There is an anecdotal story about David Hilbert
that he had been advising his younger colleagues to test their ideas before
writing a paper by going out in the street, stop the very first person they see,
and kindly explain to her/him the basic idea. If the person understands it, they
may proceed with writing a paper.
Well, si non e vero e bene trovato. Let me try to explain the main idea in PHI as if I am talking to a stranger on the street. If she/he is in a rush, I would simply say that PHI is based on a hypothetical universal time arrow which matches the subjective time arrow, and that I examine the whole universe as a huge brain evolving along the universal time arrow. We can change voluntarily not only our brain but also any other physical system, provided that it is entangled with our brain.
The metaphysical premise employed here is that things exist in a dual way, both local and global. One of the modes of existence (called local mode of spacetime) is that in which things have exact location in space and time, and are either true or false. This is the realm of facts. They have already happened, they stay in the past, and can form a denumerable set. The other mode of existence (called global mode of spacetime) pertains to the realm of Aristotelian potentialities, where things are 'neither true nor false' and hence UNspeakable. But do we need this? In order to have a chain of facts in the local mode of spacetime, there should be some gaps similar to the strips separating snapshots from a film tape, and "during" these gaps things exist in the global mode of spacetime. Hence we have the phenomenon of transience, and (Sic!) the content of the gaps in the global mode of spacetime is sort of elevated in the potential future of our subjective time arrow. We make choices, change our potential future, and hence choose what will be explicated in the local mode of spacetime. PHI deals with the physics of changing our potential future and subsequently the potential future of all physical systems entangled with our brains. Things may look separated and independent only in the local mode of spacetime. In the global mode, they aren't. They are bootstrapped by the Holon and are ONE.
I believe all this is well-known; let's move to the realm of facts (see Kevin Chen) where some big surprises may be patiently waiting to be revealed. Read about Ms. Suzanne Padfield and Ms. Chulin Sun (also in MS Word 2000 format, picdocn.doc), and the challenges encountered by Prof. John Hasted in explaining the physics of human intention: only matter can act on matter. Hence the task boils down to the physics of the brain. If, however, there is some immaterial, out-of-this-world ghost operating in our brain, which can change its "knowledge" instantaneously, being totally independent from the brain, then everything said here would be wrong.
See three short articles about how the brain handles time, brain_time.html. There is an incredibly fast and reliable correlation of all 60 trillion or more synapses in the human brain, which prevents traffic jams and other disasters in the neural pathways, but this amazing traffic controller is not located in any anatomical structure: there is no privileged coordinating center (or homunculus) in the brain. We really don't know the physics of this mechanism. It does save us from all brain catastrophes and works extremely fast. For example, to avoid traffic jams, the correlation of synapses should be in the range of microseconds, not milliseconds, as implied from the so-called kiss-and-run neurotransmitter release. This is just a tiny fraction from the mysteries of the human brain, not to mention its mind and consciousness.
As an effort to organize the whole bundle of tasks, a new framework for mind-brain relations, called trialism, has been suggested. Some of the psychological issues pertaining to this new framework were the subject of my talk on the psychological time arrow (in MS Word 97 format) on May 30, 2002.
Speaking about physics, the task is highly non-trivial, to say the least: quantizing the structure of spacetime means eliminating space and time and replacing them with something new from which they constantly emerge. The conjecture here is that the emergence of spacetime goes by some elementary step (resembling the cognitive cycle of Ulric Neisser), thus creating a universal time arrow which serves as the physical basis of the psychological time arrow in the human brain and living matter in general. The focus here is quantum gravity, and the stipulation is that the whole universe may be organized by a hypothetical universal time arrow in a way similar to the human brain, in line with Einstein's dictum "God casts the die, not the dice". Hence the catchword of PHI: Dead matter makes quantum jumps; the living-and-quantum matter is smarter.
To get started, read about the conceptual problems in quantum gravity from Steve Carlip, a recent review of the canonical quantization of general relativity by Jorge Pullin, a note by John Baez on background-free theories, and a down-to-earth paper by Carlos Barcelo and Matt Visser, "Twilight for the energy conditions?", examining the puzzle of energy (non)conservation in General Relativity. See also my email to Todd Brun, "Think globally, act locally", to Sean Carroll, and my White Paper.
Speaking about General Relativity, it is very important to remind ourselves that Einstein has never considered his theory complete. It is well-known that Einstein's theory requires a cosmology which does include a preferred frame and absolute space and time (see Rainer Kühne's "General Relativity Requires Absolute Space and Time", physics/0209107). It does not contain the conservation laws of energy-momentum and of angular momentum of matter, does not comply with the equivalence principle, does not explain the equality of the inertial and active gravitational masses, and, not surprisingly, gives no unique prediction for gravitational effects (cf. A. Logunov, gr-qc/0210005). The most striking paradox, however, is that the theory of relativity inevitably leads to the infamous 'block universe' in which there is no room for the phenomenon of transience. We are invited to believe that time does not exist, but if that were true, there is absolutely no way to explain the existence of 3-D space. It is simply impossible to recover the space around us from the timeless block universe while keeping the requirement of general covariance (Diff(M)-invariance) in General Relativity. The so-called block universe is a frozen "stuff" in which every point is individuated by its frozen physical content, contrary to the basic ideas in General Relativity launched by Einstein in November 1915.
