Where is consciousness in physics?

[Zayl]

I got an article published about 3 weeks ago where I believe to have answered this question. I am looking for feedback on it however. Both positive and sceptical ones are appreciated.

The article is given in the following link: http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInfor ... erID=64011

Here is the peer review response:

This is an attractive and well-written research paper. The purpose of this study is to explore how entities confining other entities may serve as fundamental building blocks of physics and consciousness. The theme is interesting and well accordant with the scope of this journal. The paper is informative and of considerable interest. The significance of this model is clearly described and opens up new avenues of research. This manuscript is suitable for publication in the OJPP. Suggestions: 1. When illustrating the “consciousness and structure of confinements”, the author used the example of “the thought of hunger” which could be omitted from this part since the illustration and the examples are clear and explicitly enough. 2. The information about the references did not meet the standard format. Please add the publication year of those references.

It takes a while to get to the point in my article, since the beginning is much about explaining my methods to maximize the reasonability of hypothesis. Even so the model itself is derived straight from existence. I posted about my ideas in this thread where people seemed to agree about that the model is based on existence itself, and how it is generalized into quantum mechanics is reasonable. http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 6&start=45

Below is a derivation of the model from consciosuness itself as entities confining other entities:

I would like to show that a basic property of consciousness is confinement and containment. In this case the word containment refers to that confinements can confine other confinements. Our consciousness is that which is conscious of our mental experiences. Try to notice that some thoughts seem to be distinguishable from others, while we perceive that some are more related. This is really a general property of our thoughts within our consciousness. For example if you imagine a house built of bricks, aren’t the bricks somehow more related to each other, than they are to another perception of for example a river? Notice that the property of confinement has this same property. It relates to what it confines and is not related to what it doesn’t confine.

Let us consider a group of three marbles. Notice that you now associate the word “group” with the three marbles. If I would ask anybody why, they would most likely say that it is because it is a property of the brain to make us associate them together, and that is true. However what also happens to be true is that the relation between the word “group” and the three marbles occurs entirely within the realm of our conscious experiences as well. The word “group” is an existing thought, and the perceptions of marbles are existing thoughts as well. This means that the relation between the word “group” and the three marbles truly exists as well. Since the word “group” relates to all the three marbles in the same way, we can refer to it as the property of confinement.

Imagine two marbles. We can refer to one of them as “marble 1” and the other as “marble 2”. The marble referred to as marble 1 has a scent of chocolate, while marble 2 does not. Let us further refer to the collection of both of the marbles as the word “group”. In this example we can observe the property of containment, which is confinement of confinements. Within our conscious experience, the word “group” relates to both marble 1 and marble 2 resulting in a confinement of the two marbles. Another confinement within this confinement is how marble 1 is confined together with the perception of the scent of chocolate and that marble 2 is excluded from this confinement. Something confines marble 1 and marble 2. Something else confines only marble 1 and the scent of chocolate.

So in our conscious experience we can observe the existence of confinement of confinements. Quantum mechanics is said to be fundamental. Perhaps those properties of quantum mechanics which can make us label it as fundamental may be superpositions and entanglement. These concepts do relate to the measurement problem as well. Besides from that quantum mechanics is only waves more fundamentally described by classical mechanics. Thus I conclude that entanglement and superpositions are those concepts relating quantum mechanics to something fundamental. Also entities confining entities are assumed to be fundamental. They can quite nicely be modeled as the same concept due to the following quote:

Since fundamental concepts must be generalized in order to possibly explain any less fundamental concepts, confinement in terms of entities confining entities can beautifully be generalized into quantum mechanics. One example of a fundamental concept being generalized is how molecules or atoms must be generalized to be the explanation of any object which we see.

Superpositions and entanglement are today believed to be two different things. The former is when one particle shares two states simultaneously, and the latter is when two or more particles share the same state simultaneously. However I hope you can easily see how a model based on entities confining entities model both of these concepts in one single model. Then a superposition is something which confines quantum states and entanglement is something which confines particles. Simply entities confining other entities. Unlike wave properties entanglement and superpositions are the only properties which can explain why quantum mechanics is fundamental in nature. Then consciousness arises in the brain as an entity confining those entities which are entanglements and superpositions.

Perhaps then our consciousness may exist in the brain as something confining a lot of superpositions in a non local way?

