IMU Theory

[-I-]

This is also about quantum mechanics.

 

Severian

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics, such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think differently from everyone else.

 

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.

 

This is my new theory, it is certainly different from anything else in the box.

 

What is the old theory here? The commonly accepted theory from science is consciousness is simply the neurons firing in our brains. Well I don’t disagree with the old theory, I just think there’s more to the story. The old theory would say that an organism’s consciousness comes into being at birth, again I don’t disagree I just think there’s more to the story.

 

IMU Theory

Individual Mutual Unification Theory

By R.A.Russell

When our original ancestor replicated and split in two, it would have, (considering the presence of life), now been present in both the original and the replicated. The one presence of life that existed in the original is now separated and existing in two membranes.

(Think of the moment before separation of a bacterium, just before the two life bubbles close off, almost two bodies but with a single life presence, then two bodies but with that one life presence?)

The replicated (being born) would start anew and be unaware that it has the same life presence and be free to go off as an individual. The separated individuals can branch of to become many new incredible transformations over billions of years, and some we know, became human.

We as humans still have a presence of life, the question is, is that presence now what we experience as consciousness. Was the original organism's presence of life the precursor of consciousness, that which was separated into those membranes.

Is presence and consciousness? One in the same?

If you ask me how I class myself as being here, what makes me feel present, and feel alive, I would have to say consciousness.

 

I think it may be possible to realize our other consciousness's but only if it was that way naturally.

 

 

I am not going to pretend I know about quantum mechanics but I have learnt a tiny bit, and would simply like to show how this knowledge fits with my theory.

 

If I am my own consciousness and I am all consciousness’s then this is like, the particle is an individual and the wave is the commonality.

 

The organism is made up of inanimate chemicals so I would have to assume that an Inorganic Potential Presence of Life exists also is in those chemicals. If the IPPL is in those chemicals I would also assume that they are in all matter, hence the particle – wave conundrum. Hence why consciousness is part of the quantum equation.

 

There would have been trillions of very simple non-reproductive organisms floating around in the primordial soup for millions of years, still the process of reproduction in an organism, was due even back then, to natural selection, it is without doubt the most important event ever to happen to us as far as humanity is concerned. If IPPL is in all matter then all matter would also have to of had a common beginning.

 

Time means nothing to the inorganic, so the universe could have been expanding and contracting forever from an infinitely small point, or speaking organically, living and dying from a singularity.

 

I look forward to any comments.

[BenTheMan]

What is the old theory here? The commonly accepted theory from science is consciousness is simply the neurons firing in our brains. Well I don’t disagree with the old theory, I just think there’s more to the story. The old theory would say that an organism’s consciousness comes into being at birth, again I don’t disagree I just think there’s more to the story.

 

I wasn't aware that there was a theory of consciousness, or that it was considered science.

[-I-]

Well the scientific viewpoint (which I believe to be correct but incomplete) is consciousness is neurons firing in the brain. Didn't I say that? Science cannot say this for sure (religious and various other viewpoints) so it is a theory, right?

 

IMU Theory is the answer to quantum wierdness.

Life is a system, consciousness exists in the same quantum state.

Quantum entanglement is a term used to describe how two particles interact.

 

Once two particles interact, they become a system. It is as if a long string is attached between them that can never break. They exist as one although they are two. It's as if they now sit on the same teeter-totter seesaw. No matter how long the seesaw is, even if it is one million miles long, you push one end down and the other end goes up instantly. This is not due to one particle sending a message to the other particle saying, "I'm going down, therefore, you must go up" and waiting for the particle to receive the message, but the particles are always connected and do not have to send signals to each other, they always react to each other at the same time because they are part of the same system called "the same quantum state".

 

Retrieved from "http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement"

[foodchain]

I have a idea, somewhat an unstudied hypothesis about life also, you can fine a very brief explanation of such in the speculations section, being in comparison to known science its all I felt barely comfortable with in placement. I would advise I had a person come in the thread and basically attack me more then the idea, but its a decent read. There are more ideas or topics relating to your idea somewhat on this board also, such as the cell in one variable, Hydrogen.

 

Basically, looking at planets, its more or less a process that can reach an end from the material it has over time, or more on energy, but to generate and keep a geometry of energy alive, you have to be able to keep that energy variable satisfied in a very basic sense, and well such as with the eyes of a living thing, and interactions of light and or quanta with matter happen to be a quantum effect, so you do have grounds already existing in which to study.

[swansont]

Quantum entanglement is a term used to describe how two particles interact.

 

Once two particles interact, they become a system. It is as if a long string is attached between them that can never break. They exist as one although they are two. It's as if they now sit on the same teeter-totter seesaw. No matter how long the seesaw is, even if it is one million miles long, you push one end down and the other end goes up instantly. This is not due to one particle sending a message to the other particle saying, "I'm going down, therefore, you must go up" and waiting for the particle to receive the message, but the particles are always connected and do not have to send signals to each other, they always react to each other at the same time because they are part of the same system called "the same quantum state".

