Lucas Bet

Hello, thanks for the reply! As we have been talking about, this is a theory proposing a reinterpretation of already known physical phenomena in the Universe, which means, we are not proposing our current quantum theories are wrong, or any previous scientific works are wrong. And even conflicting scientific views can coexist — just like quantum mechanics and relativity have so far. And we can have more than one mathematical framework able explain the Universe, just like Kurt Godel found a different to solution to Einstein's space field equations, if I am not mistaken. However, if we want to ever understand quantum mechanics together with general relativity, I am proposing it is essential we consider the Brain (or the observer in general) as participating in the composition of the physical Universe. And this is quite simply an obvious problem for a theory of everything: it is impossible to have a theory of everything that does not consider the Human Brain; because, if we have a perfect mathematical model for everything except the Brain, then the model would exclude (for example) Human free-will — everything should behave according to a previous mathematical description, and free-will wouldn't exist. But the Turing machine model goes beyond that. Yes, it can loosely explain the effects of both quantum mechanics and special relativity; but this is not all, because it allows us a mathematical room to explain concepts like Human "free-will" and "intelligence", which can now be mathematically considered using concepts like Turing completeness, Universal Turing machines, and nested Turing machines (I know this is short and maybe confusing outside the realm of computer-science, and I can clarify if necessary). But this is clear: if we don't consider ourselves (by definition) we can never achieve a theory of everything. About Occam razor, on the other hand, I am going to disagree. Occam razor is about knowledge, and knowledge is quite simply a proper language to describe nature (be it mathematical, philosophical, scientific and so on). And Occam razor is the most important principle for selecting different theories, because nature itself always follows the most effective path, simply because of energy efficiency. This is a clear guiding principle for natural sciences since Aristotle's "Posterior Analytics", and it has been proposed as a physical principle by Ernst Mach as well. And if Occam razor cannot dictate anything, then we would still be using Lorentz "ether" theory instead of Einstein's relativity, because one theory was replaced by the other — basically — because of Occam's razor. Therefore, we should deeply respect all theories that are supported by an Occam razor choice: simply because energy efficiency is the methodology behind nature itself. Every knowledge we currently have in physics was, at some point, a metaphysical speculation in someone's Brain. Or not? Certainly it takes much more than that to develop a final mathematical model, which doesn't take away from the important role philosophy has in questioning and even help interpreting scientific experiments. After all this is the advice we get from our best scientists: “When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” ― Max Planck And thanks so much for the debate so far, I have been expanding and correcting my views in many points.

I am fully aware this is a philosophical approach to physics, but requiring evidence? We are in the "Speculations" forum! And I am truly grateful for the debate. Thanks

I am sorry, you are absolutely correct about that. In my previous dictation, I have mistaken the equivalence principle for E=mc², also known as mass–energy equivalence. Thanks for the correction!

Because of the equivalence principle, mass and energy are actually... well, equivalent. And this means they belong to the same physical spectrum, and every particle which carries information about one carries information about the other! We should respect each other: even if I am not correct, the long conversation means we are debating proper knowledge, and I am the one providing the full theoretical framework already, and a book full of explanations. Then I owe nothing. And if we are talking experiments, this means the theory is robust enough to question our current standards in physics. Or am I wrong? Therefore, if you're really want to help as an experimental physicist I would kindly ask for you to share this work with your references in the field. Then maybe proper experiments will be created for the theory, or perhaps this reveals a clear logical mistake we are not seeing yet. Thank you!

But the difference is precisely what is the observer, as I have been saying since the very first topic in this post. And also, right after the quotation that was left out: Thanks!

