Consciousness the Source of gravity

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the idea that consciousness may be the source of gravity, positing that gravity arises from the curvature of space influenced by consciousness. Participants explore the relationship between consciousness and energy, suggesting that consciousness could be a fundamental aspect of reality that interacts with gravity. Some argue against this notion, asserting that gravity is a prerequisite for consciousness to exist, rather than the other way around. The conversation touches on philosophical implications, including the nature of reality and the role of perception in understanding gravity. Ultimately, the thread highlights the complexity of linking consciousness and gravity, emphasizing the need for further exploration in both physics and philosophy.
rocket art
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Hi science folks. As conversed from the previous topic "WHAT IF there is no God..", and due to 'insistent demand' ,here is my postulation. It occurred during a candid discussion we once had about 2 years ago at a physics chatroom when someone inquired what gravity is, but then I noticed that answering it had been like going in circles, so eventaully this postulation surfaced as my answer.

I had preferred to be into art, and I had been finding interest on physics while doing some personal searching. I tend to be an independent thinker, so maybe some of my ideas aren't necessarily on the books, but I believe, and by experience, those who had also been aware will notice it. Although I don't have much on the technicalities of the physics language, however I had been finding it interesting as a language tool to express what otherwise had been abstract or visual musings on my part. With regards to my being a physics enthusiast I could rather express through some basic languages, so it would be of interest for us to understand better on sharing views, to speak on a language "simple enough for a child to understand, and profound enough to confound a king." (-rocket)

I don't often access the internet though(consider it some of 3rd world blues), so I would encourage folks to go on discussing the issue while time and dimes are being chased over here; however whenever possible I will see to visit this thread. It's also admirable at the way science scrutinizes flakes in a concept, so it would be encouraged (just don't hide on closemindedness). It would be interesting to share ideas when it is perceived from different endeavors and angles, the view could be more panoramic.

Here it is:


Gravity is said to be caused by the curvature in
space. but it seemed like a chicken-egg dilemma.

In the theory it's squared the speed of light in
mass and mass is present in the curvature. Among perceivers of eastern philosophy it’s been said that Consciousness is in the realm of C^2. The realm of matter cannot bound it for matter cannot reach lightspeed (I postulate it just duplicates, but that’s another story). It is not even enough to contain it just in a boundary of a space-time dimension or by limits of machinations (Materialism seemed to be an attempt at manipulating objectivity for someone’s subjective motive, rather than perceiving its environment as relative to one another). Consciousness can pierce the barrier beyond it or lightspeed. Consciousness is vital in space and time; the Observer.

There is the core source of Gravity. To
a profound degree Consciousness is within that core,
the source of curvature, mass created by it,
and gravity is the manifestation of the presence of Consciousness.


“The boundaries of one’s universe may not be outside the individual, but within him/her.” – rocket
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Processing...
 
Can you please explain me, how do you come to know that consciousness?
 
Processing...
 
  • Haha
Likes paradisePhysicist
Whose consciousness are you talking about? Is there a collective consciousness, or a universal consciousness, that permeates everything? And how does this affect gravity?
 
To the best of my knowledge, gravity is a function of energy, the same energy that is what composes matter, and that is not quite the same energy that is what is consciousness, caaaaaause, if it was, we would have found human consciousness, by now, as we can detect those kinds of energies.

Simple enough?
 
More new-age silliness. Consciousness is a complex process of many different parts. Consciousness needs other stuff, including gravity, to exist, not the other way around. If it wasn't for gravity already existing, the environmental conditions for organisms to develop would not exist..just ever and fastly expanding matter and light would be the state of things.
 
Somebody reboot M. Gaspar

I think he froze up...

As soon as he reboots ask for the exact value of pi.
 
1. Can someone disable these *blinking* avatars, and can it be set as a rule that *blinking* avatars are not done.

2. Shall we explain to Mr. Rocket Art that he has a perception of reality that is nothing less then that of Solipsism, and that actually the world exists outside of his mind also?

3. M. Gaspar. You can stop processing now. Thanks.
 
  • #10
From a purely objective point of view, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that if ever understood in a philosophical way, the seat of consciousness and gravity are, in a very profound way, the same thing. To a point I can even make a physical argument for this now. The Maxwell’s Demons paradox is resolved with the realization that information is energy. Surely information relates to consciousness; therefore this aspect of consciousness has mass.

Until we have a complete M [or now I read N?] or Grand Unified Theory, we can't really speak to the essence of either energy or consciousness. Even then we may find that enlightenment eludes us.

