Graviphoton

Subdimension then. But i am not trying to make consciousness physical, other than it being a by-product of physical systems... so it has a physical platform from which to derive calculations.

What part of the brain do you think cannot be adequately described by classical physics? Not sure i understand. You must be very clear with me, i have communicational problems. A form of ADD. Is it a trick question? ''The idea that mind does not exist in space or time is a common property of all theories of mind, including dualism, monism, and emergent materialism.'' But i've shown, there are other consistent theories. None of which have been disproved.

Very true... they do look more random. Thank you for your work

Oh, i wouldn't have time to study an algebra book right now... i have so much work from college... but i'll tell you what... i'll fix the mistakes, then we can discuss it right? Deal?

Ok... how about superpositioning... many particles in my head are in a state of superpositioning... or how about quantum tunelling? Basic quantum phenomena will most probably be candidates... now... ''If consciousness is emergent from physical phenomena, then it is not a physical phenomena itself, and therefore is most certainly not a quantum phenomena.'' Not true. I Copenhagen, there is a uniqueness with the observer. The observer gains knowledge. So, physics in copenhagen has already highlighted that consciousness is unique, and very much a quantum subject. But again... consciousness has a physical aspect, since mind is matter. Try telling me an aspect of consciousness doesn't arise from particles, after you disect away pivotal neural networks... And you know, the idea mind doesn't exist in space or time, is only one theory. I've heard theories by Wolf, that the mind is time, and by Pribram, who showed evidence that memories are stored in spacetime.

I won't argue this forever, but this ''abstraction'' you speak of sounds very similart to my idea consciousness exists as a hyperdimension... which is totally a spacetime theory. This is experimental, according to sources. This is enough for my investigations.

Consciousness is a system which arises from physical combinations; if these combinations can be calculated, then consciousness is a quantum phenomena. Ever heard of the theory ''quantum mind''? This is enough to link quantum mechanics with mind. Again, you missed the point i made... Yes... its a typo... sorry

No, i understand.

Look. The mind is a quantum subject. Why do you think so much of physics as been spent on the subject? In a recent conversation with Dr. Wolf, he even said that a model of the mind was needed in physics, if any GUT was to be achieved... now... how can you argue that? If not with me, are you arguing with this physicist? And he's not the first. Linde has even suggested more or less the same thing. Look. Everything contained in spacetime, follows certan rules. Consciousness, even thought it doesn't seem to directly exist in space or time, does exist nontheless, through the appearance of quantum behaviour.

I left at the third... That is after i scrolled down to find it was all pretty much the same fasion

Then why do physicists such as Tipler, Penrose, Wolf, Goswami... ect ect, all apply quantum physics to consciousness in order to solve many of its paradoxes? In order, to understand it? Please... this is why it is called psychophysics. And your last statement isn't entirely true. Whilst the world we see, is not physical, the phenomenon of the mind arises from matter, so it does deal with a physical system giving rise to something which is not. Now... are these conclusion right... [math]Tdi^{2}=tdi^{2}[/math] [math]Tdi = a[/math] [math]Tdi = b[/math] Now… [math]a=b[/math] Which gives; [math]a^{2}=ab[/math] Which reduces to; [math]a^{2}=b^{2}[/math] Which is an answer which leads to a conjugate solution: [math]a^{2}=b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math] So… (where J represents the conjugate) [math]J=a+bi[/math] [math]J’=a-bi[/math] [math](a+\sqrt{b} . a-\sqrt{b})i=ai^{2}-bi^{2}=(a-b)-1=a+b=x[/math] right or not?

As i have explained, consciousness arises from a physical system. Consciousness must therefore have quantum rules which allow its existence. But for the arguement, its like saying time is not a quantum subject, because it isn't physical.

Ooooo... this is messy... you should clean it up... it just looks like a big slab of words

Because i am wanting a certain result, and other times, i have simply missed a mistake. Look, i'll do a binomial right now... ...(3 − i√2)² = 9 − 6i + √2i² = 9 − 6i√2 − 2 = 7 − 6i√2 right? Now, are saying this is wrong or can be right? (a + √b . a − √b)i = ai² − bi² = (a - b)-1=a + b = x Again, the equations i use everyday, are much different to standard algebra, which i haven't sat down to do it like this in years.

You don't need to get sarcastic about it. I can do them.

Of course i know how to do binomials. As for the GUT, why don't you assess it when it is done, and then draw a conclusion. Otherwise, anything you say is premature. As for the math magic with the i, what do you mean? My eyes are sleepy, and i need to know do you mean, i should have written it as (a - b)-1?

And why is mine wrong exactly? You where complaining i never squared a, without mentioning any other error. Why can't the equation work then? Look, math aint my strong area. Plus, i haven't sat down to do algebra in this form, since highschool. Now, i have to work with equations much different. I'll need you to take me through how you dervive something. If i do this in my head, i(a + √b . a − √b) = ai² − bi² = a - b(-1)=a + b = x (I just realized, i kept the brackets in the other one... woops)

And i've noted your problem with b=0... or atleast (mine)... I can't allow b to have a value of zero, so i must find a way around this... I am quite literally doing this as i go along. The theory i presented in the OP, was me messing around with ideas i had, and to soon find out, they weren't all that original. Yourdad Calm down. Calm down. I'll note your problem too. Hows this then, after noting all the problems: [math]i(a + \sqrt{b} . a − \sqrt{b}) = ai^{2} − bi^{2} = (a - b)-1=a + b = x[/math]

Remember: (1 + i√2)(1 − i√2) = 1 − 2i² = 1 + 2 = 3 was an example, showing how you derive the equation (5 + i√16)(5 − i√16) = 5 − 16i² = 5 + 16 = 21 is the same as: (a + i√b)(a − i√b) = a − bi² = a + b = x The equation is correct. And if the squaring of a bothers you, in this case, it is a*a=a Oh right... you said that above

Oh wait.. i have it wrong with Klayos... i now see what he means. What i mean, is that a and b cannot be determined with any values, but we can suppose [math](a-i\sqrt{b})(a-i\sqrt{b})[/math] is a-bi^2. Klayos must remain with the sequence i have given, to reach x, or he splits the equation, and gets two different answers, with the values given. This was why i used 1 and 2 as values. They seem appropriate.

Yes Klayos' arguement is wrong. He is seeing it from the wrong angle.

Wait a minute... That's what i meant. Just because you calculate 21, doesn't proove the equation wrong. That's why i keep values (not by choice though), out of a and b. The equation is right. You are but adding different values to a and b, in an attempt to show it is wrong. How can it be wrong, when essentially, we don't know the value of x?

You mean a=5 and b=16? Well of course it will give different answers. But using 1 and 2 was only an example. God only knows what the values of a and b are, because as far as i can tell, they would mean something to the universe, but very little to us. You see, this is why i like posting here. If i do potentially get anything wrong, it will be noticed for sure.

{i} was necessery, because i was talking about time dimensions. I only added the values because you said the equation was wrong, and i have shown it isn't, from my technical view. Besides, i am assuming a and b have values; i just don't know what kind of value.

(1 + i√2)(1 − i√2) = 1 − 2i² = 1 + 2 = 3 Of course i know how to calculate the yourdad. I wouldn't say i cud if i couldn't