Search This Blog

Saturday, March 30, 2019

There is More Than Time and Space and Black Holes

Time and space are very strong and powerful unconscious archetypes that help us fill in the blanks for the reality that we perceive. And yet, we have no memory of how we learned these archetypes. We can get a sense of how we learned time and space when we watch a child develop their first order consciousness of space and time by the age of about two years. And yet what does an age of two years mean without time and space?

It is not possible to remember anything without the archetypes of time and space since memory connects outcomes and their precursors with time and space. Long-term memories still need even more relational archetypes like compassion and selfishness before that child can retain long-term memories by about age six or so. The relational nature of memory is then an important part of the underlying nature of our physical reality without time and space.

That is, instead of reality being grounded in an objective reality of continuous and infinitely divisible time and space and our relations with others, reality is really first based on the subjective reality or matter actions of discrete outcomes and their precursors. This discrete relational reality supposes that instead of time and space existing as a objective reality for matter action, continuous time and space emerge  from the subjective matter actions of discrete neural outcomes of discrete precursors as essential archetypes that entangle action memories with sensation.

Objective reality is really then a discrete causal set of a large number of outcomes along with their precursors. Instead of being continuous and infinitely divisible time and space, discrete outcomes that all relate to discrete precursors is first of all what makes up of our objective reality. This means that our objective reality actually is a very large number of discrete outcomes that just appear continuous just as discrete neural action potentials make up our subjective reality.This is the causal set of discrete quantum aether.
The outcome of a black hole emerges the endpoint of matter action in the vacuum continuum of empty space.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

Confirmation Bias of Time and Space

Time and space are very important notions that we all use to associate matter action precursors with outcomes. We learn to use time and space for predicting outcomes as children, but time and space are not really fundamental even though they are very useful. We predict outcomes in an external world with the unconscious archetypes of time and space and that objective world of precursors and outcomes then agrees with others.

However, it is the matter action causal set of precursors and their outcomes that is what is fundamental, not really time and space. As a result, it is really possible to make sense out of the external world without time and space and instead with matter action precursors and outcomes. The subconscious mind plays a much greater role in the choices that we make as compared with the conscious mind and the duality of the conscious and subconscious underlies all theories of the mind. In particular, it is by the emotion and feeling of our subconscious mind that we make choices and not by the rational reasoning of our conscious mind. We first make our choices by a feeling of our unconscious mind and then we rationalize those choices with our conscious mind. This gives us the illusion that our free choices are predetermined and not subject to the uncertainty of quantum phase noise. The duality of subconscious feeling and conscious reasoning is what we know as consciousness, which represents the five transcendentals of beauty, truth, feeling, being, and identity.

We do not actually directly sense either time or space even though space and time embed deeply into both our subconscious and conscious minds. What we actually sense are things that happen, called outcomes, and then we deduce with reason the precursors for those outcomes that we call causes. However, there is not only a large amount of information from sensation, that information is often incomplete or inconsistent. Therefore, confirmation bias is the natural result of the rational mind trying to make sense out of the very large amount of sensory information that would overwhelm our mind. Therefore we use our mind's unconscious archetypes to fill in the blanks of perception and provide missing or incomplete or conflicting information for the reasoning of our rational mind. These archetypes are the means by which we make sense out of the external objective world by focusing the conscious mind on important versus ancillary sensory information.

From any given outcome, our mind tends to focus on the sensory data that confirms the biases of our subconscious archetypes and so we tend to ignore sensory data that does not confirm those biases. The natural bias of our subconscious decision process it very well known and is the basis of religion and philosophy. In fact, science itself has a long history of well-known bias dating back many centuries. Ptolemy supposed that the earth was the center of the universe and that was a very strong belief until Copernicus and then Galileo. Early physicians believed bad air and evil spirits caused illness before the science of germs and viruses and yet there remain affects of illness that do not result from germs or viruses and still remain somewhat mysterious.

We sense a large number of outcomes from the world outside of our mind, but really we only focus on the very few precursors of outcomes that have some kind of immediate relevance. Our minds assign the vast majority of outcomes that we experience to precursors based on memory and unconscious archetypes and not on immediate experience. This is part of confirmation bias.

Saturday, January 19, 2019

MindBodyResolved


John Horgan’s Mind-Body Problems

John Horgan’s Mind-Body Problems is an anthology of nine interviews of people with very different views about the common themes of free choice, consciousness, morality, and self. Is there free choice, Horgan asks...over and over and over again or is free choice an illusion? Horgan asks a neuroscientist, a cognitive solid-state physicist, a bisexual child psychologist, a telepathic quantum conscious biologist, a schizophrenia-afflicted lawyer, a brain-tumor survivor philosopher, a philosopher novelist, an evolutionary biologist, a transgender woman economist, and, of course, a science writer like Horgan also has a lot of his own questions about consciousness.

Here we see once again ten very smart people who all freely choose to fundamentally disagree about the nature of free choice. However, one thing upon which each of these people did all agree was that they each freely chose to discuss with Horgan each of their own free choices for life’s meaning and purpose. Therefore, each person did believe in free choice and in the meaning and purpose of each of their lives.

However, Horgan did not first ask about the narratives and definitions that developed each person’s free choices and without some understanding of each person’s axioms, the reasons for their free choices are often not completely clear. For example, if someone believes in a determinate universe, then there is no free choice and all choice is set by ultimately knowable precursors even if we do not yet know those precursors. Since the quantum universe actually has no completely determinate outcomes, just outcomes that are more likely, there are quantum precursors that are not knowable even though those quantum precursors do exist.

The many various grand narratives of civilization make up the stories that determine the unconscious archetypes of belief that then are the bases for each person’s free choices. These recursions of precursor and outcome beliefs are the foundation of free choice, but people learn different narratives and form different archetypes and they therefore can feel differently about some outcomes as opposed to how others feel. Given some knowledge of the narratives and development of a person’s archetypes of belief it is possible to begin to understand the feelings that then determine their choices.

There are grand narratives that promote individual freedom and then there are grand narratives that promote adherence to group authority. There are narratives about flawed heroes overcoming adversity as well as grand narratives about death and rebirth, leaving order to experience chaos, envy, and revenge. Everlasting life and eternal justice are very common narratives that also repeatedly show up in religion and other supernaturalisms.

Horgan does not ask about the grand narratives that affect any of these nine life choices and so it is not clear how Horgan feels about the grand narratives. Of course, Horgan does believe that there is free will but often seems discouraged about the determinism of science’s approach to free will and has been a free will proponent for a number of years. Horgan is a science writer who writes and teaches writing about science and yet feels like the determinism of science has somehow failed him. Furthermore, Horgan feels that not only has particle science seemingly come to an end, there has been no progress on the unification of charge and gravity forces and what’s worse, there are still endless arguments about the nature of consciousness and free choice.

Horgan asks each of these people to explain consciousness and each of his nine interviews address many of the key issues of consciousness, but do not mention the underlying narratives that anchor each of their own consciousness, in particular, their free choices. The mind-body problem, for example, is a famous example that dates back to Descartes and Aristotle, among many others, but the ancients also do not seem to address the underlying narratives that anchor free choice. In the end, Horgan believes that free choice represents a perpetual discourse and so is not ultimately really resolvable.

Horgan does not address existence directly. Why do we exist? Why do we exist right here right now and not some other time? Why is it us and not someone else who exists right here right now? These are my and not Horgan’s questions, but those questions lay the groundwork for the unconscious archetypes of free choice.

Of course, without free choice, there would be no one to ask about existence since there would be no one to question existence at all. Other conscious animals and indeed most people simply accept their fates as predetermined without any questions about free choice, right?

Horgan writes a great deal about free choice and all of his interviews invariably address free choice as well. “Is free choice an illusion?”, Horgan repeatedly asks, “or do we have the ability to freely choose among many possible outcomes?” If we can freely choose an outcome, then it follows that that outcome was not predictable, which means that we did not know some of that outcomes precursors. Since in our quantum causal universe, every outcome is a result of a set of causal precursors, for some outcomes there are precursors that are simply not knowable even though they do exist.

The tools of science provide many useful measurements of matter and action. These measurements test our ability to predict outcomes given precursor events. Science therefore predicts the orbit of the earth around the sun as well as the orbit of an electron around a proton. However, science does not predict the outcomes of any free choices that people make as a result of their feelings very well at all. However, science can measure the personality factors, which are how we feel, of each person with some uncertainty and it is by our feelings that we make choices. Personality factors show how we feel about; discovering new things or satisfaction with the known, applying ourselves or being somewhat feckless with tasks, other people’s successes or failures, argument or agreement, and extroverts or introverts.

