OR01 consciousness

Maybe Jack is willing to consider the Heim theory at the greenglow vault.
He is list member. According to Heim the universe is nearly steady state
at the moment as it is 5.45*10^107 years old and has a diameter D of
about 6.37*10^109 light years. If this is correct, then, we can also put
the Jack theory away. I don't know how he could correct his theory with
these numbers. Looks impossible.

But what does it mean that we are living in a growed universe?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:56:22 -0800
From: Jack <sarfatti@...>
To: Tony Smith <tsmith@...>
Subject: Re: out there



Tony Smith wrote:

> Jack, I seem to be misunderstanding your model with
> respect to the universe (although I think that I do
> now understand it substantially with respect to the human brain).
>
> What I don't understand is what you mean physically
> when you say

>
> "... By 'out there" I meant Tao = 1/H
> as the GRW parameter reinterpreted as I have done. ...".

Yes, it is clear you do not understand that. Go to the GRW model as
explained in Bohm and Hiley's Undivided Universe.

GRW postulate ad hoc with no justification two new fundamental constants
one is Tau that they take to be 10^16 seconds. Another they take to be
something like a micron or so for spontaneous localization.

My first intuitive idea is change

Tau to 1/H = 4 10^17 sec = 13 billion years.

Now this is a conjecture, physical hypothesis, to be judged totally on how
pragmatically useful it is. It turns out to be incredibly useful since it
controls FIVE experimentally observed numbers that describe the human
brain! FIVE from ONE is more with less.

It also gives quantitative falsifiable meaning to many vague speculations
that our psychological subjective feeling of the flow of time is caused by
the expansion of the universe which is a source of order out of
uniformity.

I call this out-there/in-here duality or the Mental Mach Principle that
consciousness in-here is caused by expansion of the material universe
out-there. This also gives a new perspective on Penrose's intuition of a
connection of gravity-torsion to consciousness. I add in the torsion from
Shipov that Penrose assumes to be zero.

Next I note the BH show that GRW is a Gaussian back-action model in which
for N entangled particles

t(?) = Tau/N => 1/HN in my theory

? = OR = objective reduction in GRW. I say that physical meaning for their
equation is wrong. Since it is from back-action closing the strange loop
between mental wave function and its N-particle system point, that it is
not OR but C the conscious feel. This is a second intuitive postulate that
is not justified deductively but by comparison with the kinds of
predictions it makes and the kinds of explanations it suggests.

So it is these two intuitive physical hypotheses of mine that you failed
to understand. Mathematics is irrelevant here.

>
>
> What I am looking for is some physical connection,
> by soft virtual photons or, if you prefer, something
> else, gravitons or whatever, between
>
> the 10^80 protons and 10^80 electrons in our universe whose age is 1/H
> and whose size scale is also (converted by c factor) 1/H

Look if you like, but it is completely irrelevant to my idea of how
consciousness is generated in the billion-billion caged electrons in our
brain phase locked into a coherent electric dipole hologram by a
billion-billion-billion-billion virtual near field photons all condensed
into the same EM field oscillator cavity mode of scale L at the Crick
frequency of 40 Hz beating time for the brain biocomputer. L is the size
of the brain. Virtual photons are off mass shell i.e. off light cone in
this case. The usual wavelength-frequency relation for radiation fails
since that is the pole of the QED photon propagator and virtual photons
are not the pole!

>
>
> and
>
> the 10^18 tubulin electrons in a given human brain.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> It seems to me that you are saying that there is some
> connection between the universe
> (including its 10^80 protons and 10^80 electrons)
> and
> the 10^18 tubulin electrons in the human brain.
>
> My question is: How does the connection work?

My answer

t(C) = 1/HN = 4 10^17/10^18 sec = 0.4 seconds

Now you can relate H to the mass M of the universe I suppose. Ask
Saul-Paul.

GM/c^2 = cH

M = 10^56 gm = 10^80 proton masses.

So there you have it. So what?

N = [(e^2/hc)mc^2/hH]^1/2 = 10^18

10^18 10-27 = 10^-9 grams = 10^-4 Planck mass

so what? not much mass and it generates our conscious feels.




>
>
> If, as your model says, soft virtual photons are the connecting
> links between pairs of the 10^18 tubulin electrons in the brain,
> then
> what connects the brain electrons to the universe electrons?

The expansion of space!

z = Hr/c

r = separation between source and sink electrons connected by a single
virtual near field photon off the light cone of frequency 40 Hz localised
in a cavity of 10cm.

Note, the effective speed of this virtual photon is only 400 cm/sec. How
long does it take to go a distance of 1 nanometer i.e. the distance of the
electron from itself in the caged qubit.

400 10^-2 meters/sec = 4 meters/sec = 4 10^9 nanometers per sec. So about
1/4 nanosec for the virtual photon to form a self-energy loop in the
single qubit! Therefore, we expect the electron dipole to self-oscillate
at 4 10^9 Hz?

>
>
> If there is a 1-1 connection relation between
> the 10^18 brain electrons and 10^18 of the universe electrons,
> then
> how are the 10^18 universe electrons chosen from the pool of 10^80?

I do not understand this last remark of yours at all. What does it mean? I
see no operational meaning for it. What is the difference between a
"universe electron" and a "brain electron"? Electrons are all identical.
They are all "universe electrons", some happen to be caged in the brain.
Where's the beef?

>
>
> ----------
>
> You have mentioned Mach's principle. Are you proposing that
> gravitons form the universe-human connection?

No. I do not even know what gravitons are - if they are real. In any case
I have no need to use gravitons at all here. This is all quantum
electrodynamics in a classical spacetime geometry. No quantum gravity in
any of my above model for consciousness generation. Gravitons are simply
irrelevant here in these equations that agree with experiment.

>
>
> Maybe you are thinking about some sort of nonlocal spin/torsion field?

Nope! WYSIWYG.

>
>
> If it is a graviton or a spin/torsion connection,
> then is each tubulin electron in the human brain
> equally connected to ALL of the distant universe particles,
> as is the case with the conventional Mach's principle?

Don't know. I don't need any of this excess interpretation on my simple
clean Zen-like -- more with less model.

As they say

"Keep it simple, stupid!" :-)

I feel like a Japanese Zen Master sitting in my austere rock garden at the
Tomb of Dirac.

>
>
> If so, then since you and I are both on Earth,
> you and I (and all other humans) should be very similarly affected
> by the distant universe particle connections,
> and
> it should not be that some of us would be more connected
> to different parts of the universe.

How would you falsify that excess speculation? So far everything I have in
my model is falsifiable in Popper's sense. If your idea fails the Popper
test, trash it!

>
> ---------------------------
>
> If there is no such connection,
> then how can you justify using a universe property like 1/H
> with respect to human brain phenomena?

Nothing succeeds like success. It works! That's good enough for me.

I mean it works both as quantitative predictions agreeing with experiments
and as a coherent simply explanatory framework demystifying what the
priests of the church of respectable physics wish to hide.


--
"But the real glory of science is that we can find a way of thinking such
that the law is evident. ... For a successful technology, reality must
take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
Feynman
"I want to know God's thoughts ... the rest are details. ... Great Spirits
have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. ...
Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it
is not yet the real thing. The theory produces a great deal but hardly
brings us closer to the secrets of the old one." Einstein
http://www.well.com/user/sarfatti/