In the article I show that it is possible to model the laws of physics in remarkably simple and mathematically consistent ways in terms of entities confining other entities. It seems that the laws of physics follow from the definition of the model itself. Also it is shown how the model can model a solution to the measurement problem which is also shown to be quite comparable to how we must make choices based on our conscious experiences.

[YIOSTHEOY]

Maybe you could add an executive summary for all this ??

I don't want to church through the entire paper.

In one short paragraph maybe present the essence, with an intro and without much facts or analysis. Just the essence please !?

Right now I am thinking that physics is the sum total off all the mathematics that we/scientists have inferred about the physical world.

And consciousness is the attribute of the mind that observes things and infers or deduces conclusions and makes statements about these things.

So physics and consciousness seem to be like apples and oranges -- completely different things although both products of the human mind -- one being a-priori and the other a-posteriori.

[Zayl]

Thank you for your interest.

If you want to get the essence, you would only need to read through chapters 1.X and maybe the last chapter about the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Chapters 2.x is more about modeling the laws of physics in terms of the simple model based on entities confining other entities.

The first step to understand my model is that it is based on that consciousness is fundamental. It seems that the more basic we describe reality, it is simpler and simpler. This is why there seems to be a simple concept accounting for the entire reality. Such a concept could be entities confining other entities is the model derived from consciousness in this article. This model beautifully models both consciousness and physics. The property of beauty is what murray gell mann refers to as simple. So in a simple way it follows from the definition of this model that it predicts physics to mathematical detail, solves the measurement problem in quantum mechanics and the hard problem of consciousness.

The property of confinement is simply that we can consciously experience associations. For example we label a tv with the word "tv". These are two different subjective experiences yet the picture sense perception of a tv and the auditory word tv is somehow connected yet distinguishable. In chapter 2.3 it is shown how the entire range of our conscious experience is subject to confinement. The object tv may have other sub associations, such as buttons on the tv and the auditory word button, so this is why our consciousness clearly has the property confinement of other confinements.

Since this is a general property of consciousness, it follows from the most fundamental definitions of logic that we can assume that fundamentally what is outside our consciousness follow the same patterns; confinement of other confinement. In this article I have investigated whether this is possible, and the result is what I believe is the very most simple model of physics that exists today which unifies relativity and quantum mechanics. It is also consistent with or can possibly accommodate anything predicted by general relativity as well.

I have written a new article about this which I am currently trying to publish. It is much shorter. I was told it may take a couple or three months to review it, but after that I can post the shorter version which is much easier to read through and understand. So if you have some patience I can soon provide a much better version as well

If you have further questions please ask.

-- Updated May 31st, 2016, 9:35 am to add the following --

Seems I can't edit my post, but in my previous post when I wrote chapters 1.x I meant chapters 2.x, and where I wrote chapters 2.x I meant chapters 3.x.

So chapters 2.X is about introducing and deriving the properties of the model from properties of consciousnness. I would say that this is the essence of the article. Chapters 3.x is more about modeling the laws of physics in terms of this model.

[YIOSTHEOY]

I am surprise that your article does not require with it a nice short and sweet executive summary.

Most periodicals require this.

You must not have written one yet for it.

I am sure they will come back to you for it still.

I'll wait.

[Rr6]

[quote="ZaylPerhaps then our consciousness may exist in the brain as something confining a lot of superpositions in a non local way?
[/quote]

Confining/containment = enclosure

Confiining/contatinment = finite

Finite = integrity

Infinite = no integrity.

Macro-infinite, non-occupied space embraces finite occupied space Uni-Verse, it does not contain/restrain or confined occupied space.

r6

[Blake 789]

Perhaps then our consciousness may exist in the brain

I think that's all we really need to know for now.

[Sy Borg]

I do like the general idea of consciousness as a confining dynamic.

[Rr6]

The minimal 2D enclosure of Universe, is, the 2D triangle.
...1 triangle + 1 triangle = 4 triangles via synergetic geometry--see link
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f0801.html

The minimal 3D enclosure of Universe, is, the 3D tetra{4}hedron.
...3 angles of triangle + 3 angles of triangle via synergetic geometry = 12 surface angles of tetrahedron ergo 720 degrees.....

Will come back to this above later below.

Both triangle and tetrahedron are structurally integral, stablized patterns.