Great question: yes. The Universe is everything we can ever know, and there are parts of the Universe which exist independently of any kind of Brain. Mass, for example, is a property of the Universe that is related to bosons, and mass exists before the Brain exists. But reality is a different matter. Reality is not everything we can ever know, but everything we can ever experience: in other words, the Universe is everything we can access with knowledge, but reality is everything we can access with our senses. This means, what we perceive as a reality is simply the portion of the Universe which is sensed by our Brains. Then the Universe exists independently of our Brains. Mass, gravity, the electromagnetic force, all of those exist independently of the Brain. But the reality which follows Pauli's exclusion principle is actually a product of the Brain, and this means — even if the Universe exists before the Brain, and it has created the Brain — the reality we actually perceive is completely dependent on the Brain. Thank you for asking! Thanks once again for debating. Of course, the Brain is unnecessary to understand special relativity. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about special relativity as an autonomous theory. However, the Brain is necessary if we ever want to explain relativity together with quantum mechanics, because the link between these two perspectives of the Universe is precisely the figure of the "observer", and what role does it play in physics. A photon contains information about mass and energy, and this is a consequence of E=mc². i) Imagine there is a piece of metal which has a certain amount of mass and energy, these are carried together in the photon (c=√E/m). ii) Photons reach the Brain via the eyes, and the Brain represents the rock back to us as having a certain position and momentum in Euclidean space (the Heisenberg principle). iii) But if the piece of metal has more mass than energy, we might see it as a black object. And if the piece has more energy than mass, we see it as a glowing object, showing how the photon actually carries both kinds of information. This means the Brain is representing the object using the information it captured from photons, according to the respective relationship between mass and energy, and what we actually see is never photons: photons die in the retina before we can ever see anything, and our vision is created electronically inside the Brain. Which is the reason why you can have perfect eyes and still be blind due to a lesion in the Brain. But about the rest, I must once again insist: We are not talking about simply the biological Brain; the biological Brain is simply how we perceive our Brains using our Brains (yes, I know). But the physical Brain we have been talking about as a model for the theory is a transcendental or mathematical object: a quantum Turing machine. This means, when we say photons never work inside the Brain, we are talking about the Brain as a computational device. Of course you can throw X-rays or photons across a biological Brain — in the same way you can throw a rock into the screen of a computer!! But if you want to properly "store a rock" inside the computer, you can only store "information about the rock" inside the computer: these are different realms, and information must be translated in between one and the other. And with the Brain is the same thing: even if you can shoot a photon across a Brain, this doesn't mean the Brain is working with the photon as a quantum machine. It is simply crossing. But if you try to input photons into the Brain properly — using the eyes, our biological device to capture photons — what happens is the Brain translates the photographic information into electronic information, and only after the translation happens the Brain can work with this information inside it. Thanks!

You got it! I have developed a computational theory of the Universe recognizing what you call the "inner dimension", or the Mind, as a nested Turing machine inside the Brain. This means what you call the "inner dimension" is actually a software layer inside our hardware Brains, which is responsible for translating our perception as language, and thus it enables our adaptability and the properties of intelligence (or Turing completeness). And we even explain how philosophy and computer science are basically the same when we are talking about intelligence, gathering teachings from Langer, Kant, Nietzche and more. But this is not all: the Turing machine model also explains special relativity and quantum mechanics together, and, therefore, really amounts to a whole theory of the Universe. I like the theme so much, there is a whole book about it now. This is a quote from The Rabbit Whole: This is my proposed solution to the Mind-Body problem.

