A Computational Theory of The Universe

[Lucas Bet]

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!

Edited April 4 by Lucas Bet

[Mordred]

Lol everyone always seems to have the wrong idea of what Einstein was seeking or physicist seek in a theory of everything. The only reason we haven't got a theory of everything at this moment of research is simply renormalizing gravity above one loop integrals for divergences. 

The main reason we haven't got that is we have no effective cutoff for the maximum mass density to put it simply. 

We can already renormalize every other fields including the EM field so I don't see how anything you have stated helps in that as we already have a solid understanding of the EM field for the TOE. Same goes for the strong and weak force.

Part of the problem is unless you read textbooks or good physics articles most people don't even know what the term "normalize" means let alone renormalize. Yet we see posters all the time trying to present some TOE.

Granted you stated yours won't get a TOE but rather help however everything I read in this thread deals primarily with your brain conjecture and how it relates to EM based observations. So I don't see how it helps when physicists already have the EM field covered in that regard

Edited April 4 by Mordred

[Eise]

14 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

the Brain must have an internal clock speed which behaves as the maximum speed for reality: we perceive this effect as the speed of light, and it is the reason why this speed must be constant for every different observer in special relativity.

So what is the relation between a neural firing rate somewhere between 1 - 200 firings per second (how many depends among others on what the part of the brain where the neurons are localised are active), and the translational speed of light? 300,000 km/s? Or should I express it as 300,000,000 m/s? Or 300 Mm/s? What has a clock frequency to do with a speed?

[swansont]

12 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

One of the basic tenets of physics is that it’s the same everywhere - it’s independent of anyone’s brain. Physics works where no brains exist, and where no observers exist. The value of and invariant nature of the speed of light is important in many processes and interactions that take place completely independent of brains.

[Lucas Bet]

9 hours ago, Eise said:

So what is the relation between a neural firing rate somewhere between 1 - 200 firings per second (how many depends among others on what the part of the brain where the neurons are localised are active), and the translational speed of light? 300,000 km/s? Or should I express it as 300,000,000 m/s? Or 300 Mm/s? What has a clock frequency to do with a speed?

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.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

One of the basic tenets of physics is that it’s the same everywhere - it’s independent of anyone’s brain. Physics works where no brains exist, and where no observers exist. The value of and invariant nature of the speed of light is important in many processes and interactions that take place completely independent of brains.

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!

Edited April 4 by Lucas Bet

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

If that’s your take, you misunderstand relativity. The first postulate of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, which is why you can’t tell if you are stationary or moving, and why there is no preferred frame if reference.

A consequence of that, and the invariant speed of light, is that various quantities, like length and time, are relative rather than being absolute.

And this has nothing to do with brains. Muon decay rates vary depending on whether they are moving or in the lab. They don’t have brains.

36 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

the Brain is a quantum Turing machine bridging the interaction between bosons and fermions

What does this bolded part even mean?

[Lucas Bet]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

If that’s your take, you misunderstand relativity. The first postulate of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames, which is why you can’t tell if you are stationary or moving, and why there is no preferred frame if reference.

A consequence of that, and the invariant speed of light, is that various quantities, like length and time, are relative rather than being absolute.

And this has nothing to do with brains. Muon decay rates vary depending on whether they are moving or in the lab. They don’t have brains.

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.

Quote

"the Brain is a quantum Turing machine bridging the interaction between bosons and fermions"

What does this bolded part even mean?

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!

Edited April 4 by Lucas Bet

[pzkpfw]

Did the Universe exist before brains?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

To be the same in all inertial frames means it’s the same everywhere.

 

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

But what is an inertial frame of observation in relativity?

This is the mystery we are investigating.

Not really a mystery. 

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

Right.

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

In our perspective, however, what determines the inertial frame of reference is the presence of a Brain computing reality.

Nope. Nothing like that is required. And if you are asserting this, you must provide evidence or a way to test the idea.

But we already know that inertial frames don’t require a brain, via countless experiments where there was no brain in the inertial frame.

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

Lorenz theory? Do you mean Lorentz?

 

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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).

