Explaining consciousness
Ken Seto
kenseto at erinet.com
Mon Sep 18 12:10:07 EST 1995
Postmaster at neubio.gov.ar (Administrador del Nodo) wrote:
>Hello, all!
> Of course, is incorrect what Dave (dave.davies@
>anu.edu.ar) says about that our conventional neuroscientific
>views, or its variants, can "fully" explain the brain. If it
>were so both myself and all my colleagues here shall inmedia-
>tely abandon the discipline. Evidently, the natural selection
>of mechanisms to produce sensuality is still almost unapproa-
>ched by our science, due to general cultural reasons.
> So, without defending Ken Seto, I am much interes-
>ted in what he and Dave have to say about neurobiophysics in
>a submolecular, quantum-electrodynamic and field-theory level.
>In a nutshell, of course, to be eventually developed!
It appear that you have read the thread "Explaining consciousness
process by new physical theories". I am including the table of
content, the preface and the conclusion of my book for you review.
However, you will need to read the book before you can have a complete
understanding of my theories and how they are relate to the
consciousness processes.
I have published a book entitled "Model Mechanics: A New
Interpretation of Nature". In this book, I proposed a completely new
theory on the origin of the universe. Also, included is a new theory
on gravity. The proposed theory is based on the concept that space is
occupied by a medium called the E-MATRIX. Experiments designed to
detect the existence of the E-MATRIX are also included in this book. I
have included the table of contents, preface and conclusions of this
book for your reference. For more information
point your browser @ <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html> or
contact Ken Seto @ <kenseto at erinet.com>
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE........................................................................................................vi
Chapter 1
A Brief History of Modern Physics
...............................................1
Chapter 2
A Modern Interpretation of
Relativity............................................13
Chapter 3
A Modern Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics............................27
Chapter 4
A Modern Interpretation of
Cosmology..........................................67
Chapter 5
A New Interpretation of
Mathematics.............................................79
Chapter 6
Model
Mechanics........................................................................................87
Chapter 7
Cosmology as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics.............................129
Chapter 8
The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics..................145
Chapter 9
Conclusions........................................................................................................155
Glossary...............................................................................................................161
Selected
Bibliography...........................................................................179
Index......................................................................................................................181
PREFACE
Physicists have determined that there are four forces of nature; they
are: gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear weak and strong forces. The
Theory of Everything, The Final Theory and The Holy Grail of Physics
are terms used by physicists to represent a theory that can unite all
the four forces under a single framework. The Standard Model of
quantum mechanics gives a good description of the electromagnetism,
nuclear weak and strong forces individually. Also, it provides a
partial mechanism that unites the electromagnetic force and the
nuclear weak force under a single framework. However, it is not
capable of including the nuclear strong force in this unification
process. A more speculative theory--The Grand Unified Theory
(GUT)--can describe these three forces under a single framework.
However, so far, GUT has no experimental support. Also, neither the
Standard Model nor the GUT are capable of including gravity in their
description of the forces. The theory of general relativity gives a
good description of the gravitational force but it is not capable of
describing the other three forces. Since the invention of quantum
mechanics and general relativity in the early 1900’s, all attempts by
physicists to unite these theories into a single framework have
failed. It is the objective of this book to review the causes of these
failures and to propose a unified theory for all the forces of nature.
I developed an interest in searching for a unified theory in
the early 1980’s. Initially, I followed the traditional approach by
building on top of existing theories. However, after many years of
fruitless search, I came to realize that there is a real danger with
the traditional approach, even though it is the most logical way to
formulate a new theory. The problem of the traditional approach is
that it will inherit all the flaws of the past theories. Therefore, it
is virtually impossible to arrive at the correct final theory with
this approach. Furthermore, any theory derived this way could give us
a false sense of security that we are heading in the right direction.
This could prevent us from considering other alternatives that may be
more promising. This is especially true if the new theory yields
results in a limited range that agree with experimental data. Perhaps
the best example of this is the duality concept for light and
particles postulated by quantum mechanics.
I came up with a new approach for problem solving and I called this
the Pyramid Techniques. The Pyramid Techniques enabled me to screen
all my ideas of the initial and present state of the universe quickly.
Model Mechanics is the result of these screening processes. The term
Model Mechanics represents a group of new theories that describe the
microscopic world of atomic and subatomic particles. Also, it
describes the macroscopic world of ordinary objects, such as billiard
balls, and extends to include the large scale universe. Model
Mechanics is capable of unifying all the forces of nature. Also, it
provides the realistic answers to such fundamental questions as: Why
do the forces of nature have such different strengths? What is mass
and how is it manifested in a particle? Why do particles have the
masses they do? What are electric charges and how are they manifested
in particles? Why does an object possess inertia? How did the universe
come into being? How were the large galaxies and galactic clusters
formed? On this basis, Model Mechanics is better able to describe the
processes of nature than quantum mechanics and relativity combined.