Thank you for your interest! I think we are talking about the same thing: relativity means physics is not the same everywhere, it is the same for every different inertial frame of reference. But what is an inertial frame of observation in relativity? This is the mystery we are investigating. For Einstein, we could say the frame of observation is simply a mathematical point of reference from which we can perform calculations, and it has nothing to do with the Brain. In our perspective, however, what determines the inertial frame of reference is the presence of a Brain computing reality. But this is nothing new: this actually implies integrating special relativity into a framework closer to Lorenz theory, using clock speeds once again, since this is from where Einstein derived properties of special relativity in the first place. But special relativity was considered a better theory because, well, it was simpler: choosing special relativity above Lorenz theory is a textbook example of how Occam's razor works, because Lorenz theory used the somewhat unnecessary "ether", while Einstein's theory didn't. But now that we can come back and reinterpret special relativity from the Brains perspective, and this is explaining quantum mechanics as well, Occam's razor itself forces us into a reinterpretation and integration of one theory into the other. This is the central part of our computational theory of the Brain: Because we know the Brain creates our vision by absorbing photons in the retina and then processing the electronic information inside the Brain, this means the Brain is dealing with photons like a computer deals with information: just like you cannot store an actual rock into a computer, but you can store a digital picture of the rock, our Brain never access photons (they die in the retina) but the Brain still captures the corresponding about mass and energy (a consequence of E=mc², but "c" should be in evidence). And this means photons (which are bosons) never interact inside the Brain, but only outside it. However, we already know in physics the fundamental difference between bosons and fermions is that they have a different quantum spin, and, therefore, this means these particles do not obey the same physical principles, they play fundamentally different roles in the Universe. And the most important example is the Pauli exclusion principle, from which bosons are excluded. But in our computational theory, the Brain is modeled as a Turing machine, and this means the particles interacting with the Brain compose the Turing machine's tape alphabet: different quantum particles are the different bits of information we have to build a reality. And this means, when we have particles with different quantum spins, what we are verifying is they are not the same kind of information, and they do not operate inside the same machine. Therefore, in the same way we cannot store an actual rock into a computer, but you can store a digital picture of the rock, the Brain never actually interacts with bosons, but it is representing the forces carried by bosons as a reality made of fermions. This is why I told you "the Brain bridging the interaction between bosons and fermions". And because in our theory this is done by the Brain-computer, this means the particles are entering into a Turing machine and being represented as another kind of information, and we propose this is the fundamental reason why fermions spin differently than bosons. In other words, in our theory, the fact these particles have a different quantum spin should be interpreted as they are part of different sides of the Turing machine: bosons exist outside the perception of the Brain, but fermions and their state are determined by the Brain's computation itself. And because the Brain is what determines the next step in our reality (which is made of fermions), this is explains why only after an observer is considered in the setting we can solve the problem of quantum superposition in Schrodinger's cat. * * * This means the computational model of the Brain can provide explanations for both special relativity and quantum mechanics, this is a careful path along the book, but coincidentally in this very topic we explored both theories from the perspective of the Brain, and just the fact that we can now have a language to talk about relativity and quantum mechanics together is exciting enough. Thank you!

Thank you. First, I love your signature "there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." This is the whole idea behind Thomas Kuhn work as a philosopher, and our first chapter is dedicated to clarifying the role philosophy has in interpreting science. About your question, I am proposing there is no relationship between the empirically tested neuronal firing rate and the speed of light. Because I am talking about a conception in which the Brain is a quantum Turing machine bridging the interaction between bosons and fermions, this means we would need to test the Brain in a quantum setting — and not simply a medical setting. This means our theory the Brain has almost a transcendental nature: because the Brain is creating reality it's mathematical structure is a step beyond reality, bridging bosons and fermions. We have never developed a proper quantum experiment to test this proposition, and even quantum superposition (the effect we were talking about when mentioning Schrodinger's cat) can only be tested in extremely small scale, and so it is most likely impossible to do properly quantum-test an entire Brain. I am, however, completely against empirically testing the Human Brain, for any purposes. And this is quite simply because this is unnecessary: having a computational theory of the Brain explains so much aspects of reality together, that because of Occam's razor — the principle dictating nature always follows the shortest and simplest ways — it is very unlikely to be incorrect, because it is able to explain quantum mechanics and special relativity in a single blow. And although I am not providing an integrated equation, everything derives from a proper mathematical model, which I am humbly proposing is the next frontier in theoretical physics. And although talking about a Brain that interacts beyond our perceived reality is weird, this is following on advanced research. I have talked about a counterpart of this kind of theory, but it is not a theory of the Brain but Roger Penrose's research on a theory of consciousness. And this is also what Timothy Palmer talks about in his book, The primacy of doubt, how the science of uncertainty can help understand our chaotic world, where he also approaches the idea of a collective consciousness modeled after the Lorenz attractor — and remember our computational theory of the Brain provides a reinterpretation of old Lorenz theory? To me, this means soon enough this puzzle is going to be put together by us, Humans. Thank you. Thanks. This is a conception we are challenging: the Universe as a whole surely goes beyond the Human Brain, but the reality we perceive is completely bound to the functioning of the Brain, and different Brains correspond to different representations of reality. And this is a very simple conception: for example, if I was made of electromagnetic force, you simply wouldn't be able to directly perceive my existence, because our Brains do not perceive it with the five senses, just like we don't see the electromagnetic field of the Earth directly. The structure of the Human Brain, however, is bound by millions of years of evolution, and this means we are all based on the same mathematical structure, which is why we perceive a consistent reality among ourselves: it seems reality is the same everywhere, but actually, we are interpreting everything with the same Brains everywhere, and this is what makes reality consistent for us. But I don't need to disproof the claim "physics is the same everywhere". Einstein already did it. And he teaches us the laws of physics are the same not everywhere, but in relationship to every different inertial frame of reference. And this means reality can behave differently for different observers in relation to each other, as happens with time dilation for example, where time is computed differently for different observers (or different Brains). Once again, this means we — the observers — are a central piece of the puzzle to understand the Universe. Thank you!