2^2 = 4 and the tetrahedron has 4 vertexes/nodes and 4 faces/hedra/planes.

Consider the tri-rectangular tetrahedron, as produced from the truncation { slicing off a corner } of a cube/hexa{6}hedron.--see link

http://www.technologyuk.net/mathematics ... dron.shtml

This tetrahedron has the same 3 right-angles of a cube ergo XYZ cartesian coordinates, but the volume is capped off by the triangular plane.

XY and Z are each a dimension, and each has 2 terminal points { beginning and ending }.

We can think of each of the dimensions { XY and Z } as inherently having a time involvement as a cosmic two-ness of beginning and ending terminality. Time is a finite period set of beginning and ending.

This tri-rectangular tetrahedron is finite quantum volume i.e. it is an enclosure and the minimal 3D enclosure of Universe.

If take the terminal endings as a statically cosmic 2-ness to the 2nd powering we get 4. 2^2 = 4 i.e. I[m saying that, with powering{ ^2 } were giving a time a dynamic in combination to the more static cosmic 2-ness.

That may be considered as the integral wholeness ergo 4 vertexes of a finite volume/quanta, that has 12 surface angles.

This above is a most simplistic way to envision time as integral whole having specific shape and volume. The link as follows goes off on a tangent to this above using tri-rectangular tetrahedron to find masses of electrons and neutrinos.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/susy- ... s-for.html

r6

[Atreyu]

"Consciousness" is missing in physics because it lies outside of its domain. The study of consciousness is part of the study of psychology, and physics is simply not psychology.

So it properly should be "missing". Why would you think otherwise?

[Zayl]

I am surprise that your article does not require with it a nice short and sweet executive summary.

Most periodicals require this.

You must not have written one yet for it.

I am sure they will come back to you for it still.

I'll wait.

I'll try again to write the essence in a short way. Please ask if you got any further questions about it. If it really is a simple law or pattern describing everything in the universe, it should exist. It is because anything which doesnt exist cannot explain something which does exist (consciousness and physics does exist). So since confinement exist and it is a general property in all of our conscious experiences, it seems like it is the only existing candidate which can possibly be this mentioned and existing fundamental building block. If we attempt to explain physics in terms of this general property in consciousness it successfully does so in the most simple and logical way and from the logic of the model follows a simple solution to the measurement problem and the hard problem of consciousness.

[quote="ZaylPerhaps then our consciousness may exist in the brain as something confining a lot of superpositions in a non local way?

Confining/containment = enclosure

Confiining/contatinment = finite

Finite = integrity

Infinite = no integrity.

Macro-infinite, non-occupied space embraces finite occupied space Uni-Verse, it does not contain/restrain or confined occupied space.

r6[/quote]

Well sure non occupied space in itself does not confine the other parts of space. But there can be other entities not defined as space which confine space, such as superpositions, entanglement, quantum non locality.

Also how can you explain that space is connected and has positions if the property of confinement did not exist?

The minimal 2D enclosure of Universe, is, the 2D triangle.
...1 triangle + 1 triangle = 4 triangles via synergetic geometry--see link
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergeti ... f0801.html

The minimal 3D enclosure of Universe, is, the 3D tetra{4}hedron.
...3 angles of triangle + 3 angles of triangle via synergetic geometry = 12 surface angles of tetrahedron ergo 720 degrees.....

Will come back to this above later below.

Both triangle and tetrahedron are structurally integral, stablized patterns.

2^2 = 4 and the tetrahedron has 4 vertexes/nodes and 4 faces/hedra/planes.

Consider the tri-rectangular tetrahedron, as produced from the truncation { slicing off a corner } of a cube/hexa{6}hedron.--see link

http://www.technologyuk.net/mathematics ... dron.shtml

This tetrahedron has the same 3 right-angles of a cube ergo XYZ cartesian coordinates, but the volume is capped off by the triangular plane.

XY and Z are each a dimension, and each has 2 terminal points { beginning and ending }.

We can think of each of the dimensions { XY and Z } as inherently having a time involvement as a cosmic two-ness of beginning and ending terminality. Time is a finite period set of beginning and ending.

This tri-rectangular tetrahedron is finite quantum volume i.e. it is an enclosure and the minimal 3D enclosure of Universe.

