cavediver
As for myself, I perhaps have enough of the physicist's arrogance about me to believe that a physical 'theory of everything' should at least contain the seeds of an explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness. It seems to me that this phenomenon is such a fundamental one that it cannot be simply an accidental concomitant of the complexity of brain action. It must be of such sophistication that the brain is enabled to dig more deeply into the fundamental workings of the Universe than are more commonplace physical systems. And if this is so, then we are very much farther from a proper understanding of the laws of nature than most physicists seem to believe.
Indeed, irrespective of the consciousness issue, in my opinion, we are nowhere close to an accurate, purely physical theory of everything. I find it remarkable how many physicists will express the view that, despite some missing details and unifying concepts, we know virtually all we need to know to describe the fully detailed physical behaviour of systems ” at least in principle. Yet, there is at least one glaring omission in present physical theory. This is how small-scale quantum processes can add up, for large and complicated systems, to the almost classical behaviour of macroscopic bodies. Indeed, it is not just an omission but an actual fundamental inconsistency, sometimes referred to as the measurement paradox (or Schrdinger's cat). In my view, until this paradox is resolved we must necessarily remain very far from a physical theory of everything ” whether or not such a theory exists.
Roger Penrose
Let us take this a piece at a time
should at least contain the seeds of an explanation of the phenomenon of consciousness.It seems to me that this phenomenon is such a fundamental one that it cannot be simply an accidental concomitant of the complexity of brain action. It must be of such sophistication that the brain is enabled to dig more deeply into the fundamental workings of the Universe than are more commonplace physical systems.
I have difficulty here with this {especially as it applies to perception of time} since if it is not a part of the fundemenatal processes then how does one account for things such as anesthetics or a blow to the head that renders us unconscious because these are both the result of the electormagnetic force ultimatly are they not?
Why would the electromagnetic force have such a consequence if the consciouness itself were not also electromagnetic. If the consciousness we have is a result of the electromagnetic force, even though the complexity is staggering, then the difficulty seems to be simply thatwe have not yet found the key to unlock the complexity , not that consciousness is of a different fundamental force.
The workings of our sun are complex and as we refine our instruments we find it more complex still ,yet the basic process is still the same and this from a sphere of mostly hydrogen ,the simplest element of all.What more is possible with carbon and hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen that makes up our bodies and brains?
Yet, there is at least one glaring omission in present physical theory.This is how small-scale quantum processes can add up, for large and complicated systems, to the almost classical behaviour of macroscopic bodies
But is this a correct question? Atoms individually do not have the quantity we call temperature since the aspect that defines it is the
average kinetic energy of the collection of atoms present that gives rise to the concept.That the world appears to operate according to an arrow of time can also be considered an averaging of the staistics of vast volumes of atoms in their motons.If the universe must, according to some imbalance or difference in potential,move in a given direction as to effect an arrow of time is it necessary that we discover the mechanism as a consequence of the quantum physics or is the problwem of finding a suitable means of testing by experiment to settle the question?
Indeed, it is not just an omission but an actual fundamental inconsistency, sometimes referred to as the measurement paradox (or Schrdinger's cat). In my view, until this paradox is resolved we must necessarily remain very far from a physical theory of everything ” whether or not such a theory exists.
Here is where I cannot travel to deeply since I am at a loss for the tools of mathematics to investigate with you on the proper level.
However does the fact that the universe is measured by means that the universe uses as opposed to the way humans do for their convenience indicate a paradox or simply an inabilty to imagine in terms that require visualization? Ionce read on the paradox about the wave particle duality and in that same book the author was implying that the wave aspect is simply a measure of the probability of a particle and the particle aspect was the actual matter point itself.
Since probabilty is more an artifact than a reality is this any different than the apparent edge the our sun has? There is not a physical edge but just a edge defined by the probabilty of a photn emission occuring at that level.
I have to get ready for work though I hope I have not appeared too much the idiot in response. I do enjoy the chance to see if I can lay a groundwork to help me as I start to make the attempt to relearn all the algebra and trig calculus etc..
Give me 5 or 6 years to start to be able to manipulate the equations and perhaps I can better appreciate the discourse. In the meantoime feel free to critique me on my views.
Many thanks
™ Version 4.2