What could be more paradoxical, if not pathological, feature of a theory of spacetime than the "explanation" that neither time nor space can possibly exist? That there really are lots of "nows" but "time is not an observable"? Or the famous quote from Hermann Weyl that the phenomenon of transience is due only "to the gaze of my consciousness"? Why sweeping the garbage under the carpet by resorting to psychology? We have brains made of matter and 3-D space accommodating objects with finite length and duration. This is the correct starting point, not some ghosts in the brain, which may acquire knowledge "instantaneously" and create the "illusion" of time in some "block universe". I believe the crux of the problem originates from the notion of 'point' adopted in differential geometry: it is not possible to define spacetime curvature "over" a dimensionless point, which is, I believe, a strong indication the the phenomenon of transience, or the elementary step of the putative universal time arrow, may be tacitly interwoven in the structure of spacetime.
To understand the whole bundle of problems which have marred Einstein's General Relativity since its inception, it is utterly important to read the recent book by Prof. Angelo Loinger "On Black Holes and Gravitational Waves" (La Goliardica Pavese, Pavia, 2002; ISBN 88-7830-371-2), which can be ordered directly from La Goliardica Pavese s.r.l., email firstname.lastname@example.org. You will find rigorous mathematical proofs of the non-existence of gravitational waves and black holes. This book is essential for the hypothesis of universal time arrow as well. The latter employs the metaphysical assumption of two modes of time, local and global, under the stipulation that the global mode of time is a real but atemporal medium in which the quantum waves and gravitational waves "propagate", hence being unobservable with any inanimate measuring device. In other words, the putative global mode of time refers to a holistic state of the whole universe, which is totally transparent to any inanimate detector at the scale of our macro-world of tables and chairs, much like the Dirac sea. What we can detect and explore with our brains is the main issue in PHI. There could be much more than bending spoons (Uri Geller) or amusing people on the street (David Blaine).
To clone this CD ROM, two shareware programs are included in DATA\Software: CloneCD and Nero Burning ROM. You can also find there the installation files of MS Internet Explorer 6 SP1, which may be needed for seamless offline navigation and proper display (screen tips are supported since IE 4). If you wish to test your media player, try Pink.wmv by Aerosmith or the introduction to my video clip PHI.mpg (intro_cd.wmv, 82 sec) located in DATA\MediaLibrary.
NB: Two important files, PHI.doc and PHI.mpg, are not included in this beta version of "Physics of Human Intention". I hope to complete the disk by December 22, 2003.
2. Quantum computing is impossible due to the insoluble conflict of error correction mechanism with special relativity theory. This is not an engineering issue but a strictly theoretical one. The problems of the so-called peaceful co-existence of Quantum Mechanics with Special Relativity are well-known even to the general audience.
There are two more predictions, BCCP and MAVER, which I mentioned here. If confirmed, I believe they should be classified as an advanced class of information technologies, natural healing included.
First and foremost, the new theory of spacetime has to be developed from phenomenological terms, as presented here, to a quantitative theory permitting concrete predictions. Then these predictions have to be verified under tightly controlled laboratory conditions. We do need to understand much better the nature of time and space.
1. Solution of the paradox of continuum: the "third" point is the atom of Lucretius.
2. Solution of the paradox of quantum reality: the chooser in the quantum realm is 'everything else in the universe'.
3. Solution of the problem of time.
4. Solution of the paradox of dark matter and dark energy.
First things first. Then the solution of the paradox of human brain dynamics can be explored, since we will know the concrete physics of human intention. Right now we have only a purely phenomenological theory based on metaphysics only. Besides, this is the most optimistic evaluation I could possibly suggest.
As stated above, I hope to complete the disk by December 22, 2003. This too is highly optimistic, to say the least.
The future of PHI is open up to the 'unknown unknown'. As of today, October 19, 2003, I am certain about two things only: PHI works, and can not be used against people or any living system. Nobody can make a weapon out of PHI nor use it as weapon enhancement. We're all connected: in the global mode of spacetime, the "distance" between us is zero. We are ONE. All of us, included those physicists who in the past one year replied to my efforts with a dark and somber silence.
There are two complementary paths to God. One is with religion, the other is with quantum gravity. I have tried to explore the latter, talking about the nature of "points", if any. Since by definition God is ONE, it shouldn't be surprising that the physical path to God will lead to Him as well.
What else one could expect from quantum gravity? If you prefer, you may pray to the mathematical point that is inside the instant 'now'. He is there too. Always been there, always will.
Now I know why nobody from the established physical community will reply. They seriously hate this. They want to play God, with math, but only to replace Him with some purely physical description of The Universe.
Are you really good in math? Go ahead then, take any of the four proposals above and prove it wrong by offering a different solution.
Saturday, October 19, 2002