Mind and Spacetime

[Klaynos]

your equation can only ever be true if a*a=a which is NOT very common at all, infact is only true for 0, 1 and -1, so we can infact say quite alot about the value of a, now there are no i's in the first bit which means we can say that -b = -b*i*i, so -b = b so here we have to conclude that b must be = 0. There we go, I've cut you down to 3 values of and 1 value of b.

[Graviphoton]

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

[ydoaPs]

NO! You're still wrong. FFS, I told you how to do it.

[Graviphoton]

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]

[ydoaPs]

i(a + √b)(a − √b) = ai² − bi² = a - b(-1)=a + b = x

NO!

i(a+√b)(a-√b)=i((a+√b)(a-√b))=i(a²-b)=a²i-bi

 

NOT a+b!

[Graviphoton]

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)

[ydoaPs]

You've shown consistently that you have no idea how to multiply binomials and you did some weird math magic with the i. Are you sure YOU should be making the algebra GUT?

[Graviphoton]

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?

[ydoaPs]

Of course you know how to do binomials? You've yet to get one right!

[Graviphoton]

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

[ydoaPs]

Then why are you doing them wrong every time?

[Graviphoton]

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.

[bascule]

Quantum physics job, is to provide answers to every system that requires an answer. One of these systems which many physicist has put sweat, blood and tears into, is to resolve the paradox of the mind.

 

Understanding the mind is the job of cognitive scientists and neuroscientists, not physicists. The mind is a metaphysical construct and thus outside the realm of physics, which deals with physical systems.

[Graviphoton]

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?

[bascule]

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?

 

I can only guess they feel frustrated by the lack of progress in the field by neuroscience and cognitive science.

 

However, while these physicists, particularly Penrose, have published many excellent papers on physics, you won't find them publishing in cognitive science or neuroscience journals, simply because their papers wouldn't get accepted.

 

Please... this is why it is called psychophysics.

 

Psychophysics is a subdiscipline of cognitive science and bears no relation to physics. In Kant's semantics, it studies the relationships between phenomena and noumena.

 

None of the individuals study psychophysics. If you'd like to read some truly excellent writing on the subject, I suggest Dennett's Consciousness Explained.

 

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.

 

You're describing epiphenominalism, which is more or less equivalent with functionalism. Functionalism proposes that as consciousness is emergent yet distinct from the underlying system, and as such it can be realized in multiple ways and thus is not bound to any one particular configuration of a physical system.

 

Your argumentation, however, proposes the opposite: mind is inexorably tied to particular physical phenomena. This really seems to be the problem: you pay lip service to epiphenomenalism, then go right back to arguments which describe mind as a physical system.

[Graviphoton]

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.

[Bignose]

(5 + i√16)(5 − i√16) = 5 − 16i² = 5 + 16 = 21

 

You claim to know how to do polynomials, yet you keep getting this wrong.

 

Look. Distribute the first multiplication:

 

(5 + i√16)(5 − i√16) = 5*(5 − i√16) + i√16*(5 − i√16)

 

now, distribute each of the remaining multiplications:

 

5*(5 − i√16) = 5*5 - 5*i√16

 

and

 

i√16*(5 − i√16) = i√16*5 - i√16*i√16

 

So

 

5*(5 − i√16) + i√16*(5 − i√16) = 5*5 - 5*i√16 + i√16*5 - i√16*i√16

 

 

And lo and bold, look what happens! 5*5 = 25 !!!!

 

You can't avoid it!!!!

 

This is basic multiplication!!!!!

 

The final answer is 25+16 = 41!!! it is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT 21!!!!

 

You obviously do NOT know how to multiply these things if you keep making this mistake over and over and over.

 

Please go learn the basic rules of math and come back, because until you can learn how to multiply these things, none of your other analysis can mean anything. Every equation you "derive" is suspect. I'm sorry, I usually don't get quite so bent out of shape like this, but it's been like talking with a brick wall... you just simply refuse to see the errors you make over and over and over. These errors aren't difficult to see and I don't know how much clearer to make it!

 

Sit down and learn these things properly before you post more wrong things, please.

[bascule]

Look. The mind is a quantum subject. Why do you think so much of physics as been spent on the subject?

 

It hasn't. Physicists study physical systems, not the mind.

 

If you'd like to argue that physicists are performing scientific investigations into the nature of the mind, perhaps you can find a paper on the matter in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

 

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?

 

I'd argue it's an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.

 

Look. Everything contained in spacetime, follows certan rules.

 

Consciousness isn't contained in spacetime. It's an epiphenomenon of physical systems and exists at a layer of abstraction above them.

