Where is consciousness in physics?

[Rr6]

Zayl

Like I have said before, it is obvious that how particles/energy orients in space is non-complex enough to be identified as mathematical shapes/patterns.

Your still confused Zayel and not have addressed my comments as stated and certainly have not offerred any rational logical common sense to invalidate them.

Your above is meaningless to me utill you can begin connecting it something specific I said. You have not done that.

Perhaps you are trying to say that you have identified some of these patterns by studying the random occurrence of prime numbers or some numerical sequences?

Ive been very clear. When you want to address a specific comment by me then please do so.

If so I would say that it is interesting. However it is nothing groundbreaking nor does it determine something more fundamental unless you can point out what the fundamental properties are.

If my scenarios, based on numerical patterns and torus as gravity, dark energy and observed time/reality/sine-wave/frequency ^v \/\/\ are true, then they are ground breaking to those who recognize them as truths.

I think your qualitative interpretations are baseless. Let us look at your claims point for point.

PLease share when you have any rational, logical common sense that invalidates them or adds to them. You do not because you have not.

1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept,
-----------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------

1. Saying that metaphysical/intellect is seperate from physics is baseless.

If you believe that, then you really have no idea of the differrence betwween metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and physcial/energy of occupied space, gravity of occupied space and dark energy of occupied space. I'm sorry Zyale but your really clueless if you think metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

You believe false ideas all you want but it is irrrational, illogical and lacks any common sense. Many in this forum believe many false ideas.

Pointing out that it is not refutable is pointless because nothing can be proven. Logic however indicates that physics and "metaphysics" is the same.

Ive told you before and telly you again, since your recall abilities are lacking in this area, I offer no proofs.

2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space exists beyond the following,

2. Where did infinite come from? How do you know that space is infinite? Again this assumption is baseless.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space does not come from anywhere. Your still confused about simple basics of Universe and what lies beyond. I will repeat this again, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists eternally outside of,-- ergo beyond --our finite, occupied space Universe. This is simple stuff Zayle. I think most 16 years can grasp these simple truths.

We only see a finite occupied space Universe ergo based on that info, we can infer that what is outside of our finite, occupied space Universe is macro-infinite non-occupied space. This is simple stuff that you just want to avoid accepting as rational, logical common sense. Why you do that can be many reaons. Most often, my experience has been ego based mental blockage to rational, logical common sense conclusions that I believe are true.

3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse

Are you trying to point out that occupied space is just one single unity by saying highlighting the word "Uni"? In physics different particles are understood as occupying just small portions of space between each other.

Yes, Uni is also blue as is gravity many times that IVe posted over last 20 years. Gravity cohere's Universe as a unified whole. If you don't understand then you don't understand gravity.

You obviously understand little to nothing what exists in space between particles and between Earth and moon so on so on. many years when the did American Masters on R Feynman he made clear that space is filled with stuff. You must be very young.

"G"od = "U"niverse is most all inclusive ergo most comprehensive and wholistic set. None have rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity. What are they afraid of?

God = Universe aka Uni-Verse. None have ever rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity.

Are you trying to say that God is just the physical universe and its processes, or do you put anything more than that into what you label as "God"?

There are two statments above. First you need to have understand that fact. Then maybe you can see your question is foggy as your not clear to what specifcally I stated. Reread and address only one statement at a time because you dont seem to be able to differrentiatt two differrent concepts or hierarchies etc...

Nobody can prove that the Bible is wrong either even if it is clearly a book of fairytales. So even if you cannot disprove the Bible doesn't mean you should believe that for example Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth. So coming with the "you cannot disprove" argument is completely irrelevant.

Bible is irrelevant to my comments. I think your very confused.

I would conclude the following:

PLease share when you can actually address specific statements by me, with rational, logical common sense that adds to or invalidates those specific concepts Ive presented, You have not even come close to doing that.

r6

[Atreyu]

It's really not that complex.

The study of consciousness is within the domain of psychology. Psychology studies consciousness, and physics studies the 'objects' perceived/cognized by that consciousness. Physics by definition does not study consciousness directly.

Although, of course, it would be immensely beneficial if they understood some of its general principles before developing their theories...

[Zayl]

Zayl

Like I have said before, it is obvious that how particles/energy orients in space is non-complex enough to be identified as mathematical shapes/patterns.