The orbit of the earth around the sun is a result of knowable precursors of gravity and momentum and so there are determinate paths for the earth and sun. Nevertheless, the matter and action of earth’s orbit are still both limited by quantum uncertainty even with a determinate path. The orbit of an electron around a proton is a series of outcomes that have probabilistic and not certain precursors and so the mass and action along with the path of the electron are also limited by quantum uncertainty.

Science can measure emotions like compassion and anxiety with facial expression, behavior, neurochemicals, and EEG and science therefore measures agreeable and conscientious personalities that help predict how a person feels. These predictions are not very precise and science often finds that people can make choices that still do not seem to make any sense at all.

Despite the uncertainty of behavior and therefore of choice, classical determinists argue that all choices still come from knowable precursors even if a person does not immediately know those precursors. This is simply a restatement of classical determinist cause and effect. Quantum free will argues instead that although most precursors of outcomes are knowable, there are some causal precursors that are not knowable even though they do exist. This is simply a restatement of the quantum superposition uncertainty principle, which means that we do choose some outcomes for reasons that we cannot ever fully know or understand and we call these outcomes free choices.

A classical and causal reality presumes that we can know all precursors for outcomes even though we might not immediately know those precursors. However since we actually live with quantum uncertainty and superposition, this means that there are precursors for some outcomes that we cannot know even though those precursors,such as free will and choice, do exist.

For example, we cannot ever know the exact precursor of either free choice or the path of a single photon even though we can know how we feel about a choice and we can measure the photon energy and action within some limiting uncertainty of phase. Free choice is a recursion or phase of our seeing how other people act and then acting like we see other people act. Language is a similar recursion or phase and, as a result, we learn free choice just like we learn language.

Recursions of precursors and outcomes make up our neural free choice that affect outcomes, which is what we call the self. A set of precursors stimulate a set of corresponding emotions that result in a singular feeling and it is by that singular feeling that we make a choice. We cannot know all of the precursors for an outcome and that includes the precursor that we call free choice. Determinists argue that even though it is not really practically realizable to know all of the precursors of a choice, all of those precursors are nevertheless classically knowable and therefore determinist. However, the fact that we are also beings with both quantum phase and amplitude just like all matter limits our knowledge of quantum precursors by the uncertainty principle. This means that we do have free will after all since free choice is not predictable without all completely knowable precursors.

Currently there is no well-accepted model of the mind and yet for describing free choice, it is important to have some kind of rough model of free choice. That model should be consistent with the known measurements of action potentials of neural synapses, the connectome as how neurons connect, the model should include emotions along with associated neurochemicals, along with the primitive brain, the cerebral brain, feeling, and the EEG resonances of neural action.

A mind model must also show how childhood development imprints the unconscious archetypes of morality, meaning, and purpose and the roles of sleep and dreams for making long term memories and refreshing the mind each day with sleep. Finally, the mind model should also be consistent with the bonding of people into the group hierarchies of cooperative civilization and the mind model should differentiate the relative roles between individual freedom versus the social responsibility to the authorities of group hierarchies.

A complete model of free choice must include the childhood development of unconscious archetypes, some kind of a set of emotions from those archetypes like pleasure and anxiety that generate a singular feeling from sensory precursors, and therefore the precursor of free choice of an outcome of meaning a purpose for existence by means of that feeling.

Action potentials at neural synapses are what stimulate or inhibit choice and so some kind of a model of the mind helps better define free choice. The periodic exchange of a neural action potential bonds two synapses into a bilateral aware matter atom and these bilateral synapses makeup the fundamental EEG delta mode resonance of the mind. Delta resonances reflect the neural atoms of aware matter that bond into the aware matter packets of each moment of thought. Moments of thought show higher frequency resonances with characteristic mode widths and therefore decoherence or dephasing times of thought. Every day, sensations accumulate into moments of experience as delta modes bond into layers of aware matter. These layers are the spectral outcomes of our bilateral neural aware matter packets.

The mind only has capacity for about 40,000 neural packets or moments of thought for each day’s worth experience. During sleep our brains then processes the important neural packets of each day’s experience into long term memory and then reset and the neural aware matter and cleanse the cerebral neurons for the next day’s neural packets. Although this is only a rather approximate model for free choice, it is useful to have some notion of how the mind works that is consistent with measurements.

Horgan’s book is the gift that keeps on giving. These nine interviews reveal not only specific beliefs in free will, free choice, and self but also tell many stories about interviewee personal lives. We learn a set of unconscious archetypes as we grow up and continually update and refine them as we live our lives. These unconscious archetypes are the very important axioms in which we believe as a basis for free will.

Mainstream science has not been able to define free choice very well in the lonely empty void of continuous space and time in which science believes. Science’s spacetime is a vessel for the conjugates of matter and action, and those beliefs in space and time are not completely consistent with the universe as a quantum causal set of precursors and outcomes. A further determinate and classical belief is that we can in principle know all precursors for all outcomes even though we might not immediately know those precursors. This determinate universe is one that follows from relativistic gravity, for example, but our quantum causal set universe is instead inherently uncertain and therefore not completely determinate after all.

In a quantum causal set, there are precursors to outcomes that we simply cannot ever know even though they did exist. The quantum universe is still one that adheres to the determinate space and time of relativistic gravity, but now a determinate and continuous space and time both emerge from discrete quantum matter, action, and phase. The uncertainty of quantum phase has no meaning in the determinist gravity relativity and yet quantum phase is an integral part of the conjugates of matter and action.

Our macroscopic reality is therefore one where quantum phase does not affect matter and action. Light is the simplest manifestation of quantum phase and the interference and coherence of light leads to many quantum properties, in particular uncertainty. Light exchange, as it turns out, is the basic glue that bonds charge as well as gravity and so light exchange is the unifying theme of the quantum causal set universe.

The exchange of neural action potentials bonds people to each other as well as into group hierarchies. An exchange of feelings and free choice are neural resonances that bond people just like light exchange bonds matter. An EEG spectrum, certain neurochemicals, and changes in behavior are all objective measures of an objective bonding of feeling along with the subjective feelings of each person.

Now each person chooses outcomes and the question is between determinate choice or free choice. Each of the interviewees talked about many different choices in their lives and so one question is whether each choice was determinate or free? Each interview involved discourse and bonds between two conscious selves and so were these discourses and bonds the result of determinate or free choices?

The EEG spectra of two people in discourse will measure their states of free choice. An EEG spectrum shows the various neural resonant outcomes that occur before and after free choice, but science cannot yet interpret those resonances as precursors of thought or feeling. There were undoubtedly changes in neurochemicals and other brain activity during these discourses and those changes likely also reflect the feelings between the two. Science also cannot yet completely interpret neurochemicals as feeling, but science has correlated many neurochemicals and other brain changes with various emotions. Finally, there were very likely tells in the behaviors of the two people as they discourse and bond with each other.

These would all be objective measurements of free choice and self for each person, and yet each person would likely still argue about the meaning of free choice and self. To what extent were each person’s choices determinate or free? What measure of free choice differentiates between the fate of determinate choice and the uncertainty of quantum choice?

Most choices in life are really determined by knowable singular precursors and not by the uncertainty among many equivalent outcomes. For example, circumstance and not choice determines when you need to eat since hunger is a knowable precursor of the unconscious primitive mind, but what you eat is a free choice among many equivalent options with unknowable precursors of the conscious cerebral mind. Each of these stories described various precursors that led to life many changing outcomes and each life change was then a precursor to a free choice among many possible outcomes. Some of these people stated their choices were not free choices but were rather determined by knowable precursors of development. However, it was not always clear that there always were knowable precursors and unknowable precursors are what define free choice and free will.

It is clear that there are many unknown precursors to the outcomes chosen by these people and many of them acted as if they made a free choice even when they actually believed all their choices were determinate. In our quantum universe, the superposition of equivalent outcomes means that all of the precursors of any choice are not always knowable even though a precursor does exist as a cause for every outcome.

The points of these nine narratives about subjective feelings and beliefs reveal much more about the tenth narrative, the author, than any of the others. Horgan shares free choice with each of nine people and in so doing, reveals much more about the nature of his own free choice. In a classical causal universe, every outcome has a knowable set of precursors, which is simply a restatement of classical cause and effect. Science can and does measure free choice with any number of objective tools. The action potentials of neural synapses, the connectome, emotions, neurochemicals, the primitive brain, the cerebral brain, feeling, and the EEG resonances of neural action all objectively measure the outcome of free choice.

Since every outcome of free choice has a set of precursors, it is natural to presume that it is possible to know all of the precursors of free choice, morality, and self. Since science believes that it can objectively measure and know every outcome in a causal universe, determinists argue that science can likewise objectively know every precursor as well. However, in a quantum causal universe, even though every outcome has precursors, there are quantum precursors that we simply cannot ever know.