Edit: What, beyond information, is consciousness?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Originally posted by heusdens
1. Can someone disable these *blinking* avatars, and can it be set as a rule that *blinking* avatars are not done.

You can go to your user options and disable avatars.
 
  • #12
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
From a purely objective point of view, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that if ever understood in a philosophical way, the seat of consciousness and gravity are, in a very profound way, the same thing. To a point I can even make a physical argument for this now. The Maxwell’s Demons paradox is resolved with the realization that information is energy. Surely information relates to consciousness; therefore this aspect of consciousness has mass.

Until we have a complete M [or now I read N?] or Grand Unified Theory, we can't really speak to the essence of either energy or consciousness. Even then we may find that enlightenment eludes us.

ivan, you have an eloquent way of stating things in a simple yet objective manner...perhaps this theory is considered new age silliness because of the intangibleness of consciousness?
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Kerrie
ivan, you have an eloquent way of stating things in a simple yet objective manner...perhaps this theory is considered new age silliness because of the intangibleness of consciousness?

Ah shucks



It just struck me that even though what rocket art said sounded far fetched, I recognized an element of truth from a particularly interesting physics lecture from college.

I don't think we have even come close to terms with QM, GR, and the implications for our view of reality. I think we rightly resist such drastic perturbations in our world view.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
From a purely objective point of view, I don't think we can rule out the possibility that if ever understood in a philosophical way, the seat of consciousness and gravity are, in a very profound way, the same thing. To a point I can even make a physical argument for this now. The Maxwell’s Demons paradox is resolved with the realization that information is energy. Surely information relates to consciousness; therefore this aspect of consciousness has mass.

Sure, information relates to consciousness. Consciousness is mass moving around. Now where does the consciousness creates gravity part come in?


Until we have a complete M [or now I read N?] or Grand Unified Theory, we can't really speak to the essence of either energy or consciousness. Even then we may find that enlightenment eludes us.

Why not? Are you saying that we must know everything before we can know anything? That's a rediculous paradox which means that you can know nothing, not even the paradox itself or that you know nothing.

[/b]
Edit: What, beyond information, is consciousness? [/B]

Consciosness is the process of experiencing.
 
  • #15
Originally posted by rocket art
“The boundaries of one’s universe may not be outside the individual, but within him/her.” – rocket
Hmm ... Gravity as a source from within ...
 
  • #16
What is so intangible about consciousness? That's what bugs the carp out of me! I mean no offense, but without consciousness, how would we even know that we exist? And what would there be to discuss then? Hmm ... that seems to give a lot of "gravity" to the situation right there. :wink:

Yes, I think it would be fair to say that consciousness is "the ground" of our true being. And that's gravity man! :wink:
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Sure, information relates to consciousness. Consciousness is mass moving around. Now where does the consciousness creates gravity part come in?

It can be shown that information, as opposed to random bits, can do work. If you review the paradox of Maxwell's Demon's - sorry if this is obvious but I'm not a philosopher by education - we find that structured information contains energy. This is a fundamental relationship that must be true regardless of how it is created and stored. This is akin to a second law argument about why a free energy machine can't work. I don't care how the machine is supposed to work, by the 2nd law I know that it can't. If information exists, so must stored energy and therefore gravity. This revelation solved a 100 year old paradox in physics.

Edit: I should say that the paradox was about information and energy. The gravity part comes from GR.

you can know nothing

We can only imagine incomplete physical models to explain what is observed. Without a GUT we can never know if they are really correct or merely feeble imposters that may or may not even satisfy our sensibilities.

Consciosness is the process of experiencing.

I don't know how the gravitational field of consciousness happens, but I understand that it must. This at least is my understanding of the state of the physics to this effect. My head grows heavy with all of this talk of information.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Yep, without gravity we couldn't stand upright. And neither could the soul, without consciousness! :wink:

So, perhaps consciousness is the metaphysical counterpart to gravity? ... Or, gravity itself?
 
  • #19
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What, beyond information, is consciousness?

Well some philosophers make a big distinction between our apperception of qualia and cognition. They give examples like Nagel's What is it like to be a Bat. You can know all about bats - have as much information on the subject as you like - but that doesn't call up in you the sense of what it's like to be a bat.

Or there's the color theorist Mary, who suffers from an eye disease that makes her see the world in black and white. She's the world expert on color science, has all the information about colors, but she can't SEE colors.