If take the terminal endings as a statically cosmic 2-ness to the 2nd powering we get 4. 2^2 = 4 i.e. I[m saying that, with powering{ ^2 } were giving a time a dynamic in combination to the more static cosmic 2-ness.

That may be considered as the integral wholeness ergo 4 vertexes of a finite volume/quanta, that has 12 surface angles.

This above is a most simplistic way to envision time as integral whole having specific shape and volume. The link as follows goes off on a tangent to this above using tri-rectangular tetrahedron to find masses of electrons and neutrinos.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/susy- ... s-for.html

r6

I don't see the motivation to describe space as a minimum volume. If the goal in logic is to identify simplicity, finding these small volumes seems to only call for complexity. Most primitive ontologies seem to call for something fundamental occupying space, but the real missing piece in the puzzle is to among other things to figure out what makes up the properties of space within any volume.

In chapter 3.4 and 3.5 I have explained these properties of space such that it is based on randomness in the structure. This randomness implies the real simplicity. If we define space such that entities connect to each other in random ways, it accommodates vector addition, relativity and mass. By using the same mechanics as choices are made in our consciousness (confinement and consciousness is the same right?) a model of charge follows as well accommodating newtonian mechanics.

"Consciousness" is missing in physics because it lies outside of its domain. The study of consciousness is part of the study of psychology, and physics is simply not psychology.

So it properly should be "missing". Why would you think otherwise?

Because what you are talking about is labels. Physics is a label and so is psychology. We can describe almost everything in terms of physics, but why not psychology? Well perhaps we can describe a lot of it still. We can understand almost all the conscious experiences can be understood as caused by patterns in the brain. This calls for the hard problem of consciousness. Also we have the fact that we cannot understand the very conscious experience itself cannot be explained by physics. Why is that?

If we define the concept of fundamental as follows: For example, what is more fundamental a bottle or the molecules constituting it? It is the molecules because molecules explain bottles but bottles do not explain molecules.

We can say the same about consciousness and physics. Which is more fundamental? It is consciousness because my article shows that consciousness can explain physics while physics cannot explain consciousness.

[Rr6]

Zayl---Well sure non occupied space in itself does not confine the other parts of space. But there can be other entities not defined as space which confine space, such as superpositions, entanglement, quantum non locality.

These are not entities as you suggest. That is like saying running of flying does not occupy space. These are processes/adjectives or principles/concepts associated with occupied space { fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy }. Occupied space is what, runs, flys, entangles, interferes, impinges on other occupied space entities.

Also how can you explain that space is connected and has positions if the property of confinement did not exist?

Confinement { enclosure } is not a property it is characteristic of an occupied space that has properties of spin, mass, color, smell etc....

All of the distinct/discrete, occupied space is connected { line/vector of reltionship } mininmally by ultra-micro gravity, if not also dark energy. Gravity being a property if space-time { whatever space-time is }.

At more medio-macro scales of exsitence, it is obvious there exist connections/lines-relationship ergo cause and effect ex virus or bacteria cause death, basball player connect is muscle to ball via bat { line of relatinship }, we are connected via photons and electrons otherwise there would exist no communication via the internet of links { lines-of-relationship }.

I don't see the motivation to describe space as a minimum volume.

Occupied space has shape. Occupied space has a volume. Occupied space has properties and characteristics. Why would we not want to identify the shape of occupied space or any of its properites and characteristics?

People have shape and are very much considerate of shape. Ive not described space, as you suggest, Ive described the minimal pattern that encloses spaces ergo confines a volume of space, contains a volume of space.

If the goal in logic is to identify simplicity, finding these small volumes seems to only call for complexity.

You confused in understanding the differrence definitions of between small and minimum. Minimum does not necessarily mean small. We can say that the minimum amount of we sell is 5 tons. 5 tons of gravel is not small relative to a VW Beetle or a dog, or a bacteria etc.....5 tons of gravels is smale relative to Earth, Sun Universe, yet it is the minimum in that set of circumstances.

Most primitive ontologies seem to call for something fundamental occupying space, but the real missing piece in the puzzle is to among other things to figure out what makes up the properties of space within any volume.

The mininimal occupied space phenomena of Universe is gravity { if not also dark energy }. The property of gravity is that is contractive/INward. Mass-attraction is characteristic of gravity.

In chapter 3.4 and 3.5 I have explained these properties of space such that it is based on randomness in the structure.

