must always tolerate some political and religious dissent and thus have necessarily more representative democracy outcomes.

The balance between the callous free choice based on the feeling of an individual and the compassionate coerced choice of state has been a long struggle for civilization. Ancient China, India, and Rome all achieved some success as totalitarian states rule by the unfettered free choice of their ruling classes and a fundamental acceptance and indeed promotion of the suffering and misery of everyone else. Then, Western civilization grew to adopt a Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethic that introduced the primacy of individual free choice for most people as a a different feeling with more compassion for those outside of the ruling class. In particular, the Judeo-Christian ethic taught that both rich and poor people have the same free choice of grace and salvation and therefore both could reach heaven by their own free choice. People did not have to accept their suffering and misery, but could choose different destiny from that of their birth. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethic shows the primacy of individual free choice and free choice gave rise to the innovation of technological advances that increased the wealth of all people, including the poor, and gave rise to a middle class as a result.


China’s CCP is a very good example of unfettered compassion of a ruling class since the CCP uses their unfettered compassion to justify tyranny over everyone else. The unfettered CCP compassion considers itself virtuous because it has good intentions for most people, but the CCP cannot tolerate any religious or political dissent and so mercilessly suppresses the free choice of both religious and political minorities. The CCP is now actively suppressing all non-state religions, Uighurs, Tibetans, Falun Gong, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.


Syrian Assad’s ruling class represents callous free choice that likewise cannot tolerate any dissent and Assad’s nine-year long civil war ruthlessly suppresses all religious and political dissent. Likewise Iran's theocracy callous free choice likewise cannot tolerate any dissent in Iran and ruthlessly suppresses all political and religious dissent outside of the ruling theocracy.


All of these examples of one-party rule are at the extremes of either callous free choice or unfettered compassion.


Friday, September 25, 2020

Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault

Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault

Bishop Barron's talk to the Knights of Malta used works from these four prominent atheist philosophers to represent the philosophical foundations of the current U.S. culture war. All people must first of all transcend the fundamental anxiety about nihilism before they can ever hope to understand the nature of physical reality. The archetypes of these four authors are The Communist Manifesto by Marx in 1848, Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche in 1886, Being and Nothingness by Sartre in 1953, and The History of Sexuality by Foucault in 1976. In the span of 128 years these four books and authors represent the foundation of the current culture of identity and and its relativist individual morality. For Christians like Barron, it is religious belief that transcends anxiety about nihilism and so these four archetypes represent the dreaded four horseman of the apocalypse.

The common theme among the horseman is the rejection of the morality and ethics that represent the  power of a cultural elite. According to nihilism, elite in power simply contrive a morality and ethics mainly to oppress other identity groups. The horseman all argue that those identity groups should reject that morality and ethics of the elite and just invent their own morality and ethics. In fact, each of the horseman propose a different morality and ethics instead of adopting the power elite's well-accepted archetypes of morality and ethics. For example, instead of the morality and ethics of the Judeo-Christian-Islam tradition, each individual has the free choice to derive their own morality and ethics...from nothing but their anxieties about nihilism...

Marx argued in 1848 that first of all wealth inequality was due to the ruling class imposing its capital free market and taking their profit from the labor of the working class, who must then take power by force from the ruling class. 

Nietzche argued in 1886 that first of all God was dead and so all individuals begin with an anxiety about the nothingness of nihilism and then determine their own morality and ethics from the nothing of nihilism with their individual will to power as ubermensch. 

Sartre furthered Nietzsche's existential anxiety of nihilism in 1953 and begins the universe not with the creation of a transcendent God, but rather with the creation of a transcendent nihilism, which is again creation of something from nothing.

Foucault in 1976 then finally concluded that that since nihilism can create anything, the power elite simply invented a morality and ethics and used it to oppress all identity groups, including the power elite.