I’m dubious that a photon contains information about mass and energy of anything except itself. Looking at a rock does not tell you its mass. (there’s a movie where Henry “Indiana” Jones Jr. depicts this rather well)

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

And this means photons (which are bosons) never interact inside the Brain, but only outside it.

Never? Surely photons can penetrate the skull. Ever seen an x-ray of a head?

 

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

Aside from the incorrectness I’ve pointed out, composite bosons exist. There’s hydrogen in the brain. H-1 is a boson.

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

This is why I told you "the Brain bridging the interaction between bosons and fermions".

Which is still pretty meaningless.

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

This sounds like you are saying the brain causes fermions to have half-integral spin.

 

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

Brains do not predate the existence of bosons and fermions.

 

[Lucas Bet]

41 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

Did the Universe exist before brains?

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!

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Nope. Nothing like that is required. And if you are asserting this, you must provide evidence or a way to test the idea.

(...)

I’m dubious that a photon contains information about mass and energy of anything except itself. Looking at a rock does not tell you its mass. (there’s a movie where Henry “Indiana” Jones Jr. depicts this rather well)

(...)

Never? Surely photons can penetrate the skull. Ever seen an x-ray of a head?

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.

Quote

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.

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!

Edited April 4 by Lucas Bet

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

 

But what is an inertial frame of observation in relativity?

This is the mystery we are investigating.

There is no mystery inertial frames were used as early as the 16th century under Galilean relativity.

An inertial frame is simply put an observer at constant velocity.

A non inertial frame is an accelerating observer.

Might I recommend before making declarations with regards to physics you might consider a little research. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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).

No, this is simply not true. The only thing regarding mass and energy carried in the photon is the photon’s own energy. This is independent of the mass of the piece of metal. The photon can have pretty much any energy; you don’t mention the source of the photon, i.e. whether it’s reflected, comes from a transition, or is from thermal emission. But none of those mechanisms is dependent on the mass of the chunk of metal.

E=mc^2 would refer to the mass or energy of the metal. This is unrelated to the photons being emitted.

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

 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). 

I don’t see how the HUP comes into play here; a chunk of metal is a macroscopic object and the uncertainties in position or momentum are wuite small, as is Planck’s constant.

1 hour ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

Nonsense. You can’t have more mass than energy, since E=mc^2 tells you the minimum energy content you can have. For an object at rest, they are equal. If it has more energy than that, it’s translational kinetic energy, which is not thermal energy.

A hot object has more energy than an otherwise identical cool object, but it has more mass, too.

 

Do you have the evidence or test that I asked for?

[Lucas Bet]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

There is no mystery inertial frames were used as early as the 16th century under Galilean relativity.

An inertial frame is simply put an observer at constant velocity.

A non inertial frame is an accelerating observer.

Might I recommend before making declarations with regards to physics you might consider a little research. 

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:

Quote

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.

 

Thanks!

[Mordred]

You claimed a mystery involving inertia frames. There is no mystery involved the only mystery is to those that have never studied kinematics.

[Lucas Bet]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No, this is simply not true. The only thing regarding mass and energy carried in the photon is the photon’s own energy. This is independent of the mass of the piece of metal. The photon can have pretty much any energy; you don’t mention the source of the photon, i.e. whether it’s reflected, comes from a transition, or is from thermal emission. But none of those mechanisms is dependent on the mass of the chunk of metal.

(...)

Nonsense. You can’t have more mass than energy, since E=mc^2 tells you the minimum energy content you can have. For an object at rest, they are equal. If it has more energy than that, it’s translational kinetic energy, which is not thermal energy.

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!

Quote

Do you have the evidence or test that I asked for?

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!

Edited April 4 by Lucas Bet

[Mordred]

Mass and energy are not equivalent. If they were equivalent m=E. Not \(E^2=(pc)^2+(m_o c^2)^2\).

 

[Lucas Bet]

5 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Mass and energy are not equivalent. If they were equivalent m=E. Not E2=(pc)2+(moc2)2 .

 

Quote

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!

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!

[swansont]

21 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

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!

No.