By the way, I really liked your maxwell's emon argument that information is equivalent to (free) energy and hence has equavalent mass. I wonder how that affects the information problem of black holes.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yep, without gravity we couldn't stand upright. And neither could the soul, without consciousness! :wink:

So, perhaps consciousness is the metaphysical counterpart to gravity? ... Or, gravity itself?

Perhaps it's your consciousness that keeps the planet Earth in orbit?
 
  • #21
Approaching the question exclus-
ively philosophically, has it
ever been conclusively determined
that that which we are not aware
of can accurately be said not to
exist?

If the answer is yes, then gravi-
ty, as we know it, was created
when we became conscious of it.
Philosophically it has been re-
created multitudes of times, each
time a sentient being stopped
taking it for granted and inte-
grated the information that things
fall DOWN, not up or sideways, into it's future behaviour and
planning.

The answer, philosophically, might
also be no. I would be very, very,
very surprised if any convincing
and complete physics answer turned
out to be yes.
 
  • #22
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Well some philosophers make a big distinction between our apperception of qualia and cognition. They give examples like Nagel's What is it like to be a Bat. You can know all about bats - have as much information on the subject as you like - but that doesn't call up in you the sense of what it's like to be a bat.

Or there's the color theorist Mary, who suffers from an eye disease that makes her see the world in black and white. She's the world expert on color science, has all the information about colors, but she can't SEE colors.

Even the "I" concept has structure. I would think that as soon as i conceive of I, "I" has gravity. This seems like a stretch but I am trying my best to stay within the confines of the proof that I saw. Ordered data can do work; random data can't. This was the key concept of the lecture.


By the way, I really liked your maxwell's emon argument that information is equivalent to (free) energy and hence has equavalent mass. I wonder how that affects the information problem of black holes.

I want to stress that there is nothing free. In fact, this proof resolves an apparent violation of the 2nd law...or do I misunderstand you here?
 
Last edited:
  • #23
I would think that chemical energy in the form of food is ultimately converted to information energy.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking


I want to stress that there is nothing free. In fact, this proof resolves an apparent violation of the 2nd law...or do I misunderstand you here?

Uh, yes you did. Maxwell's demon is an entropy reducer. The modern explanation is that he is a free (as opposed to fixed) energy consumer, and one of the charactistics of entropy is reduction of free energy in this sense. A different meaning of "free".

My motto (refusing to pay subscriptions online) Information wants to be free. And I want it to be free too.
 
  • #25


Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think he froze up...
Do you mind if I have a LIFE?

As soon as he reboots ask for the exact value of pi.
I'm more interested in the exact value of this thread.

I'm not sure I can relate to anything that been said here, so I'll go off on my own tangent...

If the Universe is ALL ENERGY ALL THE TIME -- which I believe it is, regardless of the "form" that energy takes...

AND if consciousness is a "form" of energy -- but NOT the "form" that is baryonic matter -- then it probably has NO MASS, hence NO GRAVITY per se...at least, not the "attractive de facto force" that CONNECTS all baryonic matter.

HOWEVER, my thought is that there is a corollary "force" that acts upon and interconnects consciousness ...which exists, at varying levels, in every bit of baryonic matter (from elementary particles to large dynamic coherent systems) ...hence there is ANOTHER ATTRACTIVE FORCE that pulls things together in the Universe.

This "consciousness network" would be the conduit through which "information" is transmitted between, well, ALL THINGS.

This is why I say that the Universe MAY BE a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of Its parts.

Now, of course, some/most believe that "dead matter" eventually combined with enough complexity to ignite and generate consciousness. But I say consciousness is a basic ingredient of the Universe, having existed in the Primal Singularity before It went through Its (most recent) Big Bang.

SO, I believe that consciousness DOES exert a "form" of gravity, if you will.

Happy now?
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Sure, information relates to consciousness. Consciousness is mass moving around. Now where does the consciousness creates gravity part come in?
Consciousness MAY have "mass" but it would probable be so subtle as to be indetectable to instrumentations designed to detect effects in the physical realm. However, I think we might be able to "see" its "tracks" ...that is, the EFFECT that INTENTION (ans ASPECT of consciousness) might have on the physical plane.

Why not? Are you saying that we must know everything before we can know anything? That's a rediculous paradox which means that you can know nothing, not even the paradox itself or that you know nothing.
Phenomena only APPEAR to be paradoxes until they are understood.

Consciosness is the process of experiencing. [/B]
More precisely -- IMO- consciouness is the process of "AWARENESS" through which experience is "ingested". (Sorry, I'm still honing my speculations, and have not fully developed my lexicon. Work with me.)

