Chapter 31: Gravity, Conservation Laws, Entanglement and Decision-making

 

Previously, it was derived that ‘we evolved reality from the probability of existence’ by using the Mathematics of the Mind. The derivation of the probability of existence, is strengthened by approaching it from another direction. The more directions from which something can be derived, the larger the number of predictions that can be made from it and the ‘better’ the theory.

 

Our universe is a closed system and we would consider that the Law of Conservation of Energy, would apply and indeed it probably does, but what is this law? ‘In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy in an isolated system cannot change – it is said to be conserved over time’. (Wikipedia, Conservation of energy) Also, it has one dimension, which is time. (Wikipedia, Conservation law)

 

It is strange that under this law, our universe would have one dimension (time) and this presumably reflects the logic that we cannot ‘see’ inside that universe and that it is, thus, indeterminant to us. Current thinking is that our reality operates under space-time and we have to logically live in a ‘conserved’ universe, else it would run out of something eventually. So, where do we find a theoretical model for a conserved space that has the dimensions of space and time?

 

On the other hand, ‘in quantum mechanics, the probability current (sometimes called probability flux) is a mathematical quantity describing the flow of probability… It is a real vector’. (Wikipedia, Probability current) This isn’t very helpful, but shows that it is used and the dimensions of the Conservation of Probability are ‘total probability always = 1, in whole x, y, z space, during time evolution’ (Wikipedia, Conservation law, conservation of probability, number of dimensions)

 

This Conservation of Probability aligns with our universe in that we have ‘in whole x, y, z space, during time evolution’. Its not quite space-time because ‘time evolution’ is the same as the ‘time passing’ that I have used previously, and it is not an interval of time. Time interval is man-made, as is space interval in ‘whole x, y, z space’. I want to point out here that we have found a ‘complete’ mathematical ‘statement’, and our world appears to satisfy part of it, but I maintain that by Occam’s razor the simplest and most logical system will probably apply ‘best’, and that is the mathematical system, and is a Truth. So, how does our view of the universe (world O) compare with the mathematical form, and if it differs, why have we complicated things?

 

The ‘total probability always = 1’ aligns with Conservation of Energy, plus has the logic that every point in the space contributes to the sum and it must do so instantly to avoid local violations. So, every point is ‘entangled’ with every other point in the space constantly and instantly to provide a constant sum of energy. How can this be? The answer is, as we derived previously, what we call gravity, which affects EVERY particle-particle, particle-energy and energy-energy reaction in the universe according to the Law of Conservation of Energy because of a simple attraction that must exist for us to exist (out of the multiverse).

 

To logically satisfy the law, instantaneous accounting must be kept, and that is done automatically because there is only a constant amount of energy/matter, and photons and matter continually change their energy, as we have seen (Pound-Rebka experiment) to keep the total energy at 1 to satisfy the Law of Conservation of Energy.

 

So, gravity is the mechanism to provide a universe that we can live in, and that attraction of gravity (between matter, energy etc.) provides a source of energy which is part of the limit 1, Conservation of Energy sets the Conservation of Probability limit of 1, and a set limit of 1 requires instantaneous velocities to be attainable, so that the limit equals 1 at all times. This effect is ‘entanglement’.

 

The statement of each ‘point’ in the field is logical, but not necessary because there is ‘nothing’ at most points, so even if it is necessary to sum every point, the ‘empty’ points would return a reading of zero. Thus it is only the ‘occupied’ points that contribute, and a macroscopic body, such as an organism contributes each particle or photon in their body and this may be the ‘sense’ that organisms have of predators, herd, prospective mates etc. In other words, can organisms ‘link in’ to entanglement to help them survive? Given so many generations over 3.000 million years, has any organism been able to use entanglement for their own use to survive better?

 

Every sense that we have evolved ‘links’ ourselves with the rest of the world. We have evolved senses to create a reality for ourselves, and our bodies have evolved colour vision etc. to lend contrast and make the reality more ‘real’. Thus, ‘we evolved reality, from the possibility of existence’ again, using a totally different method.

 

It would be a bit strange if our senses are caused by entanglement when we know that ‘seeing’ uses photons, touch uses molecule movement, hearing uses molecule movement etc., but what provides our thinking, creativity, consciousness and decision-making? I suggest that there are two processes at work here, or perhaps a ‘duality’ of sensing and of deciding whether to do something about it. We come back to world O using distance and time interval (speed) as a means of hunting and avoidance of predation (space-time), when the space is merely ‘in whole x, y, z space, during time evolution’.