“Belong to the same spectrum” is a pretty meaningless phrase, and it doesn’t say anything about the information a photon carries.

21 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

If you can’t make predictions, you don’t have a theory. You have a story. A full theoretical framework would havevequations that allowed you to quantify behavior.

21 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

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!

So you have no evidence and no way of testing your conjecture, which means this falls short of our requirements for the speculations section. That’s what you owe. What you have offered is too hand-wavy, lacking scientific rigor. 

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

We should respect each other: even if I am not correct, the long conversation means we are debating proper knowledge,

Not sure what you mean by "proper knowledge", but it's not disrespectful to correct someone's mistakes. It's what scientists do. You can't build anything good if the foundation isn't right.

19 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

and I am the one providing the full theoretical framework already, and a book full of explanations.

You talk as if your book is correct, but we've seen that you're mistaken about quite a few things. 

21 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

And if we are talking experiments, this means the theory is robust enough to question our current standards in physics.

No. Experiment is one of the backbones of proper methodology. You experiment and test your hypothesis to see if it holds up, long before anybody starts to call it a theory.

23 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

Or am I wrong?

 

Mistakes have been pointed out.

24 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

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.

Dr Swanson is trying to help. I think your work needs more work before it's shared with anyone, much less swansont's old work buddies. 

[swansont]

The bottom line is provide evidence, or a way to test your idea, or the thread will be closed. You are, of course, free to ask questions to improve your understanding of the physics involved.

[Mordred]

In those regards I even suggested a test methodology previously. One that mathematics could be applied towards. 

[Lucas Bet]

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

The bottom line is provide evidence, or a way to test your idea, or the thread will be closed. You are, of course, free to ask questions to improve your understanding of the physics involved.

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

Edited April 5 by Lucas Bet
grammar.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Lucas Bet said:

I am fully aware this is a philosophical approach to physics, but requiring evidence? We are in the "Speculations" forum!

You should check the rules of the speculations section.

The first one is

1. Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

[Eise]

14 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

Because I am talking about a conception in which the Brain is a quantum Turing machine bridging the interaction between bosons and fermions

Eh? I thought QED describes perfectly how bosons and fermions interact? And there is no empirical evidence that the brains 'special capacities', namely to create a mind, are mandated by quantum processes. 

14 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

Occam's razor — the principle dictating nature always follows the shortest and simplest ways

That is not Occam's razor. Occam's razor is about explanations, not about nature. 'Explanations' are the ways humans understand nature. It is a heuristic principle for choosing possibly best theories: if you have several theories that explain the same phenomenon, then the theory that presupposes the least of number of ontological entities is probably the correct one. Do not forget this 'probable': Occam's razor is far away from 'dictating' anything, not even a rigid principle for choosing 'the correct theory'.

14 hours ago, Lucas Bet said:

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."

Nice, but it does not mean that sciences are therefore wrong. It only means what it says: that many scientists are not aware of the philosophical presuppositions of their science. I cite it, because of the disdain many scientists have for philosophy: it is not meant as an invitation to propose new, wild, freewheeling, metaphysical speculations.

[Lucas Bet]

14 hours ago, Eise said:

Eh? I thought QED describes perfectly how bosons and fermions interact? And there is no empirical evidence that the brains 'special capacities', namely to create a mind, are mandated by quantum processes.

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.

Quote

That is not Occam's razor. Occam's razor is about explanations, not about nature. 'Explanations' are the ways humans understand nature. It is a heuristic principle for choosing possibly best theories: if you have several theories that explain the same phenomenon, then the theory that presupposes the least of number of ontological entities is probably the correct one. Do not forget this 'probable': Occam's razor is far away from 'dictating' anything, not even a rigid principle for choosing 'the correct theory'.

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.

Quote

Nice, but it does not mean that sciences are therefore wrong. It only means what it says: that many scientists are not aware of the philosophical presuppositions of their science. I cite it, because of the disdain many scientists have for philosophy: it is not meant as an invitation to propose new, wild, freewheeling, metaphysical speculations.

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.

Edited April 5 by Lucas Bet