These nine narratives all describe choices of one outcome from among a set of many possible outcomes and then attempt to describe the precursors for those choices. Yet many times, the precursors were simply statements like, “I don’t know why I chose what I chose.” When asked if a choice was an example of free choice and free will, there were determinate people who believe that that they can in principle know all precursors even when they might not immediately know a particular precursor and there were free will people. A determinist believes that since each outcome has causal precursors, it is then possible to know all precursors. Determinists argue that free choice is just an illusion born out of the chaos of classical noise, not quantum phase noise.

However, free will and free choice are precursors of a quantum causal set universe and there are quantum precursors that we cannot ever know even though they do exist. Of course, a belief in actually unknowable precursors is equivalent to a belief in the outcomes of free will, morality, and self. The people that believe in free will simply accept the fact that there are unknowable precursors and the outcomes of morality and self are likewise beliefs in unknowable precursors. However, free will is then consistent with not only the chaos of classical noise, but also the order of quantum phase noise.

Determinists believe that the mind is a classical machine and like any classical machine, mind outcomes are then all due to completely knowable precursors, albeit with some chaos. This is a determinate belief in free will as an illusion just like the game of life is a determinate illusion of chaos. However, the mind is actually a quantum machine and like any quantum machine, it is simply not possible to know all of the precursors of the outcomes of a quantum machine due to quantum phase. This is a quantum belief in free will.

Each of the nine narratives shows the objective existence of free choice since readers can all agree that all ten people were conscious. Likewise, each of the nine narratives showed many outcomes of choice, morality, and self without actually showing very many of their precursors. The determinist assumes that people can in principle know all of the precursors to choice, morality, and self, only limited by complexity and chaos. Quantum uncertainty means that people actually cannot know all of the precursors to the outcomes of quantum choice, morality, and self. In other words, although we can know many of the precursors that make us who we are, there are some precursors in which we all must simply believe for free choice in a quantum causal universe.

My second read of Mind-Body Problems was even more rewarding than was my first read. This was because there is a great deal of information embedded in the many layers of Horgan’s stream-of-consciousness style of writing...about free choice. A recurring theme in each of the nine plus one narratives reveals the precursors of morality, free will, and self for the free choices of each of ten people; nine interviewees and the author.

The ten narratives represent a spectrum of free choice showing the range of five personality complements or factors: conformer versus nonconformer, conscientious versus thoughtless or feckless, agreeable versus obnoxious, extravert versus introvert, and empathic versus callous. Likewise each spectrum of free choice also shows the five emotion complements: compassionate versus selfish, joyful versus miserable, serene versus angry, pleasure versus anxiety, and pride versus shame. These people are all well-published, intelligent, and creative and so do not represent either conformists or thoughtless and careless people very well, but they do represent all the other personality factors and emotions fairly well.


We actually live in a quantum causal set universe where it is simply not possible to know all of the precursors to the outcomes of choice, morality, and self. Even though we know these precursors do exist in a quantum causal set, we simply cannot know all of the precursors for the choices that we make, even though we can often know many of the precursors of our choices. Since we cannot know all of the precursors for emotions, for example, those outcomes are free choice and free will.

Determinists believe that we can know all of the precursors of choice, morality, and self but quantum uncertainty means that it is simply not possible to know all of the precursors of choice. Even given the chaos and complexity of classical noise, we simply do not live in a determinate classical causal universe. However, most of the macroscopic universe does seem determinate and simply subject to the complexity and complexity of chaos. Thus, even very smart people often do not accept the fact of free will and often argue vociferously about the illusion of free will.

These narratives all describe emotion precursors to a singular feeling and how those singular feelings are the precursors to free choice, morality, and self. But it is not possible to know all of the precursors to any emotion even though we can know those precursors do exist. For example, we feel the need to accept a limited group authority (i.e. a government or a job) despite losing some individual freedom and often enhance our lives as a result of accepting that group authority and hierarchy. This outcome is a balance driven by a feeling from a set of emotions and, once again, it is not possible to know all of the precursors to emotion precursors.

We simply feel that it is right to give up some individual freedom to a group authority, but then argue endlessly about how much freedom we feel is right to give up. Each narrative shows that the precursors of emotions are the unconscious archetypes that we cannot ever really know. The narratives further show that a set of emotions are the precursors to a singular feeling of free choice and it is by such singular feelings that we make free choices, have morals, and know our self.

Only one of the ten does not accept group authority but all seem to live otherwise pleasant lives. Some have experienced significant physical and or mental problems and learned how to be successful despite their problems.

It is also not possible to know all of the precursors to the outcomes of either wealth or poverty even though it is possible to know many of those precursors. Free market capitalism is one of the precursors to increasing productivity and wealth and increasing wealth is one of precursors for reducing poverty as well. Free market capitalism increases productivity with the incentives of individual freedom and accumulating personal wealth, among other outcomes. Capitalism in the U.S. distributes 49% wealth to just 15% of population and only 6% wealth to 15% of population. The remaining 45% of wealth is then more than sufficient for the middle 65% of the population to live well in the U.S. and so most people accept the tradeoffs of capitalism.

People nevertheless feel it is still important for the government to redistribute some fraction of wealth to the 15% or so of the population that live below the poverty line with only 6% of U.S. wealth and also to provide equal opportunity as well. However, the outcome of wealth redistribution does occur at the expense of some loss of individual freedom precursors. A collective feeling or morality is a precursor to wealth redistribution and emotions like compassion and pride are precursors to the collective feeling that chooses wealth redistribution, but it is still not possible to know all of the precursors for those emotions.

Free speech is a precursor whose outcome is not always possible to predict since free speech depends on how other people feel about what is said. Feeling is subject to quantum uncertainty because of the nature of neural aware matter spectra. An EEG spectrum is a superposition of many possible neural precursors and outcomes and it is only possible to know each precursor within some limited quantum uncertainty of matter, action, and phase. The uncertainty of an EEG spectrum is defined by the line widths of its resonances, which are the dephasing or decoherence times of moments of thought.

It is not always possible to know all of the reasons or precursors for why a person chooses to tell the stories that they choose to tell. Correspondingly, it is not always possible to measure all the sources of the decoherence times of thought. The stories that do resonate result in EEG resonances and the stories are an important part of free speech, though, since stories that resonate bond people together into group hierarchies with acceptance of group authority. Likewise, EEG resonances are the result of the binding of aware matter into moments of thought. The more people are free to choose their own groups, the more individual freedom they have and the more adaptable the resultant civilization is to outside changes. Acceptance of group authority decreases individual freedom, which resists change and makes civilization less adaptable to outside changes.

Each moment of our life is a superposition of precursors and outcomes that determine feeling and how we choose a single outcome. The emotion precursors that determine feeling outcomes therefore depend on both precursors and outcomes and include the outcomes that we choose as well as outcomes that we do not choose.

A third read of Horgan’s book along with its comments provides even further insight into the nature of free choice. Horgan says in the wrap-up that the book still feels incomplete since none of his stories result in objective and testable definitions of free choice, free will, morality, or self. But all of the nine stories do result in human bonds and those bonds reveal many subjective feelings about free choice, free will, morality, and self.

As a result, all of the nine stories reveal the human bonds that are elaborate exchanges of free choice, free will, morality, and self. The discussion comments are then further stories that also bond Horgan and others including me.

Therefore, the one objective and measurable definition of free choice is then as the neural resonances that bond people together and that addresses and resolves Horgan’s mind-body problems. Free choice is what bonds people together just like gravity bonds people to the earth and charge bonds electrons and protons together as atoms and molecules and people and free choice. The nine stories represent a spectrum of the neural resonances that bond people together and that bonding outcome is a free choice.

It is possible to understand free choice as a neural exchange that bonds people and self and to understand that these nine stories and all such stories form human bonds. The theory of gravity relativity predicts outcomes from many macroscopic precursors, the theory of quantum action predicts outcomes from many microscopic precursors, but these two theories are fundamentally incompatible in mainstream science due to quantum phase. A successful theory of free choice will then predict the outcomes of human bonding from the precursors of people and self.

Chopra comments that these nine stories are not useful precursors for predicting free choice since Horgan values all of the stories equally. However, any theory of free choice should just be able to predict the outcomes from neural precursors. Since free choice bonds humans with neural resonant precursors, the precursors of free choice are very good predictors of the outcomes of bonding and self. These nine stories are quantitative and objective measures of various free choices of bonds that form since most people can agree with and repeat the results with their own interviews of the same nine people.