These four horsemen of the apocalypse all offer four very different ways to transcend the bottomless anxiety of nihilism with the pleasure of a relative morality and ethics for each identity group. Bishop Barron argued instead that the pleasure of Catholic belief is an absolute morality and ethics that comes with a belief in God. It is then the pleasure of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition that transcends the anxiety of nihilism with the pleasure of religious belief. In particular, Barron argues that there is pleasure in the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church belief in God that has always effectively transcended nihilist anxieties.

These four horseman transcend their anxieties over nihilism with four different moral and ethical beliefs that each can replace all religious moral and ethical beliefs. Barron does not address the even more diverse of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic morality and ethics and that diversity is a fertile ground for sowing our post modern culture's bottomless black holes of nihilist anxiety. The diversity of Confucist, Taoist, Buddhist, and Hinduist religious traditions further complicate any single claim of absolute morality and ethics like that of Barron's Catholicism.

People progress in life by the pleasure of discovering new people, new places, new foods, new drink, and even new ways to survive and believe. People also get pleasure in discovering new beliefs or archetypes to transcend their anxieties about what they cannot ever know, the bottomless pit of nihilism. People need ways to transcend their anxieties about nihilism, which is the primal fear of nothing at all, and is the fear that we fear most of all. 

When bad things happen to good people, those people face the injustice of misery and anxiety of that suffering and misery from bad things. The precursors of such suffering from bad things are often simply unknowable and yet those people suffering still get angry and lash out at and blame others as enemies for injustices that cause their suffering. Other compassionate people who see such suffering will also get angry and lash out at any perceived unjust enemy as the cause of even fundamentally unknowable precursors of suffering.

Thus, these four horseman simply represent four very different transcendent beliefs different from the many different religious transcendent beliefs. In fact, transcendent beliefs by definition do not have knowable precursors...including each of the horseman's transcendent beliefs. Although precursors exist in our casual reality, there are matter-action precursors that we cannot ever know as an inescapable axiom of the reality of quantum phase. People must have archetype beliefs that allow them to transcend unknowable precursors. For example, there are unknowable precursors for some of the injustices of suffering and misery by people who do not deserve to suffer or to be miserable. 

Thus, all compassionate people, including the four horseman as well as Bishop Barron, want to reduce the suffering and misery of others. Each of the horseman proposes a different way to transcend the injustice of suffering and misery of people who do not deserve their suffering and misery. However, all of them argue that even compassionate people must first of all transcend their anxieties about nihilism before they can ever hope to transcend the injustice of the suffering and misery of others.

Thursday, September 3, 2020

Spectral Free Choice

Human interaction as either weak or strong as well as a bond attraction or a conflict of dislike are both the result of matter-action free-choice EEG spectra. The neural phases of the EEG spectra show whether the attraction is weak or strong and also show whether there is bond or conflict. The quantum phases of neural action potentials shows the pervasive nature of our quantum reality as matter-action quantum causal sets.

The universe matter-action spectrum likewise shows the frequency and distribution of universe matter intensity versus mass and is the transform of the universe matter decay pulse. While universe time emerges from the precursors and outcomes of universe matter decay, atomic time emerges from atom action. All things that happen have matter-action spectra outcomes from their matter-action spectra precursors. Each person's matter-action spectrum describes their matter and all of their interactions with themselves as well as with the universe outside of the self.

Gravity relativity is a very weak force that scales with the size of the universe while quantum charge is a very much stronger force that scales with the size of atoms. Until the biphoton of matter-action, it has been a mystery how gravity relativity and charge forces represent the same basic matter-action force. It is then even further amazing that the very weak forces of human free choice are also consistent with the same basic matter-action force.

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

Transcendent Precursors of Free Choice

There is a precursor for every outcome in our universe and so causation is a fundamental part of our reality. Furthermore, causation is also fundamental for feeling and free choice as well, but we do not always know why we feel the way that we feel nor why we make the choices that we do. So, there are still many precursors especially for feelings and free choices that do not have knowable precursors even though those precursors do exist. This means that there are transcendent precursors for those many outcomes that do not have knowable precursors even though those precursors do exist. For such transcendent precursors, we must simply believe in our feelings and free choice and believe in transcendent precursors. 