This is true! But what I am proposing is a new fundamental cause for the effects already perceived in the physical universe, focusing the Human Brain. Even if this is presented as a somewhat philosophical journey, it carries a fundamental logic which doesn't require an equation because it was already developed by Alan Turing, and later expanded by Paul Benioff. And the central claim here is that the Brain works as a quantum Turing machine, which is supported by Roger Penrose's research, even if loosely - which is why I linked the research. I am not claiming this is better or even similar work, but I am claiming the Human Brain is the last mystery to solve the equation of everything, and the book does a good job at least provoking our best minds, and even providing the logic behind many possible solutions. Thanks!

Sorry, I will not answer to questions referring to my writing style or the definition of physics. However, experimentally, the closest we have to a confirmation, to my knowledge, is Roger Penrose's research. Thank you!

Thank you for the interest, but actually, I think I know why we are not understanding ourselves. Maybe you think the Brain is inside reality, and, therefore, different Brains would give us different measurements of "c" according to some standard measurement. But there is no standard reality: just the reality provided by each Brain, one in relation to the other. This means the Brain is the builder of realities: reality as composed of matter (or fermions, the particles that actually compose matter) is already happening as a result of the Brain's computation. This is from our scientific summary from before: Therefore, whenever we perform a measurement, this measurement is alrealdy being performed inside a reality computed by the Brain, and this is why "c" remains constant for all Brains. However, I know this is a delicate shift of perspective, and it needs careful consideration. But if the book cannot provide a fuller perspective, then I'll work my best to make it better. Thanks

I'm sorry if my previous response was too abrasive, I am truly trying to create a framework for us to think together, even if this means put equations aside to consider some topics philosophically, within logic. If we are considering our theory, then the max speed in which reality can be computed is always constant, because we are always actually measuring the physical capacity of the Brain from the inside: we are already inside a computational reality provided by our Brains. This means we are always going to measure a constant "c", as Einstein has showed. This means, internally the perceived processing speed of the Brain never changes: The speed of light is not the speed of anything. Is the speed of reality itself, as provided by the Brain. What changes in time dilation is how fast my Brain can compute the same steps your Brain can, or not. This means, both Brains compute in the same speed, but because of relative motion, they cannot sync on the same steps. And most importantly: this is why in time dilation, when one observer slows down, the other observer perceives the same effect. This is called time dilation reciprocity, and it means we are not talking about one observer speeding up, and the other slowing down. Both slow down in relation to each other, because they are simply out of synchrony (and not because they are traveling linearly in time). And we are far from being short of data: these are the effects we already know to be true because of special relativity. The only difference is that (in this case) the speed of light should be reinterpreted as the clock speed of the Brain. And this integrates special relativity and Lorenz theory into a computational theory of everything. Thank you!

