Towards abstract matter / Andrée Ehresmann & Jean-Paul Vanbremeersch: Emergence, cognition, consciousness (& others)

0:00 The first idea of the theory is that we are trying to do something that maybe the Federation can manage to get 40 million euros and by the end of the year they will have something to eat and meat to feed on. Other people at work from the time we meet together. But we are not obliged to, but we only need to know very soon how many people are interested to meet together sometime. Where will we meet? I will tell you at the beginning at 2 o'clock on the... There is no problem, because it's the last one in the morning, so that's okay.

2:30 I've changed my title all the way slightly for the content. I was going to say methodology, theory, and the analysis of science. Well, George wrote to me some months ago and suggested that I talk about whether quantum theory was really a universal theory on mathematics. I'm certainly thinking about this as an expanded scope of my talk to essentially the question of paradigm change, but taking a more scientific approach and the socializing approach of Kuhn. It's a question of what goes on in a paradigm change on, say, a mathematical perspective or a scientific perspective and so on. I was thinking about this. Well, I got into the Kuhnian perspective of saying that when you go to make a change in science, such as adding relativity or going to bring, let's say, quantum theory comes in, you have all the technology changes, and then that makes it, brings it to Kuhn's viewpoint, and Kuhn says that science is related to... Paradigm is really a set of techniques and concepts. So, what is behind this? Essentially this paper is on the conference website.

5:00 We completed it about a week ago, so unless you looked very recently you wouldn't have seen it, but it is on the website now, so including all the references. In fact, I'm particularly interested in paradigm change because I've been aware in recent years, or not so recent years, of the existence of censorship. There are forces that block paradigm change, which was one of Kuhl's main points. In some cases, paradigms don't change about resistance, and that's something I decided to do for the revolution, and one of my references, that's a paper I'm capitalizing on this week, is a lecture I gave on the web, a number of examples of resistance and paradigm change. The institutionalised, that's the physics feedback archive, which many physicists made, being familiar with, is a website which is supposed to be not an archive, but people who own this do blocking of unconventional ideas they don't like. Even, in fact, one person who was suggested to clear them out of the post made out something... This may be the good way of formulating fundamental physics, but everything he writes is blocked by the sensors, and he adds that load to them and they get deleted, and in fact they tend to put pressure on the director of his foundation, Kretton, who continues to support this. So we actually set up a website, Archive Freedom. And you can dig your own story of how archives are all extensions of lots of case histories of some things. It's quite amazing. Okay, so this is one mechanism, but I won't say much more about this exactly, incidentally.

7:30 Is that dot freedom? No, no, it's dot freedom dot all. That's one. There's no punctuation there. Or you can look at my homepage and your friends on the web once, do you believe that dictatorial archiving and things should be able to exert censorship, if not, go to this website. How many submissions do you have from Libid Plutonium? Do you remember any? Some of them. I mean, there are some people on the web that, you know... Free archive. They may be submitting three solutions a day to major mathematical problems, solutions in their own minds, and after a while, fill up all your resources. They'll be submitting not just PDFs, but . . . What goes on in a paradigm is, well, science has changed a bit, that's after what? What's the basis of a science? And, well, it's based on phenomena initially, in other words, there's perception, and then scientists think about perception, well, you describe them, you get perfect terminology, well, make a little pattern. Observations, and maybe we start to formulate laws, proxies and so on. You gradually build up your knowledge-driven field.

10:00 These descriptive rules of science, these have to be pulled into the table very occasionally by other people. Now, at this point, we may be restricting what goes on, but we're worrying about demarcating science from scientific knowledge and knowledge from experience. So we've got all these little bits and pieces. And now the puzzle is that you have what seems to be the science as it is, for example, quantum theory or classical physics, which seems to be at one point in time to be the comfort zone of science. In the end of the 18th century? No, 19th century. But physics is more or less complete now, apart from a slight turn in the horizon. So this is an instinct non-human. We seem to have a complete description of its own, but this is clearly wrong because quantum theory upsets all of the class of physics. How does that come about? From the formal point of view of mathematical sciences, you would have to argue that we're dealing with a certain subset of the totality of a given type of science associated with a certain subset. And from the perspective of the new science, you can look back to what I've seen at this moment and talk about the subset and sort of why this subset... Why scientists are considered to be subsets. Why subsets have their own simplified laws.