Relativistic gravity bonds are the outcomes of the macroscopic precursors of quantum matter action and phase and charge bonds are the outcomes of the microscopic precursors of quantum matter action and phase. So the bond of free choice is simply the exchange of neural aware matter resonance as yet another manifestation of the quantum matter-action bond.

Free choice exchange bonds people together with phase entanglement and coherence just like gravity bonds neutral objects with biphoton exchange and charge binds atoms and molecules with single photon exchange. Each quantum bond has complementary light emission with phase entanglement and coherence and those emitted photons make up what we call gravity as well as free choice. The entangled phase correlates of light emission make up the photon bubbles that surround each of us and those photon bubbles define the nature of gravity as well as that of free choice.


There are many quantum matter actions that are all together what bond people to each other with exchanges of free choice. The discourse of language and stories are some of the many quantum matter actions of free choice that entangle and correlate our respective photon bubbles and so quantum matter actions are then an objective definition of free choice. The nouns, verbs, and modifiers of language reflect the matter, action, and phase of quantum matter action.

The couplings of neural action potentials result in certain neural phase resonances that we call moments of thought and feeling. Those neural resonances are what bond people into self, pairs, and groups and we call those bonds free choices. Conflict is a result of a lack of neural resonance between people and it is by the unconscious archetypes of feeling that people feel either bond or conflict. When free choice bonds with itself that therefore defines self in the same way that electron self energy ends up defining itself as well. However, an electron without a proton is like a person without other people and ultimately, it is bonds that define all matter as aether, atoms, molecules, people, earth, sun, stars, galaxies, superclusters, universe, and free choice. Unconscious archetypes give us feeling and feeling gives us morality as well as many other mimes and so archetypes are necessary precursors for the neural aware matter resonances of free choice outcomes. How we feel is an outcome of the unconscious archetype precursors of free choice and how we feel is how we make a free choice. Since it is not possible to know all of the precursors for feeling, free will is the outcome of choices that are not possible to predict with absolute certainty.

In other words, even though each free will outcome has precursors, it is not always possible to know all of the precursors of a free will outcome in a quantum causal set universe. Chopra commented that the nine stories represented a spectrum of free choice, morality, free will, and self without any judgement. Chopra would have included judgements about each story’s value as truth in order to better guide readers into a higher value free choice.

Chopra claims to resolve free choice simply by answering the key question, “How did something come out of nothing?” Chopra’s answer is that the universe was created by the precreated state, which is making something out of nothing. But of course making something out of nothing will answer any question and is also a classic contradiction and paradox since now nothing is something after all. Therefore making something out of nothing is circular and not very useful for answering any question, including free choice.

The fact is that there are certain questions that simply have no answers other than belief. What is the precursor to the universe? What is the outcome of the universe? Why is the universe the way that it is? These questions all have any number of answers and therefore no useful answers for predicting outcomes from precursors within the universe. Why are we here? Why are we right here right now? Why is it us and not someone else who is right here right now?

People can and do ask many such unanswerable questions and then very smart people argue endlessly about the many different answers since any answer will do. What is matter? What is action? What is quantum phase? These three axioms do allow prediction of outcomes from precursors, but we simply must believe in each of matter, action, and phase as precursors of the way the universe is before we can predict outcomes.

The fundamental definition of the precursors of free choice is in the outcome of neural exchange that bonds people together. The one very predictable outcome of the precursor of free choice is the outcomes of bonding or conflict among people. Stories are consequently an important representation of free choice and it is the something of stories that bonds people together, not the making of nothing into the something of precreation.

Chopra says free choice is the bedrock of reality as experienced by human beings. This is simply saying that free choice is free choice, which is an identity and is certainly true, but hardly useful for predicting outcomes from precursors. Chopra further says that we can understand free choice with free choice, which is actually not completely true. Although there are precursors for all outcomes including the outcome of free choice, it is not possible to know all of the precursors for any outcome much less the outcome of free choice. So, even though it is possible to know many of the precursors, it is actually not possible to ever completely know all of the precursors and therefore completely understand the outcome of free choice with the precursor of free choice.

Since free choice involves a unique bond between two people, it is not possible for others to agree on the nature of any of the unique bonds of free choice. This is because there are precursors of each free choice bond that are not possible to know. However, objective measurements of personality, emotions, neural resonances, and behavior, are all precursors that show the strength of that bond of shared free choice.

A model of free choice includes objective measurements of precursors that then predict the possible bonding or conflict outcomes of free choice exchange. People have feelings for each other and those feelings are how they choose to bond or conflict. While it is not always possible to predict bonding or conflict among people with certainty, there are objective measurements that show how people are most likely to behave with each other.

Although two people can agree or disagree about the nature of free choice in a discussion, by the action of sharing free choice they are actually demonstrating the nature free choice that bonds people together in discourse. It is the discourse of sharing free choice that bonds people together and that discourse can be either in agreement or disagreement of issues. When the issue is free choice, it is ironic that whether or not there is agreement on the issues of free choice, the discourse itself actually demonstrates free choice, not any of the issues about free choice under discussion.

For example, two people can disagree about free choice and determinism, but that disagreement will not change the way the universe actually is. In other words, science knows that quantum uncertainty and not determinism is the way the universe works. As a result, science also therefore knows that there are no absolutely certain outcomes with completely knowable precursors. Since free choice cannot ever be completely certain and knowable, free choice is the way that the universe really is. Free choice is not therefore an illusion of otherwise determinate outcomes from completely knowable precursors. Rather free choice from feeling is the very essence of who we are.

Since the complexity and chaos of classical noise necessarily limits the certainty of knowledge even without quantum phase noise, even very smart people choose to ignore the uncertainty of quantum phase noise. Many very smart people then choose to believe in a determinate universe with the illusion of free will despite the actual reality of quantum phase noise in the universe.

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Wittgenstein and Religion

There is a very nice presentation of Wittgenstein’s later religious views by Stephen Law in Aeon. Clearly Wittgenstein’s religious upbringing had a big impact on his philosophy as well as his morality. I have always liked Wittgenstein’s muse although he clearly espoused many contradictory views over the years. But what I like best is this:

At the core of all well-founded belief, lies belief that is unfounded. — Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1951.


In fact, religion is more than a few statements of belief and the stories of the bible from which these statements arise are part of the grand narratives of civilization. Do not atheists also believe in the mystery of being just like religions? Without the unfounded beliefs of unconscious archetypes, there would be no consciousness and it is the unconscious archetypes of unfounded belief from which emotion, feeling, and free choice all emerge.

Our morality after all is fundamentally based on unfounded beliefs and the grand narratives, which include Wittgenstein as well as the bible along with a lot more, are stories or word games that show both the ideal of a desirable purpose as well as the potential malevolence of the human spirit, which is perfectly possible with reason. Reason and the tools of science, Wittgenstein rightly concludes, cannot provide all of precursors for outcomes and so there are some outcomes with precursors in which we must simply believe…

Comment from:
Stephen Law
Perhaps it’s true that we all have some unfounded core beliefs, and atheists and theists differ with respect to them. The fact that we all have unfounded core beliefs doesn’t necessarily put atheism and theism on an equal footing rationality-wise, however. Some theists insist atheism’s core assumptions are self refuting (‘Naturalism is self-defeating, while theism is not! (Plantinga)’).

However, the inverse is probably true. For example, if the atheist’s core belief is their senses are trustworthy, while the theists core belief is that God exists, and this in turn allows them to trust their senses (cos God is no deceiver). Theists then run into the problem that human behavior reveals ample evidence that their God cannot be all good since there is much evil in the world, while the atheist does not have that problem. In addition, belief in God is also less economical than no belief in God and so, arguably, Occam’s Razor favours atheism.

My comment...
Given that both atheists and theists have unfounded but different core beliefs, the next question is about whose morality is superior, i.e., which morality improves survival and reduces suffering and evil more than any other. Do atheists have a better morality from their pure reason by using the tools of science as opposed to the religious morality from the grand narratives of civilization and religion?

Since atheists derive their morality from the same grand narratives as religion, atheists cannot claim a morality that is any better than religious, merely equivalent. However, the nihilism and lack of purpose in atheism and existentialism can be very destructive. Atheists often simply claim that they distill the best morality and wisdom with reason from the grand narratives and then reject all of the mysticism, social structures, literature, art, and music as your Occam's razor statement that favors atheism. Atheists claim that reason and the tools of science provide a superior morality.

The tools of science, however, are not very useful for morality and atheism and secularity have not yet shown any semblance of institutions to replace or supplant the institutions of religion. In fact, secularism seems rather dull compared to literature, art, and music of religion and does not seem to prepare people for the inevitable suffering and misery that are often a part of life.