Your still confused Zayel and not have addressed my comments as stated and certainly have not offerred any rational logical common sense to invalidate them.

Your above is meaningless to me utill you can begin connecting it something specific I said. You have not done that.

Perhaps you are trying to say that you have identified some of these patterns by studying the random occurrence of prime numbers or some numerical sequences?

Ive been very clear. When you want to address a specific comment by me then please do so.

If so I would say that it is interesting. However it is nothing groundbreaking nor does it determine something more fundamental unless you can point out what the fundamental properties are.

If my scenarios, based on numerical patterns and torus as gravity, dark energy and observed time/reality/sine-wave/frequency ^v \/\/\ are true, then they are ground breaking to those who recognize them as truths.

I think your qualitative interpretations are baseless. Let us look at your claims point for point.

PLease share when you have any rational, logical common sense that invalidates them or adds to them. You do not because you have not.

1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept,
-----------------line-of-demarcation-------------------------

1. Saying that metaphysical/intellect is seperate from physics is baseless.

If you believe that, then you really have no idea of the differrence betwween metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts and physcial/energy of occupied space, gravity of occupied space and dark energy of occupied space. I'm sorry Zyale but your really clueless if you think metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

You believe false ideas all you want but it is irrrational, illogical and lacks any common sense. Many in this forum believe many false ideas.

Pointing out that it is not refutable is pointless because nothing can be proven. Logic however indicates that physics and "metaphysics" is the same.

Ive told you before and telly you again, since your recall abilities are lacking in this area, I offer no proofs.

2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space exists beyond the following,

2. Where did infinite come from? How do you know that space is infinite? Again this assumption is baseless.

Macro-infinite non-occupied space does not come from anywhere. Your still confused about simple basics of Universe and what lies beyond. I will repeat this again, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists eternally outside of,-- ergo beyond --our finite, occupied space Universe. This is simple stuff Zayle. I think most 16 years can grasp these simple truths.

We only see a finite occupied space Universe ergo based on that info, we can infer that what is outside of our finite, occupied space Universe is macro-infinite non-occupied space. This is simple stuff that you just want to avoid accepting as rational, logical common sense. Why you do that can be many reaons. Most often, my experience has been ego based mental blockage to rational, logical common sense conclusions that I believe are true.

3} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-Verse

Are you trying to point out that occupied space is just one single unity by saying highlighting the word "Uni"? In physics different particles are understood as occupying just small portions of space between each other.

Yes, Uni is also blue as is gravity many times that IVe posted over last 20 years. Gravity cohere's Universe as a unified whole. If you don't understand then you don't understand gravity.

You obviously understand little to nothing what exists in space between particles and between Earth and moon so on so on. many years when the did American Masters on R Feynman he made clear that space is filled with stuff. You must be very young.

"G"od = "U"niverse is most all inclusive ergo most comprehensive and wholistic set. None have rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity. What are they afraid of?

God = Universe aka Uni-Verse. None have ever rationally invalidated these concepts as defined, nor have any ever acknowledged their validity.

Are you trying to say that God is just the physical universe and its processes, or do you put anything more than that into what you label as "God"?

There are two statments above. First you need to have understand that fact. Then maybe you can see your question is foggy as your not clear to what specifcally I stated. Reread and address only one statement at a time because you dont seem to be able to differrentiatt two differrent concepts or hierarchies etc...

Nobody can prove that the Bible is wrong either even if it is clearly a book of fairytales. So even if you cannot disprove the Bible doesn't mean you should believe that for example Adam and Eve were the first people on Earth. So coming with the "you cannot disprove" argument is completely irrelevant.

Bible is irrelevant to my comments. I think your very confused.

I would conclude the following:

PLease share when you can actually address specific statements by me, with rational, logical common sense that adds to or invalidates those specific concepts Ive presented, You have not even come close to doing that.

r6

You made 3 points, and I just gave some examples of how you make baseless assumptions. All you could do is call me confused and just say that your baseless assumptions are still right.

I am pretty sure that everyone can agree to that gravity is something more complex than a single unity.

Have you published any of your ideas in a journal?

-- Updated June 10th, 2016, 1:28 pm to add the following --

It's really not that complex.