 

Quantum mechanics provides ‘creativity’ in our brain/mind by producing spurious (to an extent) thoughts, or it could be said half-thoughts that are generated by induction (of action potentials) between the dendrites of the nerves within the brain and body. The compartmentalisation of areas of the brain keeps creativity ‘within the subject’ and the logic of ‘writing’ memories to the brain necessarily distorts memory because of the iterative process of laying down memories and creates, the problem of ‘when is a memory “good” enough to be retained’? (see chapters 8,9, 10 and 11)

 

‘Thinking’ is viewing the world of our ‘reality’ so that we can compare, and for that we use the senses to build a ‘picture’ that our senses ‘see’. ‘Consciousness’ is the ability to gain some idea of the outside world and our place in it compared to predators etc. To sum the above, creativity, consciousness and thinking are ‘physical’, in that they are products of (what we call, space-time), but they are ‘hanging-fire’ and can’t be implemented without one more step, and that is ‘decision-making’ which is logic.

 

Let’s put it another way. Consciousness is the ability to do something with those thoughts, and does NOT say that a photon has entered the eye, it says a photon has entered, do we do something or not do something. No computer can add two numbers unless it is told to, and we need a decision ‘key’ to act in the same way that every point in probability space changes, and that ‘key’ is logic that causes decision-making. Confabulation must have a decision attached to it, if it is to be of use, and its success is heritable, so ‘decision-making’ is the ‘over-arching’ effect of entanglement, or is it? Is there another mechanism that produces decisions? Perhaps entanglement is the calculation of energy only.

 

Many times I have written that there is a logical difference between the ‘near’ and the ‘far’, between the close friendly herd and the farther distance that holds predators and mate-stealers etc. It is now clear why there is a logical difference, it is sensing with NO decision, when close by, and sensing with the possibility of decision-making with its associated confabulation. It is interesting that the earliest senses did not use decision-making (chapter 12: Why the Brain has Two Hemispheres). Some time ago, in considering this divide in logic of the action of distance within a herd, I thought that it may have had something to do with the two hemispheres of the brain.

 

The first sense to be developed was probably ‘touch’ or pressure from a member of the group or being consumed by a predator, whilst the second would have been ‘smell’. Fish are symmetrical about the vertical plane for a number of reasons, such as they are less visible to predators at other depths, give more traction for swimming etc and they have two nostrils in their nose (as we do), and I surmise that the fish guided itself to food by following the scent intensity from each nostril. This is a simple form of decision-making, so that the fish turned left or right at the same (feeding) depth depending on which nostril was recording the strongest scent.

 

The point is that fish have ganglions (or early form of brain) behind each nostril and as animals evolved these two separate ‘brains’ became the hemispheres and are joining together, as we evolve, through the corpus callosum, which ‘is a wide flat bundle of neural fibers beneath the cortex in the eutherian brain at the longitudinal fissure. It connects the left and right cerebral hemispheres and facilitates interhemispheric communication. It is the largest white matter structure in the brain, consisting of 200-250 million contralateral axonal projections.’ (Wikipedia, Corpus callosum) White matter indicates conduction of signals with no interference from other ‘contralateral axonal projections’.

 

This indicates that organisms started with a ‘simple’ means of decision-making, and the corpus callosum is bringing the brain into a whole, but, the brain is an iterative procedure, which is a Truth, and is under the control of Survival of the Fittest. A computer is capable of decision-making if it is programmed by a mind/brain and the iteration (Survival of the Fittest) of evolution acts as a mind/brain. Thus it is likely that entanglement is not the logic needed for the Half-truth, and is a simple logical accounting system. But, it is a logic and other ‘varieties’ of logic must be supported by our universe.

 

So if entanglement does not lead to decision-making, what is the Half-truth? The Half-truth is an operator that ‘filters’ the wider ‘logical environment’ and decides whether it is always true/false, true some of the time or chaotic/indeterminate and this enables a decision to be made on the basis that a decision is possible. To make a decision is NOT an easy concept for us to imagine or accept, but that does not make it less true. The easiest way to understand it is through the fact that the number of dimensions that we use, MUST be complete for a reality. We currently use space-time that allows no logic, but logic is all around us and we use it everyday. Simple statements such as ‘if I go the store, I’ll buy vegetables’ are logic but are not integrated with space-time. The question is, why not? I suggest space-time-Half-truth would be complete.

 

To digress for a moment, because the above left me wondering, ‘if I go the store, I’ll buy vegetables’ is formal logic and how does that fit into the Half-truth? I have said that the Half-truth is complete, so there must be an answer, and a moment’s reflection reveals that it fits into the third term: it can be restated as false until you buy vegetables and true after you buy vegetables. The aim is to simplify a huge mass of formal logic, and the half-truth does that, but information is lost, just as mathematics becomes less precise when the Mathematics of the Mind is used.

 

What is the current thinking on quantum entanglement? ‘One particle of an entangled pair “knows” what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum entanglement)

 

Further, ‘quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently – instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole. Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum entanglement)

 

The above two paragraphs indicate that the two ‘particles of an entangled pair’ are entangled together, whereas we have shown that every particle must be entangled with every other particle. However, when two photons are produced they are produced in a ‘mechanistic’ way that lead to the photons having physical properties that are ‘appropriately correlated’. This correlation is sought-after by the experimenters, to study the phenomenon, and it is natural that when one is measured, the other will have the appropriate correlation.