 

Retrieved from "http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement"

 

Well, that's wrong. Quantum entanglement is more like looking at the teeter-totter and knowing that if one end is down, that the other end must be up. Once you interact with a particle and find out, though, then entanglement is broken.

 

An analogy that I think is better, is that two people (Alice and Bob) split a dollar's worth of change. Even if they separate, I can tell how much change Bob has by seeing how much Alice has - if she has $0.45, then I instantly know that Bob has $0.55. But if I Alice gives away some change, it does not instantly appear in Bob's pocket or anything like that. Interacting with Alice (giving or taking money) breaks the entanglement. (The analogy is limited, because is a true quantum state, neither one would have a determined amount of change until it was measured.)

[-I-]

IMU THEORY EXPLAINED

Wikipedia,

Property dualism asserts that when matter is organized in the appropriate way (i.e. in the way that living human bodies are organized), mental properties emerge.

 

-I-

Consciousness is obviously very important to us but I believe it just emerged because of natural selection. There is no other reason or meaning that needs to be attached.

……………………………………………………………………………………………

Wikipedia,

Neutral monism, in philosophy, is the metaphysical view that existence consists of one kind (hence monism) of primal substance, which in itself is neither mental nor physical, but is capable of mental and physical aspects or attributes.

 

-I-

I have assumed that everything is made of just energy, and that that energy creates all matter, eventually creating you & me both physically and mentally. Energy may take many different forms but it seems to me there is only one type of energy. E=MC2 energy =equals= mass xtimesx the speed of light squared2.

Energy is mass in motion?

Wikipedia,

Energy comes in many different forms, such as kinetic, potential, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, and mass energy. Energy may be transformed from one form to another, but it is never created or destroyed.

-I-?????????????????help

Am I reading this wrong when I decipher , energy can be converted into mass and motion, that everything is this one fundamental energy and it, at one time, created or converted into all the matter that is in the universe today?

What I am asking is energy and matter just different forms of the same thing?

……………………………………………………………………………………………..

-I-

So if I could assume that the above is true, or may at least be possible, so as to continue, then I will hazard continuied hypothising.

 

IF- If there is just one fundamental type of energy, then I believe that when life appeared that life itself (as in organisms) was now living energy. Life (living energy) now being present in a reproductive organism also came from the same energy as did all organisms whether reproducing or not. The difference being that reproduction evolved this life energy gradually until natural selection gave rise to consciousness.( i.e the living energy became consciousness )

 

SUMING IT UP

Reproduction in living organisms embodies the living energy allowing it to slowly evolve into consciousness by natural selection. The living energy is the same in all organisms. i.e your consciousness is the same in all organisms.

 

WHY I POSTED THIS IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

Wikipedia,

Consciousness causes collapse, also known as the 'spiritual interpretation', is the claim that observation by a conscious observer is responsible for the wavefunction collapse in quantum mechanics. It is an attempt to solve the Wigner's friend paradox by asserting that collapse occurs at the first "conscious" observer. Supporters assert this is not a revival of substance dualism, since (in a ramification of this view) consciousness and objects are entangled and cannot be considered separate. Opponents assert that it is unfalsifiable, and also does not simplify our physical understanding of the universe, and is therefore scientifically uninteresting.

It has been claimed that the theory meshes well with ancient Eastern mysticism and philosophy, including that of Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism which includes a belief in the transitory, interconnected nature of all things and the illusion of separation of thought and existence.

-I-

As I said in the beginning-

Consciousness is obviously very important to us but I believe it just emerged because of natural selection. There is no other reason or meaning that needs to be attached.

 

I don’t believe IMU Theory is at all a spirtual interpertation, it is not intentionaly aligned with any party.

 

The fundamental energy does not have consciousness except as the living energy in organism that are produced such as, you or I, or pehaps some alien race.

 

So I think this explains how conscious can be responsible for the wavefunction collapse without any sign of mysticism. Uks boster.

 

 

Foodchain

Is that the shape of a fish one?

Swanson

So there is a quantum state, but although limited, its best described in a mathamatical-statical sense?

[BenTheMan]

I think this thread has wandered a long way from science.

[-I-]

It's a guess as to what conscious is. yes I am only speculating to a wider audience.

[swansont]

I think this thread has wandered a long way from science.

 

Agreed. Moved to speculations.

[foodchain]

Foodchain Is that the shape of a fish one?

 

 

Yes. Basically I understand the reality that energy has a diversity of forms, but let me just provide a brief introduction to my idea:D Say you are juggling, in real life that is a few objects, well that well only occur so long as basically its being powered by something, other then that it ceases to be. I think this basically holds true for anything. The energy stays conserved, but it can take on various forms of course. Now life would have to be able to satisfy its energy requirement in any giving environment or instance, I would say currently, or course in speculation, that this would reflect on even the most smallest level, such as the chemistry of life even.