12:30 The terms of this are, for example, physics, the three-atomic era of science in the United States. The science of mathematical theory, which really involves smoothing of the atoms, and you can see why that has its own flaws, but they're going to go on once you start concerning yourself what much the science involves to deal with individual atoms. So this description, which brings to the subset, it's clear why that... New science involves some kind of expansion to get out of that subset. There is an interesting point which I don't know very much to contribute as to why a subset should have simple laws, but there may be some factors like self-organization or symmetry which mean that a subset may not constrain its personal constraints, meaning simple laws. The point is, the model for the future is that our field that we're dealing with, it may even now be that we're dealing with a constraint set at the moment, and that some expansion will get one out of that set. So, what we're speaking is responsible for getting out of that constraint. Well, maybe a new technology in order to observe. At the atomic level, you need to push technology to the point where you can deal with new visual atoms. If you apply existing methodologies in new situations, like if you really were looking in a certain place and you looked somewhere else, you would see the new, changing pressure or something. And then there's the thing of beginning again.

15:00 There is a kind of censorship aspect. It may be that the phenomena which did appear in the paradigm were quite clear, but there were social, nationalist reasons for ignoring them. I'd like to just actually mention a thing which is really most crucial for civilisation, and we will do it in a blackboard, but let me just say that my first contact with censorship was by what was called cold fusion. Here there's a case where there's a phenomenon which if you work hard enough you can reproduce it in algebra, at least lots of people have produced it, but it was discarded because at the beginning we recall that Pons and Fleischmann reported that they observed what created a new process, generally heat, as an electrochemical cell, and a few people tried it and they said no, we didn't see anything, it's not a real phenomenon, and they actually applied some psychological methods to get people to accept this. Whereas people who took their time around it and studied it very carefully found that they could reproduce the effects, but by the amount of time and sensitivity that's set in. And this is, if such as plumbing, well, what if one of those sort of mathematics projects actually, or I think will apply to this. We might develop this process just in regards to scaling and importance of information and stuff, by providing a lot of different sorts of energy which Well, I don't know that in the next few months and in the dramatic announcement that some commercial firms will be developing this, that they're not ready to say, yeah, we're getting everything. But this is a case of, if you look at the work that's been done on this, this is a case of phenomena which have been... I've clearly discovered that quantum theory is a theory of the censorship of operations and stops being published. My publisher will have said that, but it's caused some of the audience to go down by one, and I don't want to get back to quantum theory.

17:30 What may be its limitations and how it might, the way future science might develop to get out of it. But first of all, this is an effect impinged on this conference and I want to talk about the structure of science because You may think quantum theory means just one thing, but actually, when you look at what's happening, what happens, what you mean by quantum theory keeps changing because people use twists, for example, it started off as a theory of particles, and then quantum field theory was developed, which was still a quantum theory, but then it was in constants and all sorts of things like normalization and the like. Well, then people started to consider, well, to start new fields where they didn't know about, well, they might have weak interactions and all the different kinds of interactions and their attempts to unify these. And this led to, I would say, all of these static models, which is a field theory with lots of different parameters to take into account all the fields and ramifications of these fields. But now we've recognised there is a gap because gravity doesn't fit into the standard model, so we really wanted to expand the theory to include gravity as well, but we still haven't done it, but at least a theory which might include gravity as a string theory. However, there was a problem there, because this was supposed to provide the theory of everything, and it was hoped that string theory would explain the standard model. But it turns out that it was a one-to-one correspondence, and string theory corresponds to many different models. First of all, we like the symmetry principle that if a standard model would have the parameters in it that fit the experiment, if that has the constants of string theory, then you can crack some symmetry operations and get different theories about different string theories.

20:00 So, string theory or M-theory, this could be advised to one factual mistake and different factual mistakes, in fact, continual factual mistakes, and if it's produced a unique factual mistake, you might say, well, this is the real theory, and any other theory which has the same topics is probably the exception to put it. Now, since there isn't that close relationship between string theory and the standard monetary physics experiment, there could be other theories, but I don't have some other theories, like quantum mechanics and so on. So there's a really crisis of science that we've gone along a certain path that it's got a bit blurred. Well, this is one problem for the future. Of course, there's vested interests and funding. There's a different approach, and this is just a way to learn about this. But anyway, that's just one side of it. I'm going to move on from that side to a bit more in which I see more fundamental issues arise. And this is the question of whether quantum theory is okay for biology. Does biology come from quantum theory? And the usual story is that biology depends on chemistry, and chemistry can be deduced from quantum theory, so, well, quantum theory explains life.