The study of consciousness is within the domain of psychology. Psychology studies consciousness, and physics studies the 'objects' perceived/cognized by that consciousness. Physics by definition does not study consciousness directly.

Although, of course, it would be immensely beneficial if they understood some of its general principles before developing their theories...

I don't know if you are talking to me or exactly what you are trying to achieve by pointing out this obvious fact.

Maybe you are trying to say that this means that it is impossible to model consciousness and physics as the same concept? In that case you are wrong.

Entities confining entities is not physics as physics is defined. This is why it can possibly model both physics and consciousness at the same time.

[Atreyu]

[

It's really not that complex.

The study of consciousness is within the domain of psychology. Psychology studies consciousness, and physics studies the 'objects' perceived/cognized by that consciousness. Physics by definition does not study consciousness directly.

Although, of course, it would be immensely beneficial if they understood some of its general principles before developing their theories...

I don't know if you are talking to me or exactly what you are trying to achieve by pointing out this obvious fact.

Maybe you are trying to say that this means that it is impossible to model consciousness and physics as the same concept? In that case you are wrong.

Entities confining entities is not physics as physics is defined. This is why it can possibly model both physics and consciousness at the same time.

Not physics as it is ordinarily defined. As you said, what you are proposing is a philosophical idea, not a theory of physics. Physics, as we know and define it, cannot be modeled on such a principle as you have elucidated, because it's not physic-al in nature at all, i.e. it's not a proposition pertaining to physics proper.

[Rr6]

Zayl--You made 3 points, and I just gave some examples of how you make baseless assumptions. All you could do is call me confused and just say that your baseless assumptions are still right.

Ive made many more than just three points.

I am pretty sure that everyone can agree to that gravity is something more complex than a single unity.

Your confused Zayle, Ive not stated what you infer regarding gravity as a single entity. Gravity is a single name. If your question is whether there exist hyrid particles, well and atom is a hybrid as it is composed of various parts.

Elementary particles are not believe to be composed of parts. Ex electron, quark.

Have you published any of your ideas in a journal?

As I told your early on I sent my numerical wave pattern to 3 magazines. You don't seem to understand what is required to get published. Lots of ideas get published and does not make them true, rational, logical or common sense. Ian Stewart sent me a letter from OXford University. I told you that story already.

r6

[Zayl]

[
(Nested quote removed.)


I don't know if you are talking to me or exactly what you are trying to achieve by pointing out this obvious fact.

Maybe you are trying to say that this means that it is impossible to model consciousness and physics as the same concept? In that case you are wrong.

Entities confining entities is not physics as physics is defined. This is why it can possibly model both physics and consciousness at the same time.

Not physics as it is ordinarily defined. As you said, what you are proposing is a philosophical idea, not a theory of physics. Physics, as we know and define it, cannot be modeled on such a principle as you have elucidated, because it's not physic-al in nature at all, i.e. it's not a proposition pertaining to physics proper.

This is like saying that particles cannot explain what a chair is, because particles aren't part of the definition "chair" before we could model it as such.

-- Updated June 11th, 2016, 3:26 am to add the following --

Zayl--You made 3 points, and I just gave some examples of how you make baseless assumptions. All you could do is call me confused and just say that your baseless assumptions are still right.

Ive made many more than just three points.

I am pretty sure that everyone can agree to that gravity is something more complex than a single unity.

Your confused Zayle, Ive not stated what you infer regarding gravity as a single entity. Gravity is a single name. If your question is whether there exist hyrid particles, well and atom is a hybrid as it is composed of various parts.

Elementary particles are not believe to be composed of parts. Ex electron, quark.

Have you published any of your ideas in a journal?

As I told your early on I sent my numerical wave pattern to 3 magazines. You don't seem to understand what is required to get published. Lots of ideas get published and does not make them true, rational, logical or common sense. Ian Stewart sent me a letter from OXford University. I told you that story already.

r6

If I choose to disprove 3 points there's no rule or logic implying that I have to read through every single little detailed you've posted in this thread or forum for my arguments to be valid. I just found some wrong points and explained to you why they weren't logical. Why should I care to analyze your posts when you haven't even downloaded my article and read the chapters i referred you to?

[Rr6]

Ive yet to see any rational, logical common sense statements by you, that invalidate anything Ive state. Please share whey you do.