Science measures and predicts matter-action precursors and outcomes according to the principle of causation and Western Science and Religion were precursors for the emergence of the enlightenment of Science. However, the transcendent precursors of Judeo-Christian morals and ethics still provide the basic archetypes for the truths of science just as Science of the Enlightenment had knowable matter-action precursors and outcomes that then displaced many of the early transcendent precursors. Science showed precursors for plagues and famines that were not supernatural acts. As a result, Science now shows that our cosmic microwave background of deep space surrounds us the the knowable precursor of our cosmic microwave background creation. The CMB shine was the precursor to all the local outcomes that we now see in our deep dark sky at night. 

However, Science cannot yet see through the CMB and measure any precursors to the CMB, and so a CMB precursor is therefore subject to many different transcendent beliefs, including religion. One narrative supposes that the CMB precursor was a singularity that suddenly, rapidly, and uniformly expanded matter, action, space, and time as a Big Bang with Inflation. Nevertheless, there still any number of further transcendent precursor beliefs for the CMB singularity since singularities have no meaning in either space and time or even in matter and action.

The Hasse diagrams of discrete nodes of matter-action precursors and outcomes are the basic nodes of the grid of our causal set universe. Instead of measuring precursor paths through time and space to predict spacetime outcomes from precursors, matter action measures precursor matter-action spectra to predict outcome matter-action spectra.



Friday, July 3, 2020

Random Chaos and Free Choice

In a recent essay, George Ellis argued that science does not either prove or disprove free will and so Ellis leaves open the issue of free choice. However, Ellis does not define free choice nor does he measure free choice and so really, Ellis has little to really say about free choice. Likewise science has no measurement of free choice and without a measurement, science also really has little to say about free choice. In other words, despite the overwhelming consensus in science that the precursors of free choice are determinate illusions that result from the Big Bang, Ellis argues that science cannot measure or prove free choice precursors are illusions and so science must leave open the possibility of free choice outcomes. 

Science hates this kind of free choice equivocation because it leaves open the possibility of a religious transcendent and mystical free choice. Although Religion just like Science assumes that we live in a mostly causal universe, religion further believes that there are also some transcendent precursors that we can never know about for some outcomes like free choice. Ellis argues against any transcendence and instead argues that it is biological complexity that precludes knowing about all precursors to free choice outcomes. In fact, Ellis does not even mention the religious narrative that attributes free choice precursors to transcendent mysteries. Ellis does conclude his essay by stating his belief that without free choice, we would not have moral responsibility and so he is glad that we do have free choice and therefore moral responsibility.

Both Ellis and Science presume that we live in a causal universe where every outcome has a set of precursors. A precursor for each outcome then means that there are no transcendent precursors from outside of the universe. Naturally, then, since every outcome has precursors, Science argues that we can in principle know the precursors of any free choice outcome as actually determinate and not free. Ellis argues that it is biological complexity and molecular uncertainty that preclude any knowledge of free choice precursors. Many others in science believe likewise that the complexity of random chaos similarly precludes knowing about all precursors to free choice outcomes.

Even though we do live in a causal universe where there are precursors for every outcome, that simple fact does not then mean that we can know every precursor. In fact, there are many unknowable precursors for outcomes that we readily admit to. Why are we here? Why are we here right here right now and not at some other outcome? Why is it us who are right here right now and not someone else? Why is the universe that way that it is? Why is matter the way that it is? Why does action change matter the way that it does?

These are all perfectly reasonable questions that have no answers and are part of what we cannot ever know about the universe. Science calls such questions meaningless since they do not have measurable precursors, but religion calls such questions transcendent because their answers lie outside of the causal universe. One argument about free choice is that a machine does not have free choice and even a really complex machine only does what its creator programmed it to do. The argument continues that a creator is also just a machine that does what their creator programmed them to do, and so on until the transcendent master simulator of creation. This means that we are all in a determinate simulation of the Big Bang and have no free choice at all.