The atheist's core belief is that sensation is trustworthy but we know that there are many sensory illusions and most reality consciousness simply invents and ignores sensation. The basic unconscious archetypes of atheists and religion are both in place by the age of about 5 or 6 as the foundation of consciousness and memory. It is only much later in life that people use reason to then choose atheism or religion and then accept or deny what already exists as their morality archetypes.

History repeatedly shows that reason can and does readily subvert one morality when there is strong purpose with another morality. Hitler's Holocaust, Stalin's famine, Mao's famine, Pol Pot's Killing Fields, Ataturk's Armenian genocide, and so on were all malevolent outcomes done for moral purposes. It is here where atheism fails and religion succeeds. Over the last 2,000 or so years there have been many great narratives with highly resonant messages and some also have very deep flaws, like the class warfare of Marx's Das Kapital or the antisemitic racism of Hitler's Mein Kampf.

However, the malevolence of these grand narratives is not always immediately apparent until the outcomes of misery and suffering for tens of millions of people. Even though the narratives have all been around for 1,000 to 3,000 years, it is really only since the enlightenment of that last 400 years or so that civilization has seen their benefit. As a result, the progress of the last 100 years or so has been particularly remarkable for civilization, but we still have a ways to go before Earth and its actions are safe for our progeny.

Sunday, January 6, 2019

TwoFreeChoiceProblems

This video addresses two age old problems of free choice: the problem of the determinist and the problem of a person knowing everything means knowing what will happen and that person can then change their mind anytime in spite of knowing what will happen. These two arguments are very similar to the equally old religious teachings of the Swiss determinate choice religion of John Calvin and the free choice religion of Dutch Jacobus Arminius.

if-you-knew-everything-could-you-predict-anything-a-thought-experiment

On the one hand, the video argues that determinate physical laws would mean that everything is predetermined and there is no free choice, which is Calvinist determinism. Calvinists simply believe in the illusion of free choice. The video terms this metaphysical as the figure shows.

On the other hand, the video further argues that with complete knowledge, all outcomes would be published in a book of life and a person can then just look up to see what will happen to themselves. But then the video further argues that since someone can look up what will happen to themselves, like a light bulb turned on, they can still then choose to do something different from what was in the book and turn the light bulb off. The video terms this epistemological and argues that a determinate outcome is not possible since the book of life is always subject to the Arminius free choice.


However, we actually live in an uncertain quantum causal set matter-action universe and not in a determinate universe of space and time and so Arminius was right, not Calvin. There is no quantum book of life that tells us with certainty what will happen. Quantum uncertainty means that the observer of a light bulb necessarily does affect whether the observed person turns the light bulb on or off. Moreover, unlike the particular determinate precursor in the video of the outcome of the light bulb state, there is no way to know for certain the corresponding quantum precursor for the same outcome of the light bulb state.

Science has known about the irrational nature of quantum uncertainty for many decades and yet both philosophers and scientists continue to argue about what this irrational quantum uncertainty means. After all, many argue that our classical rational and causal world does not appear to be quantum. This is because our macroscopic reality of relativistic spacetime gravity does not seem to involve the microscopic uncertainty of quantum phase even though quantum uncertainty is most certainly there at the microscopic scale. Quantum phase is after all just the problem of there being an unknowable precursor for the outcome of who switches their light bulb on first...John Calvin or Jacobus Arminius.

These arguments about determinism versus free will all come down to given the free choice between good and evil, some people still choose evil in spite of any all-good ideal. In a determinate world, the coerced choice of evil is not their fault but merely reflects the precursors of their particular life. Given free will, however, it is always possible to choose evil despite an otherwise all-good ideal and so there cannot be a perfectly all-good ideal after all.

We have feelings about things that happen and it is by our irrational unconscious feelings that we choose, not by rational conscious reasoning. Since we can never completely know why we feel the way that we do, we can never precisely know why we choose what we choose. In fact, the essence of free choice is in choices that are causal with precursors but still do not have knowable precursors and so precursors are not all written in any book of life. The archetypes of free choice and feeling then do not result in any determinate outcomes because neither free choice nor feeling have completely predictable outcomes either.


Friday, December 14, 2018

Science Precursors and Outcomes

John Horgan recently wrote about the twilight of science's high priests, two of whom are Stephen Hawking and Martin Rees. Horgan is a longtime predictor of the end of science and often decries the lack of any progress in particle physics as a key example. Horgan likes to pick on particle physics since like many other writers, Horgan presumes that particle physics is representative of all science.

However, particle physics has mainly to do with the nature of matter and action and since matter and actions are finite and limited, particle physics is therefore also finite and limited. For example, once science identified all of the elements, that science was done even though science continues to synthesize more and more exotic and unstable elements with shorter and shorter lifetimes. However, science has been making compounds with the stable elements and Mother Nature has been making all kinds of life with those elements. Science has a never-ending task in taking apart the never-ending molecules of the chemistry of life.

Nuclear matter, just like the elements, is also finite and largely exists as just electrons, protons, and neutrons at the very low energies of life on earth. Physics creates never ending new particles and forms of matter with both very large and very small energies and once science measures the simplest particles, that science is done even though science continues to synthesize never-ending and more exotic particles and forms of matter.

aware matter as a new state of matter

My second read of Mind-Body Problems was even more rewarding than was my first read. This is because there is a great deal of information embedded in the many layers of Horgan’s stream-of-consciousness style of writing. A recurring theme in each of the nine plus one narratives reveals the precursors of free choice, morality, and the selves of each of ten people; nine interviewees plus the author.

The ten narratives represent a spectrum of free choice showing the range of five personality complements or factors (the five factors model): nonconformer versus conformer, conscientious versus impulsive, agreeable versus assertive, social versus individual, and anxious versus confident. Likewise the spectrum of free choice also shows the five emotion complements: compassion versus free choice, joyful versus miserable, serene versus angry, pleasure versus anxiety, and pride versus shame. These people are all well-published with high IQ’s and so do not represent either conformers or impulsive personalities, but do represent all the other personality factors and emotions fairly well.

Since we actually live in a quantum causal set universe, it is simply not possible to know all of the precursors to the outcomes of choice, morality, and self, even though we know those precursors do exist in a causal universe. We simply cannot know all of the precursors for the choices that we make, even though we can often know many of the precursors of our choices. Since we cannot know all of the precursors for emotions, these outcome are free choice. 

The one sore point in particle physics, though, is that gravity and charge are still not compatible with each other. While relativistic gravity provides determinate outcomes and a certain directional time, quantum relativity provides probabilistic outcomes and reversible time uncertainty. So gravity and charge could not be any more incompatible than they are, but, since they are 1e39 different in magnitude, this incompatibility makes little practical difference in measurement science.

Fundamentally, relativistic gravity affects space and time and so there is no gravity self energy and sufficient gravity can capture and bind light. Charge does not affect space and time and charge does have a self energy and light exchange and emission is what binds charges together.

Science is finally reaching a measurement precision that will likely reveal many mysteries about reality. Atomic clocks show a precision and dephasing rate that is amazing and gravity wave detection is now commonplace on earth and will soon be in space as well. Future measurements in space outside of earth's gravity will further show the very small mysteries of physical reality.

The platinum-iridium bar that now serves as science's kilogram standard is the last physical standard based on an artifact. The IPK has inexplicably lost 0.51 ppb/yr mass relative to its frequently cleaned sisters over the last 100 years in just three measurements.  Mainstream science does not yet understand this mass loss and certainly does not believe that atomic mass really decays over time. Therefore, the revolutionary watt balance will replace the IPK as our mass standard and finally show that the atomic mass is actually in decay.


There do seem to be any number of measurements that show the very slow decay of mass as well as the growth of force as a very slow increase in the speed of light. These effects are about two or three orders of magnitude beyond the precision of current science. Another example is in the measured shift of muonic hydrogen resonance from that expected from quantum theory. As the figure below shows, the muon decay adds a small shift that then agrees with quantum expectations. Matter decay leads to an energy shift just as matter decay is the source of all force.



Wednesday, December 5, 2018

Agency and Free Choice

Agency and Free Choice

There are precursors for space and time outcomes in the agency and free choice that all, of course, simply exist in a quantum causal set. However, there are many outcomes in a quantum causal set that have unknowable precursors even though those precursors do also exist in the causal set. There are unknowable quantum precursors that make quantum outcomes fundamentally uncertain and therefore subject to the free choice of conscious agents in our quantum reality. Nevertheless, the collapse of quantum phase coherence means that some outcomes are still much more likely than other outcomes and that is the basis of the largely determinate classical reality of complexity and chaos.