Thanks for the reply! As I have been saying, they are not the same, but a photodetector can mimic certain properties of the Brain, because absorbing photons and translating them as electrical signals is exactly what the Brain and the eyes do, together. But of course, a photodetector is not a Brain. I am sorry, I don't remember even mentioning evidence. This is a theory built on logic and mathematics. This means, I am sharing a work in theoretical physics, and physical evidence to prove or disproof it can only come after experiments are designed with the theory in mind, just like happened with every other theoretical physics argument. On the other hand, as explained above, both relativistic and quantum effects can already be explained by the model, which is why we can say this is a perspective worth pursuing, at least for me, if we want do discover more about the Universe. This, on the other hand, is plainly wrong. The Brain is the structure that determines what we can or cannot perceive in the Universe. We know, for example, we cannot see infrared or x-rays, and this is simply because we are not biologically adapted to do so. If our eyes and our Brains, on the other hand, were devices to capture and interpret information about infrared or x-rays, we would be able to perceive them, in the same way we know animals are able to perceive, for example, sonar — like bats and dolphins. This means the Brain is the center of everything we perceive in the Universe, which is why it becomes so important to consider the Brain to achieve a true theory of everything. That was a rhetorical device. I was not telling you to ask ChatGPT: ChatGPT is a large language model, and this means it's software itself is an example of how we can achieve intelligent behavior by nesting a Turing machine inside the other, and this is the logic behind Human self-consciousness: we have a machine (the Mind) inside another machine (the Brain), which is why we can perceive our own existence. -------------------------------- Thanks for the reply! But I'm sorry: this is actually pretty bad advice. There are not any new equations in the book, simply because they are unnecessary. Having a computational theory of the Brain is not a new mathematical theory about the Universe, but we are actually showing how computer science can actually bridge two existing and already mathematically validated theories about the Universe: quantum mechanics and special relativity. And as long as the internal logic is coherent, it becomes unnecessary to have new equations. Or would the book be better if we started to correlated the Standard Particle Model with the alphabet of a Hamiltonian Turing machine? Or maybe I should have recreated Lorenz equations, exchanging the "ether" for our mathematical description of bosons, which don't respect Pauli's exclusion principle? This would only make the book less comprehensible. Which is why several amazing physicists write books without any equations, and providing simpler explanations in plain language is actually what proves their capacity. Just read Stephen Hawkings', or Carlo Rovelli's books, and go search for random equations there! The internal clock of each Brain must remain constant, this is what special relativity teaches us. What changes is how many steps of the computation of Brain A is perceived by Brain B. This means, even if both Brains perceive a constant speed of light, in extreme acceleration settings time and reality disconnects for them, which is why both Brains perceive the other slowing down, and this is precisely what we call the "reciprocal time dilation in special relativity", another known effect which we tend to forget "because it makes no sense". But guess what? It does now

Thank you so much for your interest! If we are considering the Brain as a quantum Turing machine of perception, we can state our perception of reality is guided by the computation of the Brain, and our perception of time is related to how fast the Brain processes reality. But computer processors must have a maximum physical limit for cycles — and this is simply a function for how fast the computation can physically happen considering the processor mathematical structure. This means, for every single object perceived by the Brain, the computation of such information can only be presented in that speed. This is basically means every Brain has a clock speed in which the Brain updates the quantum states of reality. But because the Brain works precisely as a machine capturing information about mass and energy from photons (a consequence of E=mc2), this means photons are information being processed in the maximum clock speed of the Brain. In other words, when Einstein teaches us the speed of light must be fixed for every different observer, he was telling us — in this perspective — every different Brain must process reality in the same speed. And this gives us a fully correct explanation as to why the speed of light must be constant for every different observer, disregarding the acceleration of the observer itself: this happens because the speed of light is not the speed of any real object, it is actually the speed of the Brain's computation, then it must remain fixed as we accelerate the Brain itself. But this means different Brains can have different times (as Einstein himself told us), because, as different observers accelerate, and the different clocks gets out of synchronicity, and one computer cannot follow every step of the other computer. By accelerating closer to the clock speed of the Brain, it is unavoidable one Brain starts to miss computational steps of the other, and this means we perceive one Brain underclocking in relationship to the other (this is simply the Doppler effect in between their clocks), this being the reason behind the time dilation effects of special relativity. But after this explanation is provided, not only we can understand why the speed of light is fixed for every different observer (it is the clock speed of the Brain) and time dilation effects (clocks can get out of synchronicity) — we can also clearly understand why the speed of light is the maximum speed limit in the Universe. This is a quote from The Rabbit Whole: Thank you! ------------- On a side note, our computational theory of the Brain ends up joining special relativity and old Lorenz theory, which relies on clock speed variations to explain the same effects. But by using a computational framework we don't need to rely on any kind of strange concept of "ether", which was the reason Lorenz theory was preferred over Einstein's relativity in the first place.