 

Consciousness, even thought it doesn't seem to directly exist in space or time, does exist nontheless, through the appearance of quantum behaviour.

 

That's a total and complete non-sequitur. You've just claimed that consciousness does not exist in spacetime and therefore is beyond the scope of quantum theory, then go on to claim that it exists "through the appearance of quantum behavior".

 

Is consciousness a physical system or not? If your answer to that question is no, then consciousness cannot be studied by physics, and that's all there is to it.

[Graviphoton]

No, i understand.

[Bignose]

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

 

 

 

This one isn't right, either. Somehow, somewhere in there you got the first term squared correctly, but now you aren't squaring the second!

 

Somehow you actually do end up with the final right answer, but the line on the right side of the equation there is dead wrong. I don't know how you can even get that. (It may be a typo and if it is, just acknowledge it as such.)

[Graviphoton]

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

[bascule]

Consciousness is a system which arises from physical combinations; if these combinations can be calculated, then consciousness is a quantum phenomena.

 

If consciousness is emergent from physical phenomena, then it is not a physical phenomena itself, and therefore is most certainly not a quantum phenomena.

 

Ever heard of the theory ''quantum mind''?

 

I've read two of Penrose's books: The Emperor's New Mind and Shadows of the Mind. I'd certainly consider myself well versed in the subject.

 

Any attempts to put the quantum mind hypothesis on scientific footing have been fraught with failure. The only serious one I've seen has been the Penrose/Hameoff proposal, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be incorrect, particularly by Max Tegmark's refutation involving quantum decoherence time.

 

This is enough to link quantum mechanics with mind.

 

Can you detail for us exactly what type of nonclassical behavior you propose the brain exhibits? This is the start of how you would begin to link quantum physics with mind.

 

Penrose proposed that the brain evolved quantum mechanical behavior in the microtubles of neurons, however that proposal has been rejected by the scientific community.

[Graviphoton]

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.

[Bignose]

[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]

 

 

One more here, and then I'm giving up.

 

How can that last line be?

 

[math]a^{2}=b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math]

 

Where do you get this last [math]i^{2}[/math] ??

 

and if each of these are equal to each other, then the 1st and 3rd are equal:

[math]a^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math]

 

Now, subtract [math]a^{2}[/math] from each side:

 

[math]0=0+b^{2}i^{2}[/math]

 

which means that [math]b=0[/math]

 

Or, if the second and third equations are equal to each other:

 

[math]b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math]

 

Now, [math]i^{2}=-1[/math], so [math]b^{2}=a^{2}-b^{2}[/math]

 

Now, move that [math]-b^{2}[/math] to the left hand side:

 

[math]2b^{2}=a^{2}[/math]

 

But, since you start with [math]b=a[/math],

 

[math]2a^{2}=a^{2}[/math] so the only way [math]2a^{2}=a^{2}[/math] is true is if [math]a=0[/math].

 

The only way [math]a^{2}=b^{2}=a^{2}+b^{2}i^{2}[/math] is true is when both [math]a[/math] and [math]b[/math] are zero.

 

You can't just play games with the rules of mathematics. There are rules that have to be followed. Otherwise, you end up with nonsense results like a=b=0 as the only possible solution/conclusion.

 

Like I said, I'd seriously suggest you sit down with a good math book and work these things out. Maybe with a tutor. I know the title sounds bad, but books like Algebra for Dummies are actually probably pretty good. I've been very pleased with the half a dozen other .. For Dummies books I've seen, so if the Algebra one is worthy of being published with the rest of the line, I'm willing to bet it is pretty good.

 

But, I cannot stress enough, that when you make simple mistakes like this, every single conclusion you make based on your derivations is completely suspect and hence meaningless. If you want your work to mean something, you have to quit making these simple mistakes.

 

RE: "

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." I'm not sure what this means -- if you are using equations, aren't you adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing things? That's all we've really done here so far...

 

The mistakes you are making are just like filling out your tax return and saying "I paid 100 dollars in the first half of the year, 200 dollars in the second half... so that means I paid 400 dollars total. I am supposed to pay 350 in taxes this year, so 400-350 means I get a 50 dollar refund."

 

The math is wrong, and the government isn't going to just accept it. You will get a letter telling you your math is wrong, and that you aren't getting 50 dollars back, that you owe the government 50 (and probably some penalties to boot!).

 

The government checks you math and doesn't accept your final conclusions, and it is the same way with your "derivations". Making these simple mistakes means that any conclusions you draw at the end are completely suspect.

 

Correct these mistakes, and then maybe there can be a discussion about this. But, with all these mistakes, I go right back to the phrase I used above: word salad.

[Graviphoton]

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?