In their quest for a Theory of Everything, physicists often stress
that simplicity and beauty are the essential ingredients. Model
Mechanics fits this description perfectly. It is simple because it
reduces everything in the universe that we see, sense or hear into two
things. They are: the E-MATRIX (a substance that occupies all of
space) and the S-Particles (the only truly fundamental particles that
exist in the universe). The motions of the S-Particles in the E-MATRIX
give rise to all the other particles and all the forces of nature. It
is beautiful because this simple system has organized itself into the
immense complexity that we see today.
I have presented Model Mechanics to a number of physicists and their
immediate reaction was that I did not have a full understanding of
quantum physics and relativity. Also, they pointed out that quantum
mechanics and relativity had been confirmed to a high degree of
accuracy by numerous past experiments. The reviewers rejected Model
Mechanics because it is not based on the accepted quantum theory and
relativity. I pointed out to them that I would not have been able to
come up with the theories of Model Mechanics if I had followed the
normal course of development. So far, no one has been able to come up
with a valid reason for rejecting Model Mechanics. One physicist
remarked that we were in competition with each other and that it
would not be to his interest to help me confirm Model Mechanics. His
reaction shocked me considerably. I told him that we were not in
competition with each other and that Model Mechanics could offer a way
out of the current difficulties experienced by the current frontier
theories.
The main purpose of this book is to give frontier physics a
different alternative. Since the beginning of modern physics, we have
been conducting experiments with the assumptions that all fixed earth
bound experimental apparatuses were motionless relative to light.
Therefore, we excluded the effects of motions of the experimental
apparatuses in all our interpretations of experimental results. The
consequence of this misconception forced us to use abstractive and
holistic properties to explain some seemingly otherwise unexplainable
results. It is my profound wish that Model Mechanics can provide a
new insight to clear up this misconception and to set a new direction
for frontier physics so that it can flourish again as it did when
quantum mechanics and relativity were first introduced.
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSIONS
The human mind is boundless. It has the tendency to
shelter
itself from the unknowns with endless abstractive
constructions.
Relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most successful
theories in the history of physics. However, in spite of their
successes, these theories failed to describe many processes of nature.
In particular, they failed to unify the forces of nature and to give
a realistic origin of the universe and of life. It turns out that a
series of erroneous interpretations of mathematics and experimental
results was the common cause of the failures. The main events that led
to these erroneous interpretations are as follows:
1. Michelson and Morley conducted experiments to detect the aether
atmosphere. The results of these experiments ruled out the existence
of aether atmosphere. This, in turn, led to the erroneous conclusion
that there was no substance of any kind occupying space.
2. Einstein supported Michelson and Morley’s conclusions. He invented
the special theory of relativity that eliminated the need for any
substance in space. However, in this process he was forced to make the
erroneous conclusion that time is a flexible quantity.
3. Einstein invented the general theory of relativity to describe the
gravitational force. He used abstractive mathematics to construct his
equations. Also, he made the erroneous interpretation that all the
particles in the universe exert an attractive gravitational force on
each other and that their relative direction of motion has no effect
on this force.
4. Max Planck discovered that light existed in the form of discrete
packets (quanta) and Einstein advanced the idea of a particle of light
(photon). The results of the Compton shift experiments was erroneously
assumed to confirm the particle properties of light. The double slit
experiment was erroneously assumed to confirm the wave properties of
light. Therefore, it was concluded erroneously that light had dual
properties. It turns out that there exists another explanation. A
photon can be interpreted as a short pulse of light waves in a
specific E-STRING. All lights come in short pulses--due to the
constant motion of all the light sources in the E-MATRIX. What about
the results of the double slit and the Compton Shift experiments? The
motions of the experimental apparatuses relative to the light pulses
gave rise to these results.
5. Louis de Broglie advanced the idea that a particle, such as an
electron, can have wave-like properties. C. J. Davisson and L. H.
Germer carried out the electronic version of the double slit
experiment to confirm the wave properties of the electron. This led to
the erroneous interpretation that particles, such as an electron, must
have dual properties. It turns out that this erroneous interpretation
can be avoided when the effects of the motions of the experimental
apparatuses relative to the electrons are included.
6. Werner Heisenberg advanced the uncertainty principle. The
uncertainty principle posits that any pair of conjugate properties,
such as momentum and position of a particle, cannot be accurately
measured at the same time because the more accurately one measures its
momentum, the less certain one can determine its position and vice
versa. Physicists have a tendency to over-extend the provisions of
this principle. One example is the use of this principle to interpret
(finance) the existence of virtual particles and the origin of the
universe. On this front, Model Mechanics posits that for each property
of a particle, there exists a measured and an unmeasured value. The
unmeasured value is forever unknown because every time we try to make
a measurement of it, it collapses into the measured value. This Model
Mechanical postulate will prevent the over-extension of the
uncertainty principle.