22:30 Well, Niels Bohr, back in, I think, the 1930s, raised some problems with a book, Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, I think is where he came in first. Description and the actual quote was, the recognition of the essential importance of fundamentally atomicistic features in function of living organisms, in other words, organisms used for quantum properties of matter, things like that, is by no means sufficient for comprehensive explanation of biological phenomena. Fiction terms and atoms, but does it lead to a comprehensive explanation before we can reach an understanding of life on the basis of physical experience? First, we should look at this culinary world as we try to carry the investigation of its organs so far that we could describe the world played by single atoms and by functions. In every experiment on living organisms, there must remain an uncertainty as regards the physical conditions to which they are subjected. The idea suggests itself that a minimum freedom we must allow the organism in this respect is just large enough to permit it, so to say, to hide its ultimate secrets from us. Well, to me, one way of putting this is to say that observing the atomic constitution and observing the vital processes is a complementary aspect. And so, you know, same problem that you cannot simultaneously determine the position of the momentum and particle. You can't actually define the state of an organism by observing it. In fact, when you recognize a problem existing in another context where biology is not involved, suppose that somebody prepares a section of qubits each in a particular state, and the qubit is just a system which is in two parts of the state. If you say to that person, tell me what the state of the system is, you cannot do it by observation, because observation in the general direction will alter that spin.

25:00 So this collection of spins may have some special property, which you verify if you do the right experiments, but you can't actually determine what the state is without destroying it. So a person who prepares this may have some secret that you can't get at and possibly everything is solved. So, it is indeed possible that you can't really guess at the state of an organism, you can't define its state by observation in such a way as to be able to explain its quantities. They might say, you don't need to worry about the positions of individual atoms that they make, it's just some sort of mentality. Well, there are clear differences between biosystems and the kind of systems that physicists study, because the kind of system that physicists study is totally specified by doing a few variables like the composition, density and so on, whereas organisms cannot be specified in the same way, so it's as difficult in specification. A complementary thing to this is the fact that you can be a recipe for creating the physical system that may be difficult sometimes because it's sensitive, but the normal thing is that you can specify how to generate a state in the system on which it can be physically developed, whereas you cannot specify how to create an organism in which an organism is just an actual phenomenon. So there's that difficulty. So I think we may need a new kind of theory in which we have to understand how different kinds of variables are because it's a quantum theory. And I think George was far enough to talk about this in his lecture yesterday. Anyway, this is one way in which one might need to extend quantum theory. Another way of describing a game is to say that in physical systems we specify the states directly, we in principle can have an explicit form that works, whereas biology is a kind of situation where we specify it indirectly.

27:30 All of these terms correspond to actual life, so in everyone's life it is implicitly specified by a fact that it is viable to have certain functions. So again, there is a snapback on the difference, which should be reflected in the theory, but I don't really doubt that. Well, that point of view suggests that really it's somehow a technical matter that we can't take back in the same way. I published that in 1988 and I gave a reference and it's also linked to it in my webpages, which is to say that it may be a more fundamental problem than this, which comes about because what we did was to take the causal model of Bohr, which essentially says that QM, quantum mechanics, is the statistics of a causal model, let's say deterministic. A causal model. In other words, there's some statistical distribution state which is denominated deterministically, and that shows that there is a special position of the dynamics involving quantum potential, and that distribution gives rise to quantum mechanics. But it may be that we can, in some cases, deviate from that. This definition may be violated, and between Carl Cohen and I, I put a paper where we suggested that it might explain the parallel form, and the point being that the quantum potential is non-local, normally its conditions satisfy and its effects are suppressed, and you can't answer it as equal.

30:00 So this would be one way of going beyond the subspace of quantum mechanics by violating this position. So this would be one alternative. And Anthony Valentini developed this in quite some detail. All of the physics suggested that p equals 1 pi squared is quantum heat depth and our ability to put down heat depth, so something that's disappeared from nature by the time you reach its equilibrium initially, well, we all suggested that in some cases this may not be violated and then you may get homonautic acting in the distance. And as I'm nearly out of time, I'll go quickly through these. One is that Henry Stack proposed to make arguments that mind, the term that works as Jackson's way of approaching it, is not a particularly important one, and that this is quite a regional possibility, in which case you then put mind as something extra, and a paper which I seem not to have included in the references, but it was And we're moving to this censorship site, but not in the general physics section. This is quite a package of ideas which I think involve several sections, but we're not allowed to read these, and I think the references don't really matter too much to the end of this actually, or to get you there. Actually, we should take this further. The real question is, what is the nature of minds and the observer? We need to understand more about the observer, not just talk about the observation process. We've also got a book called The Observer game as well. This ties some of the same formulas and establishes all those elements to some extent. You can also put in the description of how, what's going on in the Observer and some of the different minds asking questions of nature. It says this is what goes on. In the observation process, an answer comes back, and that corresponds to the gaps away from the sheets of paper, which is a little bit out of the box backwards.