Hesignbergs uncertainty and quantum entanglement have underlying set of order because of ultra-micro gravity. Dark energy may also need to be consider here also. imho

This randomness implies the real simplicity.

Just because we do not see the order, does not mean it is truly random. Some people look and electrical service panel and see a random mess of wires, whereas and electrician sees more of the orders that exists.

To best of my knowledge the only true randomness is prime numbers--- that also have quasi-order that I discovered back in 90's ---and sent to a few science like magazines. Also Roger Penrose's non-periodic 5-fold tiling appears to have randomness.

If we define space such that entities connect to each other in random ways, it accommodates vector addition, relativity and mass.

Random is irrelevant.

By using the same mechanics as choices are made in our consciousness (confinement and consciousness is the same right?) a model of charge follows as well accommodating newtonian mechanics.

A 2D triangle is the minimal 2D confinement/containment enclosure.

A 3D tetra{4}hedron is the mininmal 3D confinement/containment enclosure.

A tetra{4}hedron that turns itself inside-out passess through a 2D phase/configuration of a subdivided 2D triangle with three triangles inside of it.

Consciousness, at minimum, is has four aspects;

1) observer,

2) observed,

3) line/vector of relationship ex photon, graviton, baseball, string between two paper cups { kids phone },

4) background against which all three of the above are differrentiated from.

Randomeness is irrelevant. There exists only order, except for the mathematical examples I gave and others I cannot recall or others that I'm not aware of.

Here is the alebraic formula { discovered 200 years ago } for quasi-1D and 2D, geometric patterning of prime numbers I discovered back in 90's;

Any number { n } times { * } 6, plus or minus one { 1 }

n*6 + or - 1 is where all prime numbers, except 2 and 3 will be located. The 6 is specific to a 2D hexagonal pattern composed of 6 radii.

Here is as follows is the initial quasi-linear sine-wave like pattern I discovered regarding the placement of prime numbers, that, I more recently inside-outed to pattern gravity in concert with dark energy;

0............6...............12
..1........5..7..........11.
.....2...4......8....10....
.......3...........9...

r6

[Zayl]

These are not entities as you suggest. That is like saying running of flying does not occupy space. These are processes/adjectives or principles/concepts associated with occupied space { fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy }. Occupied space is what, runs, flys, entangles, interferes, impinges on other occupied space entities.

In my article I have shown how it is possible that space can be understood as entities. It is common knowledge that there should be one simple law explaining everything in the universe. It seems like you want to exclude the properties of space from this fact, but there is no logical reason to do so. You mention that space plays a role in how it relates to other physical concepts. That does not mean that its properties cannot be modeled in more informative ways.

Confinement { enclosure } is not a property it is characteristic of an occupied space that has properties of spin, mass, color, smell etc....

All of the distinct/discrete, occupied space is connected { line/vector of reltionship } mininmally by ultra-micro gravity, if not also dark energy. Gravity being a property if space-time { whatever space-time is }.

At more medio-macro scales of exsitence, it is obvious there exist connections/lines-relationship ergo cause and effect ex virus or bacteria cause death, basball player connect is muscle to ball via bat { line of relatinship }, we are connected via photons and electrons otherwise there would exist no communication via the internet of links { lines-of-relationship }.

Yes superpositions do seem to confine quantum states, which again ultimately confine space. And unlike your medio-macro scale examples of how cause and effect is interpreted, quantum mechanical concepts such as superpositions and entanglement seems to be fundamental. That two particles are entangled or that two quantum states are confined by a superposition seems to be easily modeled by confinement. Then qantum states confines confinements which is space. It follows from the most simple definition of logic that space has property of confinement too when that is how it fundamentally relates to other fundamental concepts. If you read the suggested chapters you will see how the model of space is most likely more reasonable than anything you will find elsewhere today.

Occupied space has shape. Occupied space has a volume. Occupied space has properties and characteristics. Why would we not want to identify the shape of occupied space or any of its properites and characteristics?

People have shape and are very much considerate of shape. Ive not described space, as you suggest, Ive described the minimal pattern that encloses spaces ergo confines a volume of space, contains a volume of space.

You haven't shown yet any beneficial purpose of defining the minimum volume of space. Does it help us predict anything new?