 

The properties of the particles are indeterminate until measured, so I will repeat a previous paragraph. ‘Local realist view of causality (Einstein referred to it as “spooky action at a distance”), and argued that the accepted formulation of quantum mechanics must therefore be incomplete.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum entanglement) Indeed, I have shown that the common concept of quantum mechanics IS wrong. I repeat: it is NOT the duality of the particle and wave that is the basis of quantum mechanics (even if that was why it was set up), that is, the physical aspects of the quantum (world O view), it is the logical aspects (of world P) of providing a reference point to DEFINE the logic of measurement in order for it to be possible to determine it in some form. In other words, a duality is needed between the particle and the observer because measurement of length and time is not available in world P, as it is a probability space.

 

Thus, if a property of one particle is known, then we must know the property of the other because firstly, there is correlation, and secondly, as in the experiment mentioned previously, the property becomes determinate when a record is available that can be viewed at a later date. These requirements must be met through logic and, as above, must be instantaneous, and this assertion is verified by experiment.

 

‘Recent experiments have measured entangled particles within less than one part in 10,000 of the light travel time between them. According to the formalism of quantum theory, the effect of measurement happens instantly.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum entanglement) It should be noted that the effects of a change in the energy of any part of the universe MUST be communicated to every other part INSTANTLY, else local action occurs, which is forbidden because Conservation of Energy would be (logically) broken.

 

‘Quantum entanglement … effects have been demonstrated experimentally with photons, electrons, molecules the size of buckyballs’ (Wikipedia, Quantum entanglement) This shows that large molecules entangle and reinforces the idea the everything must (logically) be included in the summation of the Conservation of Energy.

 

We can start anywhere, because everything is related, from, as we have seen, quantum mechanics to the universe and all instantaneously! The Mathematics of the Mind is weighting the senses so that the ‘best’ action is performed to keep the organism functioning and that is Survival of the Fittest and heritable. A choice for the future entails Survival of the Best and an appropriate ‘juggling’ of the ‘parameters of life’ as seen through the senses that feed input into our mind/brain is the subject of this book. ‘In addition to the Aristotelian five, some 5 further senses have been identified over the past century. Thermoception is a sense physiologically distinct from touch which enables us to detect temperature differences – just as Plato suggested…. Sometimes also known as kinaesthesia, proprioception is the awareness of your body parts in relation to one another, and the sensation of their movement through space…. Nociception, your sense of pain….. equilibrioception, your sense of balance – the main organ for it, the vestibular labyrinthine system can be found in our inner ears. Finally, human beings possibly have a weak sense of direction, magnetoreception. In the ethmoid bone just between our eyes and behind our nose is a tiny crystal of magnetite, which is like a compass that orients us within the earth’s magnetic field. (The Wonderbox, Roman Krznaric, p 156)

 

In addition, I believe that there are three other senses within the brain, the eighth sense is the ability to know what foods are necessary to balance the diet, the seventh sense, that changes our thinking as the climate changes through the ingestion of phyto/neurotoxins, and thirdly, creative thought is the ninth sense as mentioned in the chapters on the brain.

 

The Mathematics of the mind is conceptually simple and seeks the best solution (or action) based on some combination of the senses using a logical process defined by Survival of the Fittest. The most important senses are used, with less important added to give a more and more accurate ‘answer’ or more appropriate action, which is in line with the derivation of it in this book. The operator is Truth and evolution has been used to better handle its application to ensure survival, which is heritable.

 

The Mathematics of the Mind has brought together attractors from many academic fields in the above chapter, and a prediction is necessary. ‘Over the past century, both education and work have encouraged us towards increasing specialisation, and the prevalent ideal is to become an expert who excels in a narrow area… First … division of labour … second reason is that academic learning has become extraordinarily specialised … third explanation for the cult of specialisation is that the amount of information in the world has grown so vast that it is impossible to gain deep understanding across a range of subjects or professions.’ (p 95)

 

I have always tried to be a ‘generalist’ and this book is a roadmap into a new area, that of the ‘overview’, which, as above, few are willing to explore. I said the same when I ventured into looking at the mind/brain and found that it is capable of huge ‘feats’ given a knowledge of the relationship of state of mind, nutrition and exercise that can prolong life and allow the mind/brain/body to grow with age.

 

‘Yet being a generalist should not be dismissed too quickly. During the Italian Renaissance it was considered the ultimate human ideal’. (p 96) ‘I believe that, in our era dominated by specialisation, we need to rediscover the Renaissance ideal of the generalist.’ (p 97) As ‘proof’ of that statement, none of the above, nor of the whole book is difficult, it is the fitting together of a wide range of subjects, and the fact that I found an opportunity to do this, shows a lack of understanding of the needs of the generalist versus the specialist. It is interesting that this state of affairs is occurring at this very moment as ‘bloggers’ are offering a wider view, as I am attempting to do, using internet informal publishing. Even Journals are going online and I have been told that bloggers are often a source of articles for them.