32:30 So he has a handwritten model of how to define the method, fit together. But again, we need to develop the corresponding theory. Well, those would be new, I'm talking about new domains with new descriptions and new laws. It may be the way we need to think about developing new science, because it's difficult to start from scratch, and as I've mentioned, music is another example, just because I had a paper involving a collaboration with a musicologist, which argues that the specificity of music was another thing that's out of sight, and... We have arguments that what psychologists say about what makes some music are wrong and there are patterns which may activate particular processes, a bit like genes. And that would again be another norm that would in effect represent fundamental meaning which is... The consistent mechanics in which Harry Bowman has already talked about, i.e. levels of meaning. Again, the question of what is meaning is something which perhaps needs to be discussed. So, just to summarize, a given science involves a given mindset, and it is something which fits nicely into our mindset. And one may be inclined to say it's not really important, really. But by thinking more about the phenomenon, one may be able to develop all kinds of theories. I would make an extension between quantum mechanics, which is not a theory, which is a syntax, after which you can create all kinds of theories.

35:00 Which are all quantum theories, instead of the same mechanics used to make the phenomena and the models of things. So that, I think, is an important distinction. The language, which I think is important to understand things, is the evolutionary pattern, I think there are surfaces all the time like this, that is, boundaries, that is, you've got a different regime, energetic regime, internal and external, and this doesn't, you cannot, if you take the state of the system internally, as a feed, for example, and then you have a sea outside, what's going to come out of that is un-derivable from anything internal. So you're going to have different kinds of which are not account for what was the internal energy and the local energy. So there are going to be differences and quantum causality in a certain sense is the external behavior of the system. What was often termed as a system, and a lot of systems are like that, okay? So, of course, it's a very loose thing. There is a connection, but the connection is not of the kind that we could say, I can derive this behavior given, okay?

37:30 That's not it. And the other one is that the scene, in fact, is the wave function. The system which affects its behavior, which destroys its behaviors and so on, is not the key. So you don't have the causal chain the way we had it in the old days. It has to be obsolete or it has to remain. What is the acknowledgement of that, the influence of these boundaries? These are surfaces of, you know, these things that are opaque to plant actions. Yes. Well, in a way, when you say the obvious there, that's a new word. No, you've got to repeat this on the other side of the boundary. Yes, yes. I agree. I think I agree with your distinction that you are expansive maybe within quantum. Now, the first point which is consistent with Robert Rosen's ideas is that it's intentional assumption of quantum physics that you can write down a state. Now, Rosen rejected that idea. The cat thing about biology is you have a process, so the states are mainly indescribable. The thing I wrote this down was in my abstract, so I'm basically comparing them in a non-regional set, but there may be no way of really measuring a quantifying state, because the mind doesn't depend on quantification, it depends on something more topological. So I'm debating about the topological quantum theory, what we need to put down, and then we'll have a person's thesis on this.

40:00 In the book, trying to get to the topology as the ultimate science. There is a chance, I think when we're discussing that, and the way they say, the way they functionalize all of this, they disappear, as we get into the bottom of the list. Let's see, I wanted to see if you had any comments on two ideas of Kuhn's. One is that many of these revolutions are caused by new instrumentation, new apparatus. At the start of a lot of revolutions, something in the lab would happen, some new way of looking at things. The other exists, this is a pessimistic one, namely that the revolution never really succeeds, it's just the older generation dies off. And then the young, who are ignorant, embrace the new ideas. Well, that's certainly happening in our psychology. In combination with the SDR, it's still not accepted, which isn't because there's no evidence, it's because people refuse to accept it, so a revolution could happen, and I think in some countries it has, but the goal of the future is another thing, except that one person by me has said pessimistically, perhaps the whole field will die out of lack of support. I agree, well, I think there may be all sorts of never-reaching things to take on. What I'm saying is that the significance of the Feynman diagrams as a substitute for derivations, you cannot always stop the fact that this is a, and in a way, I feel like this is an application applied to some very impressive or very specific things, I mean, these are variables also, but inside the mathematics of the new...