The term quantum spacetime is somewhat of a misnomer since the gravity outcomes of a determinate spacetime relativity are fundamentally inconsistent with the uncertain outcomes of quantum charge. While a unidirectional and entropic time and space are objective determinate outcomes in relativistic spacetime, quantum time and space are reversible and allow for both superposition in one place and time as well as entanglement of simultaneous outcomes across time and space.

Free choice is just one of the many emotions that are necessary precursors for subconscious archetypes. Subconscious archetypes are unknowable precursors but are still part of the universe and therefore also lead to free choice outcomes. People tell all kinds of stories about the subjective precursors of the objective outcomes of unconscious archetypes, but there is no way to objectively measure unconscious archetypes, despite their being precursors to the outcome of free choice. The universe is very complex and our limited and finite minds cannot ever hope to know all of the complexity of even knowable determinate precursors. Therefore many very smart people will continue to argue that complexity and chaos alone are what explain free will in a determinate universe and there is no quantum uncertainty involved.

However, uncertain quantum outcomes mean that the universe is not really determinate after all and so given quantum uncertainty, even beyond complexity and chaos there are still fundamentally uncertain outcomes with unknowable precursors. The key difference between the outcomes of the determinate relativity of gravity and the uncertainty of quantum outcomes is in quantum phase. While the single photon exchange of quantum charge results in uncertainties in noncommuting position and momentum, the biphoton exchange of quantum gravity results in uncertainties in anticommuting position and momentum.

The uncertainties of quantum gravity anticommute instead of noncommmute and anticommutation does not alter the geodesic paths of relativity, but does affect relativistic matter and action along that path. It is then the collapse of precursor quantum phase coherence that defines all quantum outcomes, gravity and charge. It is only incoherent light and matter action that make up the determinate outcomes of gravity relativity while quantum light can remain indefinitely entangled with its matter action outcomes.

Friday, November 30, 2018

Five Life Goals

It is truly ironic that the U.S. life expectancy has declined for the first three years of universal healthcare and yet people specifically tout universal health care to raise life expectancy. The drop in life expectancy is due to an increase in certain death rates and follows many decades of rising life expectancy. Two notable contributions to the recent declines are increases in drug overdoses along with increases in the suicide rates, especially for the 16-39 age group. These statistics suggest an increase in anxiety and a lack of meaning and purpose for many people. Someone without meaning and purpose will not choose life goals that have desirable outcomes with meaning and purpose.

There are five life goal complements that each define a spectrum of desirable outcomes from which we choose a particular outcome. Each life goal consists of many trade-off precursors of delayed gratifications and sacrifices that altogether mean that life is not necessarily made up of straightforward choices. In fact, we often do not even know why we make some of the choices that we do make since feeling derives from the unconscious archetypes of consciousness. The particular choice of individual freedom versus group authority represents a classic choice between more or less acceptance of group authority and hierarchy versus less or more individual freedom.
Five Life Goal Complements:

Favoring more knowledge versus accepting some ignorance
Choosing individual free choice versus accepting group tyranny
Wealth versus poverty
Healthy austerity versus indulgent prosperity
More a leader or more a follower

Each life goal may also focus on one or all of family, community, religion, individual success, or curiosity as well.

It is by our feeling that we choose action or inhibition and feeling is a superposition of a spectrum of five emotion complements. Each person's emotion complements make up their personality spectrum by how they respond to others. The emotions of pleasure and anxiety, for example, are particularly important for survival while compassion and free choice are very important for the bonding of people into groups or communities.

Five Emotion Complements:
Compassion versus free choice
Pride versus shame
Joy versus misery
Pleasure versus anxiety
Serenity versus anger

A superposition of five personality factor complements makes up each personality with emotion complements that determine how people bond or conflict with others. These five personality complements reflect the subconscious archetypes of consciousness that we first learn as children and then also as adults. The free choice that we share with others depends on feeling and the meaning and purpose of life is in how well people interact with each other as well as on how well people survive. Personality factor complements represent how we interact with others in that if we are sensitive to others feelings, they will be more likely to share their free choice with us as stories.

Five Personality Factor Complements:
Creative, curious, and nonconformist rebel versus conformist
Conscientious versus feckless
Empathic and vulnerable versus oblivious and callous
Agreeable versus obnoxious
Extrovert versus introvert

Although it may seem like polar opinions necessarily result in divisive politics, people rarely really completely agree about many things and divisive politics seem to be rather inherent in human nature and not just a result of polar opinions. There have been even more polar electorates than today and when it comes right down to it, there are polar opposite arguments and feelings for every political issue. Legislation, after all, is the bonding of polar opposites into some kind of compromise and the laws that bind civilization with exchanges of ideas are analogous to exchange of light that bonds matter’s polar opposites, electrons and protons, into neutral atoms.

It goes without saying that each side in an argument has some claim to virtue and superior morality but for either side to deny the virtue of the other side does not usually facilitate civil discourse. Each of us has a set of unconsciousness archetypes that are the basis of our feeling and consciousness and personality. These unconscious archetypes define how we feel about things that happen to us and it is by feeling that we choose outcomes from precursors.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Progenitor Creation

Every hydrogen atom in the universe is the progeny of the action of progenitor electrons and protons that also created a photon progeny with entangled quantum phase. The creation of every hydrogen atom and photon was nearly but not completely reversible and that photon progeny has some probability therefore to annihilate an atom by ionization as well. In this case, entangled electrons and protons would then also be the progeny of an atom and a photon and yet the first light of creation is primal and axiomatic.

The universe is finite and made up of the progeny of the first light of creation and there are even simpler progenitors to electrons and protons. A proton, for example, is the progeny of three quark pairs and those quark pairs as well as electrons were then the progeny of an even simpler aether.

The simple aether, action, and phase of the CMB creation are the primal progenitors or dimensions of the universe and space and time both emerge from the progenitor actions and of matter and phase progeny. Space emerges from the average action radius of an atom, rB, which comes from the atom mass, m= m+ m+ mR, and the Schrödinger equation that relates that mass to an action. Time emerges from the action of the electron and proton, s=2 rtB, as the orbital period, tB. Direction in space emerges from the relative phase between different matter actions and in a similar manner, the mass and action of aether, mae and sae, make up all matter. There is also a fundamental phase 90ᣞ relationship between the matter and action of every progenitor that is the uncertainty principle for charge, [mae,sae] = -i, for exchange of the spin = 1 photon between spin = ½ electron and proton. The uncertainty principle for gravity then becomes mae2,sae2= -1 for gravity exchange of the spin = 2 biphoton between spin = 0 para hydrogens.



Saturday, September 8, 2018

Quantum Causal Set of Matter, Action, and Phase


Mainstream physics presumes that the universe of space and time expands, but all matter and force remain constant over time. Except for a very short time during creation as the cosmic wave background matter and force supposedly have not varied. However, in the quantum causal set universe of discrete aether, matter shrinks and force grows and this is the reality of collapsing aether in a causal universe. The collapse of aether along with the expansion of force then agrees with the ever red-shifted galaxies and as a result, represents charge and gravity as one force.

It is matter and action that make up the universe of quantum matter and each successor particle evolved from progenitor matter in a story with very many actions that precede one another entangling each particle with the primal action of creation. That set of progenitor actions and the successor matter of the universe are the two basic axioms of quantum relativity with discrete quantum aether. The action of measurement, for example, observes the universe and is just one of the many successor actions that make up all matter. This means that observation actually becomes a part of the fundamental nature of action and therefore observation is the bridge between an objective reality and the subjective reality of consciousness.

Matter particles and their actions sprinkle onto the torus of matter action that represents the present moment. However, there is another dimension besides matter and action that represents the state of realityquantum phase.

In relativistic gravity, quantum phase has no meaning and both space and time are continuous and infinitely divisible. Quantum gravity, however, includes both quantum phase as well as a discrete matter and action. Quantum gravity actually replaces continuous space and time with a causal set of discrete aether and action and as a result, quantum gravity conforms to Lorentz variance and also conforms to quantum mechanics as the following shows.

In classical quantum mechanics, the standard Schrödinger equation is a differential of wave function with with continuous time proportional to the wave function as
 
which is valid over a very large range of scales, from 1e-39 to 1e39. At very small or very large scales, it it necessary to use different dimensions than space and time. The nature of the dimensionless wavefunction has, for example, always been somewhat mysterious since particle masses are actually matter wavefunctions that have the properties of waves with quantum phase, entanglement, and superposition and so particles are not just the round balls of gravity matter. It is the mass of phaseless Oppenheimer dust that makes up black holes in general relativity.