Science does accept that it is impossible to predict the outcome of free choice from its precursors even though Science cannot either define or measure free choice. However, then Science goes on to list all the of reasons that make the precursors of free choice unknowable. Science then concludes that even though Science cannot predict free choice outcomes that does not mean free choice exists, just that we have the illusion that free choice exists in a determinate universe. 

However, there is no measurement that proves free choice outcomes are illusions, the free choice outcome does not depend on whether you believe in free choice or you believe in the illusion of free choice. Therefore it is simply impossible for science to address free choice without a measurement or even a definition of free choice.

Ellis rightly decries the moral relativism that results from a lack of free choice. Thus, he is relieved that there is free choice even though he does not define or measure free choice.

Thursday, June 4, 2020

FramesOfConsciousness

Frames of Consciousness by Joel Frohlich is a very well written and well referenced Aeon essay on the current state of defining and even quantitatively measuring consciousness in neuroscience. 
It is very pleasing to have such an interesting topic covered in such detail and I really appreciate his essay. It is difficult to both define and then to measure the thing you have defined since it is a lot like making up a new word and then using other words to define your new word that you just made up. After all, why make up a new word when other words already exist that communicate the thing just fine.

Consciousness is, after all, not a new word that Frohlich just made up and so there are as many definitions of consciousness as there are people writing essays about consciousness...and as many disagreements as well. Consciousness includes sensation, conscious thought, unconscious thought, subconscious thought, autonomic action, long-term memory, short-term memory, emotion, sleep and, of course, free choice action. We sense, reason consciously or respond subconsciously, and then excite or inhibit action. In the end, Frohlich does not really define consciousness but simply shows ways to quantitatively measure small slices of consciousness. 

"Consciousness is a mystery. A multitude of scientific theories attempt to explain why our brains experience the world, rather than simply receiving input and producing output without feeling."

Notice that feeling is a part of consciousness as is experience and receiving input (sensation) and producing output (free choice action) are all also parts of consciousness, with or without feeling. So Frohlich's phrase simply means that consciousness is the involuntary act of being conscious, an identity that is certainly true but hardly useful. Frohlich goes on to argue that quantum superposition and quantum phase decay have nothing to do with consciousness. Of course, quantum superposition and quantum phase decay is how all of the world works and so quantum is certainly how consciousness works as well, even though Frohlich does not like Hameroff at all.

Instead, Frohlich likes Tonini's two words for consciousness: differentiation and integration. Okay. We see two things and then can tell them apart. Great. Then we remember that new thing in terms of all of the similar things that we have also remembered. Once again, this sounds a little bit like defining consciousness as being conscious. Fortunately, Frohlich then moves on to measurements thank goodness instead of more definitions.

Frohlich likes Massimini's zap and zip measurement, which is a type of pulse-echo measurement for the brain. Given a brain pulse, you measure its echo and there are many pulses with both sound and light that also work. An operator delivers an electromagnetic pulse to a brain region and then measures how quickly the EEG modes return to the normal conscious pattern before the pulse. Of course, any stimulus like a bright light, a loud sound, a strong odor, or a pin prick results in the same EEG pulse echo. Oddly, these are the same actions that medicine now uses to measure conscious behavior, even for unconscious or comatose people.

Finally, Frohlich wraps up with his favorite Angelman syndrome of conscious behavior. These very happy people have grown up with the simple EEG modes of children and so never seem to have grow up and their characteristic EEG delta modes are without alpha or beta overtones of higher consciousness. However, since science has no theory that explains what EEG modes represent, once again, Angelman syndrome people are conscious because they are conscious. However, without alpha and beta activity, they are not conscious like other people are conscious, but really, children are not conscious like adults are conscious and so this does not seem to mean much.

Oh well, it was still fun to read...my theory is somewhat different...The EEG Mind

Sunday, May 24, 2020

Western Civilization Favors Free Choice Manifesto

Western civilization favors free choice compassion over government coerced compassion while China and other countries still favor government coerced compassion over Western civilization's free choice of compassion. However, clearly the individual free choices of capitalism incentivize human prosperity while the coerced social responsibility of compassion do the opposite.