However identifying the fundamental properties of space which gives rise of these properties that you mentioned is surely constructive. This is what I have done in terms of entities confining other entities.

The mininimal occupied space phenomena of Universe is gravity { if not also dark energy }. The property of gravity is that is contractive/INward. Mass-attraction is characteristic of gravity.

Now what defines this inwardness (in gravity) as opposed to non inwardness. What simply defines direction? It seems that more fundamental properties of space exist than your model of gravity predicts.

Hesignbergs uncertainty and quantum entanglement have underlying set of order because of ultra-micro gravity. Dark energy may also need to be consider here also. imho

If they are mathematical models, they cannot solve the measurement problem as being within the confinement of the wavefunction. To solve the measurement problem one needs to understand that whatever determines the quantum measurement transcends whatever information is within a single wavefunction. This is implied by that entanglement beyond the wavefunction plays a role. I have shown how a solution to the measurement problem follows from the model of entities confining other entities.

Just because we do not see the order, does not mean it is truly random. Some people look and electrical service panel and see a random mess of wires, whereas and electrician sees more of the orders that exists.

To best of my knowledge the only true randomness is prime numbers--- that also have quasi-order that I discovered back in 90's ---and sent to a few science like magazines. Also Roger Penrose's non-periodic 5-fold tiling appears to have randomness.

By random i didn't mean true randomness. Just that entities connect to other entities with no specific rules. If there are no rules, there is just one rule that there are no rules, and this implies simplicity. This causes space to be what i refer to as directionally symmetric. This is the characteristics of space necessary to accommodate vector addition. You would need to read chapter 3.4 to understand what I'm talking about here though.

Congratulations with your discovery though, it is impressive.

Random is irrelevant.

A 2D triangle is the minimal 2D confinement/containment enclosure.

A 3D tetra{4}hedron is the mininmal 3D confinement/containment enclosure.

A tetra{4}hedron that turns itself inside-out passess through a 2D phase/configuration of a subdivided 2D triangle with three triangles inside of it.

Consciousness, at minimum, is has four aspects;

1) observer,

2) observed,

3) line/vector of relationship ex photon, graviton, baseball, string between two paper cups { kids phone },

4) background against which all three of the above are differrentiated from.

Randomeness is irrelevant. There exists only order, except for the mathematical examples I gave and others I cannot recall or others that I'm not aware of.

Here is the alebraic formula { discovered 200 years ago } for quasi-1D and 2D, geometric patterning of prime numbers I discovered back in 90's;

Any number { n } times { * } 6, plus or minus one { 1 }

n*6 + or - 1 is where all prime numbers, except 2 and 3 will be located. The 6 is specific to a 2D hexagonal pattern composed of 6 radii.

Here is as follows is the initial quasi-linear sine-wave like pattern I discovered regarding the placement of prime numbers, that, I more recently inside-outed to pattern gravity in concert with dark energy;

0............6...............12
..1........5..7..........11.
.....2...4......8....10....
.......3...........9...

r6

Well it is common perception today to see some kind of dualism in consciousness between the observer and the observed. However by identifying that entities confining other entities must be a general property in all our conscious experiences and that consciosuness (the observer) in some way confines that which it observes I have unified it all into one simpler understanding. This simple model models everything else in the universe in a simple way as well.

[Mgrinder]

I'll try again to write the essence in a short way. Please ask if you got any further questions about it. If it really is a simple law or pattern describing everything in the universe, it should exist. It is because anything which doesnt exist cannot explain something which does exist (consciousness and physics does exist). So since confinement exist and it is a general property in all of our conscious experiences, it seems like it is the only existing candidate which can possibly be this mentioned and existing fundamental building block. If we attempt to explain physics in terms of this general property in consciousness it successfully does so in the most simple and logical way and from the logic of the model follows a simple solution to the measurement problem and the hard problem of consciousness.

I can't understand this. What is consciousness? What is it's role in nature, what does it do in nature? What is it in comparison to other things, like mass or time or space? If you can answer these questions, then you have an answer to the hard problem of consciousness. Otherwise you don't.

I do not see an answer to these questions, only some vagarities about confining things.

[Rr6]

R6--Your given entities are not entities. These are processes/adjectives or principles/concepts associated with occupied space { fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy }. Occupied space is what, runs, flys, entangles, interferes, impinges on other occupied space entities.