Thus far, there has not been a need for gravity wavefunctions at small scales since charge overwhelms the gravity of very small scales to the 1e-39 power of hydrogen mass. However, gravity also involves very large scales to the 1e39 power of the mass versus hydrogen, which are black holes and neutron stars and galaxies. Restating the Schrödinger equation in matter and action now includes both the large and small gravity scales in addition to charge. Since the notions of both space and time fail at both very large and very small scales, a quantum gravity consistent with charge force is not possible with the limited notions of continuous space and time since gravity affects both space and time at very large and at very small scales.

A quantum gravity of aether particles Cortez and Smolin 2011 does bridge the gap from the very small to the very large and it is from the actions of aether that both space and time emerge Surya 2018. However, these approaches restate the Schrödinger equation with energy and momentum and have not been quite complete while the approach below with matter, action, and quantum phase is complete for both gravity and charge.

The universal quantum aether equation with respect to changes in aether now includes aether decay as
with the intrinsic decay of aether based on charge force as


In this approach, it is now mass defects instead of energy defects that define the Hamiltonian of quantum mechanics, Md

This means that there are not just one but actually two different time dimensions that emerge from matter action: a very fast atomic time and a very slow universe time. The universe does not exist first of all as matter and action in time and space, but rather first of all in pure matter and action. Time emerges from the successor relationships of aether with progenitors and that relationship represents both gravity and charge, but at very different scales.

Charge a result of the very fast phase oscillation time of the speed of light, but charge evolves as a result of the very slow phase oscillation of the universe, i.e., one phase per universe cycle. The quantum Hamilton-Jacobi operator is then

which is zero for a bound action and tB is the orbital period. The relativistic gravity Hamilton-Jacobi is then just the norm of the quantum version.

Space and time both emerge from quantum the phase actions of aether matter that give the hydrogen orbit radius as space and the orbital period action as time. The universe then comprises both matter and action along with phase from which emerges both time and space from the matter and action of a causal set of quantum aether. This means that both space and time are a part of matter action and so the quantum aether Hamiltonian incorporates both gravity and charge into a single universal equation of motion.

This restates charge and gravity constants as
The very large number of aether particles that make up the aether universe are the successors of progenitor causal set as the figure shows and now include quantum phase. It is aether action that makes up space and time and it is from the action of aether that time and space emerge. Aether action also makes up all ordinary matter and the decay or decoherence of aether is then what determines both charge and gravity forces in the causal set of aether that makes up the universe.


The figure below shows observers and objects with the dimensions of matter and action and how those dimensions map onto the Cartesian universe of space and time. The overarching role of quantum phase in the discrete aether and action entangles the the quantum phase of the universe with that of atoms.



Wednesday, June 6, 2018

Knowable Classical Truth and the Unknowable Truths of Unconscious Archetypes

Truth represents a state of affairs about the world outcomes outside of our minds and when other people agree, that truth then becomes objective truth. If two or more people cannot agree about the truth of a state of affairs, that disagreement casts doubt on the objectivity of that truth. There are many objective truths that come from the narratives of science, but the truths of science all lie within the larger truths of morality, intuition, and feeling.

The grand narratives of literature, art, music, religion, and science all represent knowable classical truths for many people. There are both knowable conscious truths from the reason of consciousness as well as the unknowable and unconscious truths of how people feel but cannot always understand or express. Unconscious truths make up the unconscious archetypes that are the meaning and purpose of all that we do. Consciousness involves both conscious reason by which we can tell others why we act like we act as well as unconscious feelings that actually are how we choose action. This means that while we can understand much about the reasons for the ways that we feel, we cannot ever understand all of the reasons for the ways that we feel.

The knowable classical objective truths form the core of civilization from the conscious narratives of literature, art, music, religion, and science. However, there are certain unknowable truths in the greater universe that affect our intuition and form our unconscious archetypes that determine meaning and purpose. The objective narratives of science have a limited role for our unknowable quantum truth and we must depend on subjective feeling and intuition to guide our purpose and meaning.

Sunday, June 3, 2018

Seven Biggest Questions of Physics

A 2017aug17 Mach article 7-biggest unanswered questions of physics listed the seven biggest questions of physics. Here are paraphrases of these 7 questions along with the additional question about the nature of consciousness, which Mach did not include. Note that questions 2) and 6) both really reduce to relating gravity and charge, but are still kept separate here. Question 5) is paraphrased into one of the transformation from chaos to order is really an undercurrent in all of the other questions as opposed to a unique question all by itself.

1) What is matter made of?

2) Why is gravity so different from charge?

3) Why does time seem to flow in only one direction?

4) Where did all the antimatter go?

5) How does the chaos of fluid things result in the order of solid things?

6) What relates gravity and charge?

7) How did life evolve from lifeless matter?

8) What is the nature of consciousness?

There are any number of different lists of the great issues of science. For example, this list of 5 great issues of science includes all of the above questions.

Great Issues of Science:
1)      … Nature of Matter;
2)      … Nature of Force;
3)      … Nature of Intelligence;
4)      … Origin of the Universe;
5)      … Molecular Basis of Life.

These 5 issues pretty much encompass the above 8 questions although the Mach list has several specific things that fall under one or more of the 5 great issues as already mentioned above.

A more recent 2018jun02 Mach article wonders more generally about the apparent lack of progress for physics over the last 48 or so years, but Mach seems to neglect the other sciences besides physics theories. Although there have been many successful measurements that have confirmed theories from before 1970, there have been no new predictions from new physics theories for 48 years.

In fact, many of the scientists interviewed in this article noted that physics seems to be in a quandry today. While physics publishes more papers than ever and runs ever greater missions of collective science, there do seem to be fewer new theories along with a massive amount of new data. One thing missing from this analysis is that there are in fact a large number of physics theories and yet there are no measurements to distinguish among these theories...or so it would seem.



Saturday, June 2, 2018

Steven Pinker Enlightenment Now versus Jeremy Lent Patterning Instincts

Critique of Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now

by Jeremy Lent (Patterning Instincts, fatal flaws)

Pinker's Enlightenment Now is optimistic about the overwhelming success of western civilization, where reason, science, and a secular morality derived from grand narratives have all resulted in global prosperity and peace. Lent pessimistically criticizes the successes of Pinker's enlightenment with the failures of eight progressive issues. Lent argues that the failures of his eight issues below counter the progress of Pinker's enlightenment:

 1) there is still lots of pollution of air, drinking water, and ocean;
 2) there are still species going extinct;
 3) there are still inequalities of incarceration rates;
 4) there is still a great inequality of wealth;
 5) increase in GDP does not measure true progress;
 6) increase in life span same as increase in education, not due to increase in per capita GPD;
 7) Pinker's view of capitalism's good versus Marxism's evil is wrong and Manicean;
 8) The decrease in ethnic humor noted by Pinker as a success of enlightenment is a result of progressive thought, not of enlightenment.

Pinker states that the enlightenment brought reason, science, and a secular morality all derived from enlightenment's many grand narratives. This has resulted in an unprecedented global prosperity and peace in our post modern times. Despite these undeniable truths, of course, a pessimist like Lent will invariably emphasize instead the equally undeniable shortcomings of our current prosperity and peace, but Lent's complete denial of enlightenment's many successes seems Manicean and simplistic.

Lent claims the moral high ground on Pinker by suggesting Pinker's enlightenment has resulted in a destructive global economic system at the price of prosperity and peace and Lent instead advocates...

"...replacing a destructive global economic system with one that offers potential for greater fairness, sustainability, and human flourishing."

Lent argues that Pinker's selfish capitalism of enlightenment is instead a

"...Manichean landscape of capitalist good versus communist evil..."

Lent evidently believes in the neo-Marxist dogma that there is a tyranny of the selfish rich over the resentful poor and the best way to reduce this selfish tyranny is to impose a much more compassionate Marxist tyranny of state versus individual. This compassionate Marxist tyranny will transfer wealth from the selfish rich to the resentful poor as well as reduce a myriad of other selfish tyrannies.

Lent does not seem to believe that all of the people who died as a result of Marxist state tyrannies in the 20th century show the abject failure of Marxist compassion in reducing tyranny. Instead, Lent seems to propose a neo-Marxist state tyranny that will replace all of the existing tyrannies and finally solve all inequality and offer greater compassion, fairness, sustainability, and human flourishing.

By denying the historical fact of the suffering and misery of Marxist compassion, Lent fantasizes about a neo-Maxist compassion of fairness despite the overwhelming demonstrative failures of Marxism to reduce tyranny. In contrast to the suffering and misery of Marxism, individual freedom and capitalism offer a much more successful albeit still imperfect world economic order despite its many flaws. Thus, Lent appears ready to replace success of enlightenment with yet another neo-Marxist experiment in state tyranny over individual freedom, this time in the guise of fairness, sustainability, and human flourishing.