42:30 Yes, the mathematics is essential, but you have to find the new one. You have to search through the tricks. Well, I mean, yeah, it's not the, it doesn't mean, uh, it's not solid. When you get to the surface, if you look at complexity theories, we look at complexity theories, aren't we? You do have a relationship between the various levels, and those are the things that you demonstrate. It isn't that the surface is mechanical, and so on, and so forth. It's just that you need the transformation chambers. Yeah, I think I can say from yesterday that you didn't think of this, but I've only said that the boundary piece will take the transactional processes. But we can be able to do something at a time. I think emergent speaking always has to be at many levels, and the first moment it becomes

45:00 Right, but there was all kinds of reasons, but you can't do different ways in empathy, which are not debatable problems. Yeah, and I think that's another thing that comes into this, is that there's lots of other information in mathematics on the paper, so it's kind of a bit difficult. Yes, it's a bit difficult. Brian, go ahead. The question I asked you yesterday was about inheritance of all parts. Isn't there a danger, from what you're looking at things, that it would go much further than where you're going? It's no longer a question of the unpacking of the unpacking, but it's called a game. So there's a difference between suppression of knowledge and dismissal of knowledge, isn't there? Dismissal of facts and just not being facts. And where do you strike the balance? This is what scientific methods are supposed to be building versus anything goes. Well, I think there's actually more to it than there is to it. So, you can't just pass it against the acceptance of mathematics and so on. The media may evolve a little bit, but it turns out that you can... Well, what happens is that you publish an idea and the moment you are deflected by it, you may be correct, but then long-term, when you get into the short-term knowledge and memories of the idea, you can't manage to sort out the mechanics of the idea, and the best way to do that is to get rid of it, but they don't come to sort of develop a revival of people. You have to work outside science and time until the idea is strong enough that time seems to be a good way.

47:30 I suppose you could look into, well, what happened to a German in the case of, I think, we talked yesterday about the continental fifth problem I guess was just ignored. I believe something happened within geology which forced them to theorize about tectonic plates and then they could extrapolate them down from there. In the Washington Visionary Society, we actually talked through a very nice book that came out about geology, and it turns out that the guy that developed the continental growth theory wrote a beautiful book about geology that the university accepted as a freshman geology text, and the last chapter was about continental growth, so students got used to seeing it in a generation. There was no controversy because students had used the book and they read the last chapter and it seemed to be fitting the facts at that point, so the opponents dying out was also the students reading about it and not saying that there was any big deal about it. Well, when I was in school in the 1950s, we all got out at the point where we faced the coach lights. We were talking about another book in Boston and he pointed this out that part of the reason why the Continental Bridge was the subject is the guy who proposed the theory wrote a really great freshman geology book and that was the last chapter of the book. They didn't have a problem with it, the adults did, and in a generation they were teaching, they didn't have a problem teaching it. They didn't accept, at that time, continental critics. They were incredible to me, because I think in Europe it was accepted, but they didn't accept it for quite a while. So that revolution was a local revolution. The CIA's remote viewing project located the missing trans-person plane engaged on the side of that cell. Ultimately, the fact seems to be ignored. It's just considered impossible to plot it out unconsciously.

50:00 But anyway, the team tried to visualise how this came about, and the causes were impressive. We wanted something that went along about the local scale, not bits from the plane. It was quite a spectacular success, but that didn't affect the conclusions. The difference here between Y2 and Y3 is that this is the hour of the night. It is a natural resolution of C, of the high energy to the low energy. If you want to know what's going on in here, it's very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, Thank you for your attention. Thank you for your attention. I don't know about you, but you could be one of them.

55:00 They know what this does, because this is observed, okay, in terms of symmetries and so forth. So you know what this will present, this is what this machine, this thing can do in the world and on the outside. In order to do that, they are going to imagine, to invent a substitute for the equation of state. You cannot open this up. So they create a new one. And they call that the equation of state. Now, this is not grounded. This should be grounded. It's free to rotate. Yes, there's something inside. Did you imagine what would create this kind of behavior? It's not based on anything. It's not consistent with all the theory. The other theories of physics go around and around.