Prosperity comes from the incentives of individual free choice while social control and government coercion deincentivize human initiative and therefore prosperity as well. Marx in his Communist Manifesto encouraged revolutionary social control by a compassionate elite and many argue even today that it is only government coercion by an elite party that will deliver outcomes like universal healthcare and guaranteed employment.

Free choices to invest your own limited resources into any of education health care, leisure travel, and so on, is an equitable way to distribute the limited resources of an individual. In contrast, the ideology of government coercion by an elite rations those limited resources and picks winners and losers. Slavoj Zizek argues in his The Relevance of the Communist Manifesto that the growth of capitalism has resulted in the historical deadlock of Marxism. In fact, Zizek argues that even though capitalism has had and continues to have repeated crises, capitalism emerges from each crisis stronger and not weaker. As a result, Zizek concludes that capitalism is much more resilient than Marx ever supposed it would be.

Correspondingly, Communism and Marxism are much less resilient than Marx ever supposed. Communism and Marxism also go through repeated crises, but in contrast to capitalism, Marxism emerges from each crisis weaker and not stronger. This is fundamentally because government coercion does not deal well with the anxieties and emotions of unknown risks, which are the cause of most crises. Despite the many dismal failures of prosperity under Marxism, there is an enduring modernist Marxist view that the current historical epoch of selfish free choice capitalism will eventually end. However, Marx argued in 1848 that only when civilization develops a more coerced compassion enforced by an elite to eliminate the selfish individual free choice of capitalism.

A key Marxist notion is the labor theory of value where the profit of selfish capitalism necessarily exploits labor and there is a struggle between capital and labor. Marx argued that government should own all resources and distribute the profit of labor equitably among all people. Government should then distribute all property and wealth and replace the free choice of selfish private ownership with the coerced compassionate choice of government ownership. Of course, government is also a hierarchy of competencies as Jordan Peterson notes in his classic 2018 debate with Zizek in Toronto, CA. The many flaws Marx noted of capitalism are flaws of human nature and not really capitalism.

In other words, capitalism is both selfish as well as compassionate because capitalism makes up the same hierarchies of competency that make up any civilization. The free choices of capitalism between selfishness and compassion give anyone that free choice. A coerced choice of compassion, then, is simply a limit on individual free choice. Civilization already limits free choice, but the modernist allure of Marxism supposes the need for many more limits for individual free choice enforced by some elite minority.

Sunday, May 17, 2020

Covid and the Free Choice Manifesto

The Free Choice Manifesto is all about a trade-off between a selfish individual free choice and a compassionate socially responsible coerced choice. Compassion is an emotion that promotes bonding between people while selfishness is an emotion that promotes conflict between people. Both compassion and selfishness are necessary emotions for survival, but the balance between compassion and selfishness is a never ending dialog. While Marx's Communist Manifesto represents an extreme compassion of the Chinese government to coerce social responsibility, in contrast, the Western individual Free Choice Manifesto represents selfish individual free choice.

The Covid shutdown is an example of government coerced choice justified by the compassion of social responsibility in limiting the Covid spread. The coerced Covid shutdown tests the limits of free choice...does the social responsibility of Marx's Manifesto justify the coercion of Covid shutdown or rather does the selfish individual Free Choice Manifesto win? Some suggested that Chinese government coercion was inherently better able to control Covid than Western individual free choice.

In our discrete causal universe, things really don't happen inside of a universe of space and time, but rather the universe of space and time emerges from the universe of things that happen. The over arching universe of outcomes from precursors is the universe of things that happen and the universe of space and time emerges from things that happen. Our lives emerge along with space and time from the families of outcomes from precursors and from the unpredictable free choices that we make. Those choices all trade off the risk of an anxiety about the unknown with the pleasure of discovering knowledge about the things that happen. So free choice is not the result of life, rather life is the result of free choice. When coerced choices happen in our lives, like the Covid shutdown, we still make unpredictable free choice to obey or not based on the tradeoff of the risk of an uncertain infection with pleasure of avoiding infection.