It is ironic that Lent appears fundamentally pessimistic about Pinker's optimism about the world order even while Lent is decidedly optimistic about the fairness and compassion of some other tyranny that might replace what Lent sees as an unfair and destructive global economic system. Lent seems overly optimistic and Manicean in believing that humans are naturally good and therefore not prone to the same malevolence of current tyrannies. Therefore Lent believes that humans will flourish when the kinder and gentler tyranny of a neo-Marxism state compassion replaces the destructive global economic selfishness of enlightenment...yeah, right...

Pinker appears fundamentally optimistic about what he sees as a highly successful global economic system of individual freedom and capitalism imbued with many inequalities of outcome and certainly not perfect. Pinker further supposes that humans are equally capable of either compassionate good or selfish malevolence and in fact, evolution guarantees that, given the right circumstances, human malevolence can and will emerge from anybody's tyranny and lead to suffering and misery.

Therefore, Pinker argues that the grand narratives of the enlightenment have indeed been highly successful in spite of an ever present human malevolence. Pinker touts a secular morality that derives from the grand narratives and ancient wisdom of literature, art, music, and religion but Pinker pointedly excludes any role for religion in civilization's future. Pinker argues that the enlightenment is much better off without the fiction and mysticism of religious narratives and indeed, the post-modernist doctrine likewise denies the intrinsic value of any of the grand narratives of individual freedom and capitalism, including those of religion.

Lent uses a fascist epithet for Pinker and so ruins his otherwise civil discourse by saying that Pinker uses "...Nazi-like comparisons of human beings to vermin..."

Lent uses an Manicean “no shades of gray” epithet to smear Pinker as naive. Lent is a Marxist apologist who believes that capitalism and individual freedom are part of a destructive global economic order that must be replaced. Ironically, it is Lent who seems to follows a Manicean black and white paradigm with his compassion versus Pinker's selfishness.

For postmodernists, there are no absolute truths from the grand narratives of Western civilization and only interpretations of their value. As a result, nothing really matters and people can just make up whatever they want to believe is good and moral. Since what a compassionate person believes is necessarily good and moral, that person then has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone who disagrees with them since there are no grand narratives to rank beliefs, just feelings.

Lent and Pinker are a discourse in polar opposites engaged in a civil discourse that bonds an  optimistic narrative of enlightened capitalism and individual freedom with the pessimistic narrative of a neo-Marxist state tyranny that is necessary for a fair and constructive global economic system. The polar opposites of civil discourse result in both the bonding of compassion and serenity as well as the selfishness of conflict and anger. While compassion bonds polar opposites, selfishness results in conflict and as long as there is a civil discourse, results in the bonds of civilization and the free exchange of ideas.

Jordan Peterson, just like Pinker, also believes in the grand narratives of literature, art, music, and religion but Peterson also believes that there is a role for religion and mysticism in civilization's future. Peterson argues that there are and will always be limits to what the facts of science can reveal about the world and the grand narratives provide a necessary transcendence that consciousness needs to fill in the missing blanks and therefore make sense out of reality. Grand narratives provide people with a necessary causal set of unconscious archetypes (a la Carl Jung) and these unconscious archetypes are what give people meaning and purpose from emotion and feeling. Peterson believes that there are things about consciousness that people will never understand and one of those things is the role of unconscious archetypes in how we all choose desirable futures.

Successful archetypes are those that reduce suffering and misery, since suffering and misery can otherwise make people angry and resentful over inequalities of outcome among competencies. Unsuccessful archetypes are those that increase suffering and misery and it is a profound mystery exactly how civilization seems to have found the successful archetypes of Pinker's enlightenment. Since people do not really understand the deep mysteries of consciousness and free choice, people need to be very, very careful about changing what Lent regards as a destructive global economic system. After all, those changes may actually increase and not decrease misery and suffering.

While equality of opportunity is always a desirable result of individual freedom, inequality of outcome is a fundamental and also an unfair part of human nature. There will always be hierarchies of human competency because some people are simply better than others within every human competency. Neo-Marxist compassion uses the guise of the benevolence of a mother grizzly bear protecting her cubs to impose a compassionate state tyranny to correct selfish injustice. In neo-Marxism, even inequality of outcomes needs the imposition of a state tyranny to correct, for example for wealth.

There is no fairness in any human competency since some people are more competent than others and so the very few people who are very very successful will invariably rise to the top of each hierarchy of competence. People need to judge whether the success of these hierarchies of competence makes them desirable and people should judge success when there is a reduction in suffering and misery. Human nature is, after all, inherently unfair since some people are more talented and wealthy and motivated as writers, musicians, artists, engineers, nurses, etc., than others. Human nature also is inherently malevolent and so the inequalities of these hierarchies can also result in tyrannies.

Therefore people should only tolerate some limited tyranny and inequality of outcome so that there is as much individual freedom and equality of opportunity as possible. Equality of outcome, however, should not be a large part of any state tyranny without much civil discourse and this means that we will always live with certain inequalities of outcome in group competencies, in wealth, for example. It is simply an immutable fact that 2% of the population are responsible for 80% of the growth of wealth in the U.S., but U.S. wealth also means that people who live at the U.S. poverty level have more wealth than 95% of those in a Marxist state like Cuba.

In China's nascent capitalism, only 0.5% of the population are responsible for 80% of China’s growth of wealth. Thus, China has a much greater wealth inequality than even in the U.S. or other Western nations, but the evolution of China’s capitalism will eventually result in more wealthy people and a more equitable wealth distribution like those of the West...unless there is another revolution of tyranny….

Sustainability is certainly a necessary part of survival, but as long as global population keeps increasing, population growth will continue to degrade earth’s resources and preclude true sustainability. Somehow Lent does not address overpopulation in his pessimism and completely ignores how overpopulation today results in the illegal immigration that strains resources of many nations.

Human flourishing is of course exactly what Pinker's Enlightenment Now shows so well, but the optimism of Pinker's flourishing global economic order does not seem to impress the pessimism of Lent's destructive global economic order. Lent has a blind spot with overpopulation and the resultant immigrant crises and these crises do not seem important to Lent...of course, leftist politics might have something to do with Lent's blind spot.

Granted. There is still plenty of room for improvement within the grand narratives of individual freedom and capitalism of the flourishing global economic order of the enlightenment but for goodness sake, let's recognize and support enlightenment's successes for what they are...successes. The global economic system still, after all, still has its flaws and people must work to correct those flaws, but every alternative order tried so far has even worse flaws that have invariably led to more suffering and misery. So It seems really silly and petty for Lent's eight evils of a destructive global economic system to trump Pinker's countless goods of the individual freedom of capitalism.

This is especially since Lent's epithets simply smear Pinker as essentially being selfish and unfair and promoting inequality and injustice. The polarized discourse of unfettered compassion often uses these invectives against the selfishness of individual freedom. Lent, after all, claims that he knows how to replace the selfish global economic system with Marxist compassion for humans to flourish in a sustainable and fair global economic system of unfettered compassion without the selfishness of Steven Pinker and Bill Gates.

Lent has written much about the evil of selfish growth and and the inevitable collapse of unfettered progress and Lent seems to deny that economic growth is even progress at all. It is true that global population cannot increase indefinitely, but he does not seem to talk about how to limit population growth and the wars and crisis of illegal immigration that necessarily result from overpopulation. Lent also seems oblivious to the dangerous tyrannies of unfettered compassion.

Fortunately, it does appear that Mother nature is slowing population growth and so global population will likely stabilize by 2050 at about nine to ten billion or so.

Can we feed that ten billion people? Certainly, but there will be inequality in the kinds of food available. However, there is a large environmental price to pay with agriculture in decreased habitat, extensive irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides.

Of course, housing, transportation, and health care will all be unequal and unfair...is that wrong? Is the level of inequality in the U.S. fundamentally wrong? Or is inequality of outcome a fundamental part of the dominance hierarchies of all competencies and each group must simply manage their inequalities with a limited amount of tyranny.

How about the other competencies?

Knowledge:  Seems like education and literacy can be equality of opportunity. However, no matter how equal is educational opportunity, there will always be outcomes with both high and low IQ people. Since high IQ people tend to be more successful in many different different competencies, high IQ will therefore invariably result in inequality of outcome despite equality of opportunity.

Tools, leisure, and environment are all desirable competencies, but the environment is how we intersect with greater world. Since there is an environmental impact for every species, it is never really clear when the growth of successful species is bad for the environment.

Security, risk, administration, energy, money, and communication are all very necessary competencies that people generally wish to spend less wealth on. The money competency is not wealth per se, but the banks, credit cards, paypals, and so on, by which people exchange wealth for matter and action.