I've seen your confinement and containment words and addressed them specifically with elaborate detail.
r6

[Zayl]

Ive yet to see any rational, logical common sense statements by you, that invalidate anything Ive state. Please share whey you do.

I've seen your confinement and containment words and addressed them specifically with elaborate detail.
r6

I don't see how your posts relate to my model based on entities confining other entities. It seems like you have seen only the words confinement and containment and interpreted it into something which is quite different from the model of confinement of confinements.

Invalidating and evaluating logical foundations are two different things. I have done the latter.

[Atreyu]

[quote="Atreyu]Not physics as it is ordinarily defined. As you said, what you are proposing is a philosophical idea, not a theory of physics. Physics, as we know and define it, cannot be modeled on such a principle as you have elucidated, because it's not physic-al in nature at all, i.e. it's not a proposition pertaining to physics proper.

This is like saying that particles cannot explain what a chair is, because particles aren't part of the definition "chair" before we could model it as such. [/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote][/quote]

But particles cannot explain what a chair is. Particles is merely a cognitive construct we use to explain certain properties of the chair. In no way does the particle-view (physics explanation) tell us what the chair is, in the true sense of the word is. Saying this thing (chair) is composed of a bunch of stuff (particles) in no way reveals the true nature of the chair, but it does express what the chair 'is' in terms which can be used within physics.

The same applies to consciousness. Your description of 'confinement' is indeed interesting to me, but it isn't physics, and this is obvious. It's psychology/philosophy, which indeed should guide physics, but nevertheless is clearly outside of its boundaries....

[Zayl]

[quote="Atreyu]Not physics as it is ordinarily defined. As you said, what you are proposing is a philosophical idea, not a theory of physics. Physics, as we know and define it, cannot be modeled on such a principle as you have elucidated, because it's not physic-al in nature at all, i.e. it's not a proposition pertaining to physics proper.

This is like saying that particles cannot explain what a chair is, because particles aren't part of the definition "chair" before we could model it as such.

[/quote]
[/quote]
[/quote]

But particles cannot explain what a chair is. Particles is merely a cognitive construct we use to explain certain properties of the chair. In no way does the particle-view (physics explanation) tell us what the chair is, in the true sense of the word is. Saying this thing (chair) is composed of a bunch of stuff (particles) in no way reveals the true nature of the chair, but it does express what the chair 'is' in terms which can be used within physics.

The same applies to consciousness. Your description of 'confinement' is indeed interesting to me, but it isn't physics, and this is obvious. It's psychology/philosophy, which indeed should guide physics, but nevertheless is clearly outside of its boundaries....[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Physics is just laws or processes. Then entities confining other entities is that existing property of nature which are or gives rise to these laws and processes. The definition of an entity is that it exists. So in my article I have presented the ontological structure which gives rise to the laws of physics in a simple way. They really are the existential basis of the laws of physics and consciousness as well. It is the fundamental property in consciousness which explains physics objectively (not subjectively).

What we interpret as consciousness and physics are clerly connected and related (e.g. by physical processes in the brain). So why can they not be the same?

[Mark1955]

What we interpret as consciousness and physics are clearly connected and related (e.g. by physical processes in the brain). So why can they not be the same?

Would you explain the connection in more detail please, I don't see an obvious connection

[Zayl]

What we interpret as consciousness and physics are clearly connected and related (e.g. by physical processes in the brain). So why can they not be the same?

Would you explain the connection in more detail please, I don't see an obvious connection

I would say that since physical processes in the brain determine our conscious experiences that it implies that physics and consciousness is connected.

[Mark1955]

I would say that since physical processes in the brain determine our conscious experiences that it implies that physics and consciousness is connected.

Why do you think this is the case?

[Zayl]

(Nested quote removed.)

Why do you think this is the case?

Because it is impossible that physical processes can determine conscious experiences if there exist no relation.

In other words, saying that physics determines or causes conscious experiences but have no relation to each other is a contradiction.

[Togo1]

(Nested quote removed.)

Why do you think this is the case?

Because it is impossible that physical processes can determine conscious experiences if there exist no relation.

In other words, saying that physics determines or causes conscious experiences but have no relation to each other is a contradiction.

I think what he's asking is what the basis is for believing that physics causes or determines conscious experiences. It may seem like common sense, but is there a reason to think this is the case?