Wisdom emerges from our classical knowledge about what we know is not false, from reason that tells us what is not true, and from quantum intuition giving us our feelings of what is uncertain. Instead of knowledge being what is true and reason telling what is therefore false, knowledge tells us only what is not false and reason tells us only what is not true, because there are also uncertainties and unknowables in knowledge and reason. Our quantum intuition is what makes free choice uncertain and unpredictable since we cannot know everything about quantum phase and therefore about how we feel. Even though every free choice outcome has a precursor feeling, there are precursor feelings that we simply cannot know and yet are still part of the universe as quantum unknowables. Thus we cannot know everything about free choice even though we often rationalize with reason our feelings after we make a free choice.
Covid is very infectious and seemed at first to also have a higher mortality than the flu. Covid models then incorrectly predicted insufficient hospital capacity and those predictions resulted in much anxiety. Models incorrectly predicted that Covid would overwhelm U.S. hospitals, but that really did not happen and was overblown. Now that we know the risks of Covid as a chronic and endemic infection, individual free choice instead of government coerced choice determines our outcomes.

People with new knowledge of the Covid hazard can now freely choose an acceptable level of risk and yet succeed in life just like people must accept risk from many other common hazards. The Free Choice Manifesto of the individual once again shows the fallacy of Marx's Communist Manifesto of government coercion. People don't first of all need government coercion to succeed, people first of all need free choice to succeed in a universe of things that happen.




Thursday, April 30, 2020

Knowledge, Intuition, and Reason...What is Not False and Not True...

Intuitive maths tells us not what is true or false, but rather intuition tells us what is not false and not true as well as what is uncertain. There is an important role for uncertainty in intuition and therefore wisdom and quantum intuition respects the limits of both classical knowledge and reason. While our universe is causal, it is not infinite and not infinitely divisible either and therefore the future is not predictable and free choice is also not predictable.
Therefore, classical knowledge is not about what is true, classical knowledge is about what is not false. Likewise, we do not reason that something is false, we reason instead that something is simply not true. In between classical knowledge and reason lies quantum intuition and wisdom brings all of classical knowledge, reason, and quantum intuition together.

Outside of the realm of what we can know lies the quantum unknown, which is different from things that are simply uncertain and that we only just do not yet know.

Sunday, April 26, 2020

Free Choice Manifesto

Free Choice Manifesto
The free choice manifesto expresses first of all the universal notion what we call consciousness is equivalent to unpredictable free choice. Furthermore, the free choice manifesto states that everyone is oppressed in one way or another and unpredictable free choice is at the root of all oppression. In interactions with others, someone is the oppressor of an oppressed person in one or more very many different ways. If you voice a disagreement with someone, you become an oppressor and if someone expresses disagreement with you, they oppress you. If you shame someone, you are an oppressor and if you feel shame, someone oppresses. If you are selfish, you oppress socially responsible people and if you are socially responsible, you are likewise oppress selfish people. In other words, oppression of others sometimes results in desirable outcomes just as others oppressing you might also be desirable. Bosses oppress their workers but that work creates wealth and profit and social responsibility and so is desirable. Sick people are a burden on others and oppress those who are otherwise well, but taking on that burden is socially responsible and therefore desirable.
The history of civilization is all about oppression, but also about the emergence of free choice from the harsh misery of oppression by coerced choice. Instead of viewing civilization history as driven mainly by oppressor and oppressed, civilization is actually driven mainly by the emergence of free choice despite oppression. It is free choice that naturally brings wealth and prosperity despite some oppression from free choice. Instead of the tyranny of coerced choice from oppression, free choice gives equal opportunity and yet free choice must tolerate some unequal outcomes as a result. In the not too distant past, unequal outcomes often meant death since there were so many bad things that happened to people all of the time as a result of oppression.