Zayle---
In my article I have shown how it is possible that space can be understood as entities.

Your still confused and not yet shown ability to differrentiate non-occupied space from occupied space. This the top of the cosmic heirarchy.

It is common knowledge that there should be one simple law explaining everything in the universe.

If there exists a single simple cosmic law, it would involve Fullers term, syntropy ie anti-entropy.

It seems like you want to exclude the properties of space from this fact, but there is no logical reason to do so. You mention that space plays a role in how it relates to other physical concepts. That does not mean that its properties cannot be modeled in more informative ways.

So far I'm the only one, not you, who has mentioned the property of space via space-time and that property is conventionally accepted as gravity. I've also included dark energy into that property category and Ive shown specifics geometric explanations of how they function with our observed reality as observed time ergo sine-wave-like frequencies as physical/energy, that occupies space and has shape.

You've not really offered much of anything of significance/relevance, that I can see, beyond the word confinement and containment being associated with consciousness. Ive given so much more in all those aspects and more.

Yes superposition's do seem to confine quantum states, which again ultimately confine space.

No they do not. Superpositions are cosmic principles { metaphysical-1 } that complement occupied space processes of quantum entities ( finite shape }. A woven wire fence contains/confines pigs/hogs. Milk carton contains/confines milk. Etc...so and so on.

And unlike your medio-macro scale examples of how cause and effect is interpreted, quantum mechanical concepts such as superpositions and entanglement seems to be fundamental.

The exist as metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/conceptual principles that complement occupied space and its processes. Principles niether contain nor confine nor do they in any way govern occupied space. They are metaphysical-1 concepts that complement, nothing more.

Occupied space has shape. Occupied space has a volume. Occupied space has properties and characteristics. Why would we not want to identify the shape of occupied space or any of its properites and characteristics?

You haven't shown yet any beneficial purpose of defining the minimum volume of space. Does it help us predict anything new?

Shape is has an effect. Areodynamics is based on shape. Lee Smolin thought we would quantify gravity geometrically by 2015. Did not happen yet. Gravity contains/confines Universe of occupied space as a single, integral whole.

However identifying the fundamental properties of space which gives rise of these properties that you mentioned is surely constructive. This is what I have done in terms of entities confining other entities.

Ive repeated for you a few times now, that, conventionaly accepted property of space-time is gravity and it has a corresponding shape, both static and dynamic. imo. All occupied space has shape. The first atomic clock was tetrahedral in shape of relationships between four atoms.

The mininimal occupied space phenomena of Universe is gravity { if not also dark energy }. The property of gravity is that is contractive/INward. Mass-attraction is characteristic of gravity.

Now what defines this inwardness (in gravity) as opposed to non inwardness. What simply defines direction? It seems that more fundamental properties of space exist than your model of gravity predicts.

We don't know why mass-attracts. Wed do know, that if it didn't occupied space would not exist.
Think of gravity as rubber band that may expand outward, yet sooner or later, will contract back INward.

Brain only sends one signal to muscles, to contract. Contraction leads to pushing-OUT forces ex contractions lead to fetus being expelled from womb. Pulling-INward is the path of least resistance.

Hesignbergs uncertainty and quantum entanglement have underlying set of order because of ultra-micro gravity. Dark energy may also need to be consider here also. imho

If they are mathematical models, they cannot solve the measurement problem as being within the confinement of the wavefunction. To solve the measurement problem one needs to understand that whatever determines the quantum measurement transcends whatever information is within a single wavefunction. This is implied by that entanglement beyond the wavefunction plays a role. I have shown how a solution to the measurement problem follows from the model of entities confining other entities.

Mathematics complement all occupied space and its processes, ergo shape also complements all occupied space and its processes.

The minimal confinement/containment shape is the 2D triangle and the 3D tetra{4}hedron. These are fundamental shapes of occupied space.

You don't really seem to grasp yet, that space in of itself is non-occupied ergo has not properties and mostly irrelevant to occupied space Universe.

By random i didn't mean true randomness. Just that entities connect to other entities with no specific rules. If there are no rules, there is just one rule that there are no rules, and this implies simplicity. This causes space to be what i refer to as directionally symmetric. This is the characteristics of space necessary to accommodate vector addition. You would need to read chapter 3.4 to understand what I'm talking about here though.