 

Now i made a mistake that was point out to me in equating this with natural selection, in that natural selection for the sake of comfort is nothing more then genes. Now this is all good and dandy but I guess I made the mistake by going on to what the genes happen to be about, which in essence is basically keeping genes as what they are, instructions or at that point to the currently surviving form of life as a symposium of energy and matter interactions in an environment of the same, akin to the idea that you don’t have hurricanes in Arizona yet, simply put the environment is "selecting" against such.

 

I think viewing life in this form, such as the movement of energy and any particular "geometry" it takes is fascinating. Such as in nature, say with the shape of planets and solar systems, if such is not the product of basically a equilibrium of sorts of physical phenomena working itself out. I would also suggest that these interactions are going for some base equilibrium almost as the phenomena seems to be rather regular, such as dropping a drip of water into a pool and getting back circles of a certain geometry over a certain period of time. Life still has to satisfy this or live in accordance with such, and as an example I used the fish, which seems streamlined for efficiency, to the idea of a bird and its wings basically being the same design along with fish that humans use in such environments, because physically it works.

 

So overall, in a reduced fashion but of course stretching the various forms of reality, such as DNA, I think finding out ways to gauge energy in living systems such as thermal energy regulation down to even bonding of chemicals in living systems could open up new ways to get quantitative with life overall, such as food selection, to chemical ecology, behavior, I really do think rich grounds stand there and plan to work this idea in real life. I think the best place to start would simply be microbes or bacteria really, to possibly someday, which I think would be good would be a working example with a type of insect of plant that has a short life cycle. I mean we all have to eat right, cant get to cold or to hot…

[bascule]

I wasn't aware that there was a theory of consciousness, or that it was considered science.

 

There is an entire science concerning the study of consciousness (cognitive science), which can be empirical by studying people's observation of different types of phenomena.

 

There's been a few attempts at comprehensive theories of consciousness. Perhaps the foremost in my mind is Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence, a bottom-up approach to the problem. There is also Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, a top-down approach to the problem.

 

Neither of these theories really provide any answers regarding the most complex aspect of the philosophy of mind: the so-called mind/body problem. While cognitive scientists can study how mind perceives they still have no real answer as to what it is and what separates the mind from the brain.

 

The prevailing opinion is that mind is a (system of) self-referential feedback loop(s)

[-I-]

Materialism

Mind IS the same as the brain, but is there a watcher? I can only believe that all cognitive thought comes from one and only one source, the neurons firing in the brain. But energy, the power of life, a material substance that is actually there, and not some spiritual idea, is what is firing those neurons.

 

Neurons are electrically excitable cells that communicate through synaptic transmission in the brain using pure unevolved electric energy to power this process. Materially, there is only electrical energy and the meat and grissle of the brain, that which has been built from genes from the past parent/parents organism/s.

 

origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have emerged from non-life sometime around 4.4 billion years ago, when liquid water first flowed on the Earth,

There are many models, theories and hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Origin_of_organic_molecules

Classically, chemical reactions encompass changes that strictly involve the motion of electrons in the forming and breaking of chemical bonds,

 

The cell is the structural and functional unit of all known living organisms, Neurons are cells that are adapted to carrying the electrical signals called action potentials that are the basic building blocks of information transmission in the brain.

However original life developed it did form into cells, a receptor process is that by which a cell converts one kind of signal or stimulus into another, reading the enivroment, sensing reality.

 

If you could imagine you were this living reproducing cell, and you had to evolve for maybe hundreds or even thousands of years before sensing any reality, it stands to reason that you are life’s watcher, because you had to be what was there, the energy and not just the evolved cell receptor sensing your reality. If I compare this receptor to a human brain, you are still the unevolved energy, the watcher, that senses reality with a very advanced receptor, your brain.

The energy itself is not conscious it is unevolved, pure, it is just electrical energy, but in a highly evolved human brain, it is you, the watcher of human cognitive thought, consciousness.

 

i.e.

You HAVE a conscious

and

You ARE a conscious

 

I think it stands to reason you HAVE a conscious, but you also ARE a conscious.

I have been very carefull not to say anything about us all being the same consciousness up to now, but if the watcher is just pure electrical energy isn’t there only one type, isn’t energy just a single thing?

One Watcher, that is energy, giving what I would call SELF to all consciousness.

 

You are energy in the quantum state. Self is in a quantum state, you are only your conscious (particle), but you are everybodies conscious (wave), you are every Self

Every new birth is the energy, has Self, is you.

IMU Theory

 

Electrons

SELF is the energy from electrons.

Wave particle duality mumbo gumbo, there is only the wave, you are not JUST you, you are everbody and everthing.

 

SELF does not have to only be consciousness, but consciousness has to only be SELF.

 

SELF can be a chemical reaction, SELF can be atoms, SELF can be everything, SELF can be consciousness.

 

There are untold amounts of electrons, hence the ability to be individual, but they all produce the same energy, hence no individuals.