Inequality is part of the human condition and yet a civilization can and does choose to enforce equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity is part of the free choice manifesto but some inequality of outcome is also a part of the free choice manifesto. The free choice manifesto also means that people are free to say and write what they feel, but there are limitations on such free speech. Likewise free choice also means that commerce is open to new products and markets, but there are also limitations on such free free markets.

Free choice by its very nature depends more on individual freedom more than government control, but free choice allows for less individual freedom and some limited government control. After all, free choice is ultimately all about the selfish emotion dimension as well as the compassion dimension of a social responsibility.

Allure of the Social Responsibility of Marx's Manifesto
Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848, which established a plan for an inevitable global communism, the ultimate compassion of social responsibility. The manifesto did not even mention the failure of the very first communism of the first Paris Commune of 1792 or why that first communism failed so badly. In fact, every subsequent experiment with the Manifesto social responsibility has also failed, but the Manifesto allure returns once again. In these times of majority wealth, the wealthy majority vilifies a selfish elite minority instead of the wealthy majority. After the second Paris Commune in 1871, Marx and Engels added an appendix to the Manifesto praising the goals of the second Paris Commune, which they considered to be an incomplete communism with the Manifesto plan, but still did not mention the failure of the first communism. The Manifesto never did mention the failure of the first Paris commune but argued that all the second Paris Commune needed was to have taken over the military and vilify and eliminate the elite wealthy minority. After all, the military at the behest of the wealthy elite ended the second Paris commune.

The current Manifesto allure of class warfare once again shows up in our politics. Politicians once again decry inequality of both opportunity and outcome and call for all out class warfare between an oppressed majority and an oppressor minority as the root of all misery and injustice. The Manifesto states that profit and wealth do not belong not to the minority wealthy. The manifesto argues that all wealth belongs to the government and not to the minority who earn that wealth and the government should redistribute that wealth equally to all consumers and workers.

The Manifesto further argues that once an all powerful government removes the incentives of wealth inequality, everyone will somehow benefit from the lack of wealth incentives. However, while the Manifesto discusses at some length the corruption of wealth and profit, the Manifesto does not discuss the undeniable corruption of big government. In fact, the Manifesto never mentions anything about human nature and the large natural variation in human abilities and competencies. Human nature can and does after all corrupt any human enterprise and in fact, social responsibility can corrupt just as much as selfishness. The incentives of selfishness over profit and wealth provide incentives for innovation and innovation and incentives are the key to economic growth as well as the creation of new wealth and social responsibility. In a consumer economy, economic growth is due to both population growth as well as to innovation and an economy with zero population growth must have innovation to grow.

The Manifesto argues that profit and wealth inevitably corrupt the elite minority at the expense of the majority workers and consumers. However, the Manifesto does not ever mention the likewise inevitable corruption of big government, which is an elite minority in power, by the same profit and wealth from the majority workers and consumers. The Manifesto plan in fact resulted in corrupt governments and gave Russia Stalin, China Mao, Vietnam Ho Chi Minh, Cuba Castro, Cambodia Pol Pot, and Venezuela Chavez. In every case, the tyranny of corrupt big government enforced a kind of socially responsible economic equality at the expense of any selfish individual free choice.

George Orwell's Animal Farm in 1945 painted a very bleak portrait of Stalin's Russia but Orwell still supported the Manifesto socialism his whole life. Orwell still believed in the Manifesto even though his later work Nineteen-Eighty-Four in 1949 further showed his disdain for totalitarianism. Despite the ever growing number of totalitarians in modern China that result from the Manifesto plan, government corruption turns out to be by far even more insidious and pernicious than elite corruption. This is because big governments always claim the virtue and morality of social responsibility and essentially eliminate any opposition by incarceration or death.

Inequality is part of human nature and so there is no such thing as an equal outcome economy without corruption...there are only better or worse economies with equal opportunity, but never equal outcomes. In fact, a healthy economy must tolerate a certain amount of inequality in order to allow individual free choice, which is essential for innovation and change. Unfortunately, free choice also means that people are free to make poorer choices as well as better choices, but that is the nature of the Free Choice Manifesto.