All occupied space phenomena have complementary shape, maths and associated cosmic laws/principles

Congratulations with your discovery though, it is impressive.

It is very similar to Arthur Youngs Reflexive Universe. What I believe is more impressive, is when I inside-outed it, I developed a toroidal vector that is defined by;

1)outer, positive shaped, surface gravity arcs-- property of space-time

2) inside sine-wave-like frequency pattern-- ergo body of torus ---

3) inner, negative shaped, surface dark energy arcs--- I speculate as a 2nd property of space-time ---

..1........5..7.......11...13...........17...19..........23.....25...............


0............6............12.................18..................24...........
......3............9................15..................21.................


....2...4........8.10..........14...16............20...22............................

The top line has all prime numbers-- except 2 and 3 ---as well as other numbers. I stated previously that random is irrelevant. I would revise that to say, at least to all outward appearences, is irrelevant. imho

A tetra{4}hedron that turns itself inside-out passess through a 2D phase/configuration of a subdivided 2D triangle with three triangles inside of it.
Consciousness, at minimum, is has four aspects;
1) observer,
2) observed,
3) line/vector of relationship ex photon, graviton, baseball, string between two paper cups { kids phone },
4) background against which all three of the above are differentiated from.
Randomness is irrelevant. There exists only order, except for the mathematical examples I gave and others I cannot recall or others that I'm not aware of.

Well it is common perception today to see some kind of dualism in consciousness between the observer and the observed. However by identifying that entities confining other entities must be a general property in all our conscious experiences and that consciousness (the observer) in some way confines that which it observes I have unified it all into one simpler understanding. This simple model models everything else in the universe in a simple way as well.

Ive not seen you layout here a ..."unified it all into one simpler understanding.".... of anything. I see the words containment/confinement, to which I offer conceptually minimal 2D and 3D shapes of occupied space, and how gravity is the fundamental property of space-time ergo fundamental property, characteristic, aspect, attribute etc of our finite, occupied space Universe.

Dark energy appears to come in close 2nd.

r6

[Sy Borg]

I've heard said that space is ultimately data compression on a massive scale: http://nautil.us/issue/32/space/lets-rethink-space

For all the world’s cities, or all its towns, or all its geographical features of any type, the raw distance data would consume a hard drive even though the positions of those features can be concisely expressed on a single map. “That’s what space is,” Barbour says. “It’s data compression on a massive scale.”

The reason the compression is so powerful is locality. Locality means that the whole is the sum of its spatial parts, and in this context, that means every journey is a series of smaller steps. You can build up long distances from shorter intermediate ones, so you don’t need to specify each and every pair of directions. For instance, the chart might tell you it’s 900 miles from Dallas to Denver and 500 miles from Denver to Salt Lake City, so you don’t need to be told it’s at most 1,400 miles from Dallas to Salt Lake.

Suppose this weren’t the case—suppose the data in the chart weren’t so highly ordered. If I fill in a chart with 400 random numbers and ask you to mark their locations on a map, you’ll almost certainly fail. For instance, the chart might tell you it’s 900 miles from Dallas to Denver, 500 miles from Denver to Salt Lake City, and 8,000 miles from Dallas to Salt Lake. Now, that doesn’t make much sense, does it? These data put Salt Lake City in two different places, depending on whether you drive straight from Dallas or stop off in Denver. The situation is like an April Fool’s joke in which your friend mixes together pieces from different jigsaw puzzles and gives them to you to assemble. You’ll struggle to fit the pieces together until it dawns on you that your supposed friend is a cruel prankster.

Under such circumstances, position becomes meaningless. Space becomes meaningless. It’s not a useful way to describe the relations among places anymore. But that doesn’t mean the relative arrangement of cities is incomprehensible. Even if you can’t place the cities on a map, you can fall back on the full mileage chart. In other words, you can use what philosophers call the “unmediated” distances, the ones that directly link pairs of cities and can’t be reduced to a series of shorter hops. This isn’t an entirely hypothetical situation. When I first drove in Boston, I had to learn to distrust my spatial awareness, because it kept getting me lost. In that maze of one-way streets and amoeba-shaped “squares,” you routinely have to go west to go east, or get in the left lane to turn right. It does you no good to know where places are located from a bird’s-eye view; instead, you need to robotically follow directions for where and how to turn. To a driver, Boston is a nonspatial city.