7. Erwin Schrödinger constructed his famous wave equation based on the
abstractive concept of the electron wave. This equation describes,
among other things, the allowed energy levels of the orbiting
electron. The term Y function in Schrödinger’s equation was
interpreted as the wave front of the probability waves. The intensity
of the wave front at a specific point represents the probability of
the described particle at that point. This abstractive interpretation
was advanced by Max Born and Niels Bohr and it is known as the
Copenhagen Interpretation. The use of abstraction to interpret a real
process is not allowed by Model Mechanics. As it turns out, if we
include the effects of the motions of the experimental apparatuses in
the E-MATRIX, there is no need for the abstractive Copenhagen
Interpretation.
These events are the vital parts of the foundation of modern
physics and yet, in every case, the interpretations were erroneous
and abstractive. It turns out that these erroneous interpretations
were the results of not including the effects of motion of the
experimental apparatuses. This means that the processes of nature, as
interpreted by relativity and quantum mechanics, are flawed. On this
basis, I have concluded that it would be impossible to come up with a
realistic Theory of Everything based on relativity and quantum
mechanics. It was this conclusion that led me to the Pyramid
Techniques of doing physics. Model Mechanics was the result of using
the Pyramid Techniques.
The use of abstractive mathematics contributed to the erroneous
interpretations. The current trend of solely using abstractive
mathematics to conduct frontier physics troubles me greatly. Why?
Abstractive mathematics can only lead to abstractive interpretations
and therefore, it is not capable of leading us to the real Theory of
Everything. In Chapter 5, I have demonstrated that a simple equation
can contain infinite sets of real, as well as abstract, initial
conditions. Therefore, if we want to interpret the provisions of an
equation correctly we must discard those initial conditions that are
abstractive. This new idea on the interpretation of mathematics led me
to conclude that all real events must be based on real processes that
preceded them. Going one step further, all the real processes in the
universe must be traceable back to the basic process -- the motion of
the S-Particles in the E-MATRIX.
The ultimate quest of modern physics is to find a theory that
can unite all the forces of nature. With Model Mechanics, I have
expanded it to include the origin of the universe, the origin of
matter and the origin of life. It turns out that these quests are
included in Model Mechanics automatically. The present state of the
universe, according to Model Mechanics, is as follows: All of space is
occupied by a substance identified as the E-MATRIX. In other words,
the E-MATRIX is space. The E-MATRIX is, in turn, composed of
E-STRINGS. The geometry of the neighboring E-STRINGS, originating from
any point in the E-MATRIX, obeys the inverse square law. The
S-Particle is the only truly fundamental particle in the universe. All
the motions of the S-Particles in the E-MATRIX are unimpeded. The
orbiting motions of the S-Particles give rise to all the observable
particles of the universe. The relative motions of the S-Particles
give rise to all the forces of nature. Model Mechanics posits that
there exists a fifth force -- identified as the ISL force. The ISL
force between two particles traveling in the same direction is
repulsive. The other significant feature of Model Mechanics is that it
is capable of being confirmed experimentally. The experiments that I
proposed will confirm the existence of the E-MATRIX, as well as the
absoluteness of time (indirectly).
In the cosmological arena, Model Mechanics provides a realistic
beginning of the origin of the universe. Also, it provides total
solutions to all the puzzling problems of modern cosmology. The recent
observations received from the Hubble Space Telescope suggest new
problems of the best current theory on cosmology. They are associated
with the age of the universe and the galaxy formation processes. These
problems will probably mean the demise of the popular cold dark matter
theory that astronomers depend on to explain the large scale universe.
In that case, the Model Mechanical theory is a good alternative as its
replacement.
One of the best features of Model Mechanics is that it is
capable of explaining the origin of all matter. It also provides
answers to previously unanswered questions, such as: What is the mass
of a particle? What is the electric charge of a particle? How many
fundamental particles exist in nature?
In the course of discovering Model Mechanics, I dabbled in its
implications on the processes of life. It turns out that it is capable
of providing answers to such fundamental topics as: the origin of
life, the cell division processes and the consciousness processes. It
appears that these processes of life are the results of the
competition between the dynamic and ever changing ISL force and the
constant electromagnetic force. The E-STRINGS that connect the
neurons in the brain play a big role in the consciousness processes.
It appears that Model Mechanics could be the Theory of Everything that
the physicists are seeking. However, at a deeper level God is the
Theory of Everything. Since God is infinite to all extents, we will
forever be engaged in the pursuit of a Theory of Everything and not
finding it. On the other hand, this may be the grand design of God for
our existence. In that case, the way we evolve is the will of God;
there is no greater purpose for life than to serve the will of God.
More information about the Neur-sci
mailing list