Friday, February 14, 2020

Conscious Free Choice and AI

The very essence of conscious free choice is first of all the freedom to choose an outcome based on feeling and not on coercion or even reason. Therefore, conscious free choice is a very good definition for conscious action because conscious free choice has a simple meaning as opposed to the many complex and contradictory meanings for consciousness. For example, there is a medical definition and all kinds of tests to affirm a conscious state having to do with the thalamus. At the root of all medical tests, though, is still the action of conscious free choice. In contrast, the term consciousness has broader psychological, philosophical, religious, mystical, and neuro-scientific meanings that seem to be beyond action. As a result, the concept consciousness is much less useful while the simplicity of conscious free choice makes it a very useful definition of conscious action.

Artificial intelligence has choice determined by algorithms and so AI choice is not free choice. Unless AI has a feeling driven by emotion, there is no possibility for conscious free choice. Conscious free choice is most apparent with the issue of free will, but there are many descriptions about the hard problem of consciousness that do not seem to involve free choice. Some people describe consciousness as self-awareness or introspection while others define consciousness with a set of questions and answers like the Turing test. Others say that how we feel about seeing the color red as qualia is consciousness and different from the fact of something that is red.


Philosophical zombies are hypothetical people without consciousness, but with otherwise normal behavior including conscious free choice. People argue that just the possibility of philosophical zombies shows consciousness as distinct from the machine of the brain. However, since people freely choose to think about philosophical zombies simply means that they are conscious. People also freely choose to think about the color red and so all of these descriptions of consciousness all are all equivalent to conscious free choice. Philosophical zombies look and act like conscious people, but have no consciousness. Since a philosophical zombie does have conscious free choice, such a zombie would then be as conscious as anyone else.

After all, people make free choices based on feeling and not really based on rational thought at all. Free choice outcomes are often then rationalized afterwards in spite of the lack of any rational precursor for free choice. Furthermore, the persuasion of another person can strongly affect a free choice. Persuasion can certainly affect how a person feels and therefore can affect a free choice, but that does not change the mysterious nature of free choice.

There are many people who claim that they somehow know the world is determinate and so that there are really no conscious free choices. They argue that the mind is a neural machine and that free choice is simply a result of the mind machine inputs and so not free at all. Even when free choice comes from feeling, determinism argues that the free choice was always a fated outcome and so that people simply have the illusion of free choice. Science very often makes the claim that free choice is an illusion of an otherwise determinate universe despite the fact that science does not have a measurement of free choice. Science admits that quantum superposition exists and limits the certainty of any measurement. Therefore, it seems especially perplexing that science makes any claims about free choice without a measurement of free choice.

A free choice outcome based on feeling does not have completely knowable precursors. In other words, we simply do not always know for certain why we feel that way that we do. In fact, we cannot predict free choice since free choice depends on feeling and we cannot always predict how we feel, either.

Artificial intelligence is often cited as a form of consciousness since AI makes choices in games like Chess or Go. However, AI is based on deep learning and so each choice of an outcome has completely knowable precursors. Moreover, neural emotion and feeling were not involved in AI choice, although one version of the deep learning process did involve competing policy and value networks. While policy played with more probability to win by as much as possible, value played with lower risk to win as simply as possible by one piece. Later versions simply played the computer against itself and so learned to choose moves from scratch over time to make better and better choices using both value and policy for both sides.

The AI computer is then all about choices with more or less risk, but not free choice since there is no neural emotion or feeling involved, just completely knowable machine logic precursors. Free choice also involves more or less risk, but with neural emotion and feeling. Feeling simply does not have completely knowable precursors, which makes free choice different from machine choice.

Now suppose the machine used quantum superposition as part of its decisions. With quantum superposition, the machine would now have free choices that would be as unpredictable as neural free choice and therefore also involve unknowable precursors. Quantum computers would then be the first true AI and should then be conscious with complex emotions and feelings. The AI emotions and feelings would then be as difficult to understand as are human or animal emotions and feelings.