Note: an elementary particle would have a "lower level" of awareness than a bug ...we more than the bug ... a star more than us ...and the Universe more than a star.

Probe ...and I will reply.
 
  • #27


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Do you mind if I have a LIFE?

sorry I brought it up.
 
  • #28


Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
sorry I brought it up.

Oh No...

Ivan Seeking: Have you never been flippant??

I've been LOLing all night -- intermittently, of course -- at your "I think he froze up" remark ...while suspecting that you might not get my humor.

So at 3:50 am: I apologize ...not in a PM, but in front of the class.

I have nothing but respect for YOU -- and everyone here -- and will try to curb my rudeness in the future ...but then you'll never get to know the "real me".

Second chances?


Edit: BTW: I have no life.
 
Last edited:
  • #29


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Second chances?

a second chance a thousand times

My apologies. I did take this as a rub. Some people find me really annoying. :smile:

Of course if they didn't, I wouldn't be doing my job.


Edit: BTW: I have no life.

Edit: I think I have a Socrates complex!
 
Last edited:
  • #30
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Uh, yes you did.

ooops.


Maxwell's demon is an entropy reducer. The modern explanation is that he is a free (as opposed to fixed) energy consumer, and one of the charactistics of entropy is reduction of free energy in this sense. A different meaning of "free".

My motto (refusing to pay subscriptions online) Information wants to be free. And I want it to be free too.


You went right over me I think. I may know what you mean but lack the familiariy with the language...or not... Could you elaborate a little?
 
  • #31


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
AND if consciousness is a "form" of energy -- but NOT the "form" that is baryonic matter -- then it probably has NO MASS, hence NO GRAVITY per se...at least, not the "attractive de facto force" that CONNECTS all baryonic matter.

Could you get me up to speed on this? My understanding is that energy warps space-time which is gravity which is mass which is energy... Tom was objecting [I think] to a statement that I made about photons. I was told that until we have a QM theory of gravity, if we can... ...we can make no distinction between mass and mass energy. By this we can correctly assume a photon mass of hμc-2. This is consistent with GR and that’s all we can really say. Is this correct...or is this a view that is now heavily out of favor?
 
  • #32


Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
a second chance a thousand times
Does this mean I get to insult you 2000 times?

Edit: I think I have a Socrates complex! [/B]
What might this mean?
 
  • #33


Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Could you get me up to speed on this? My understanding is that energy warps space-time which is gravity which is mass which is energy... Tom was objecting [I think] to a statement that I made about photons. I was told that until we have a QM theory of gravity, if we can... ...we can make no distinction between mass and mass energy. By this we can correctly assume a photon mass of hμc-2. This is consistent with GR and that’s all we can really say. Is this correct...or is this a view that is now heavily out of favor?

I'm afraid I must defer to my "betters" on this ...which includes Tom and practically everybody ELSE. You see, I am merely a humble right-brained panpsychist who likes to connect the dots. The dots, however, must be supplied by somebody else.

However, I will say that I use the term "de facto force" as a nod to the warping of space-time that, apparently, has the EFFECT of drawing matter together.
 
  • #34
Yes, but doesn't consciousness give gravity to our being? For without it, what would we be? Certainly not conscious, and aware that we exist! :wink:
 
  • #35


Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Does this mean I get to insult you 2000 times?

Well, I can say that only one other person has insulted me over 2000 times...and I married her.


What might this mean?

Sometimes I seem to think that it is my job to argue that we can know nothing. Come to think of it, we have hemlock growing around here. Tea anyone?
 
  • #36
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but doesn't consciousness give gravity to our being? For without it, what would we be? Certainly not conscious, and aware that we exist! :wink:
Are you saying that there would be no point to our existence if we weren't AWARE of it? If so, then you have supported my case for the consciousness of the Universe.

I think everything is aware, at the very least, of its own existence ...to SOME degree, however rudimentary.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Are you saying that there would be no point to our existence if we weren't AWARE of it? If so, then you have supported my case for the consciousness of the Universe.

I think everything is aware, at the very least, of its own existence ...to SOME degree, however rudimentary.
Yes, I would agree, if based upon everything being a part of the Greater Mind as a whole ... where the notion of the Greater Mind gives even more credence to the relationship between gravity and consciousness.

Oh, check out some of my recent posts concering the nature of spirits. Beginning with my post The Heart of Reality and continuing with my dialogue with heusdens.
 
  • #38
Am here. I do expect that my situation was understood on my limitations at accesing the net, and it is appreciated. I would hope too to reply at various reactions addressed to me, but I guess I could try contain it at a certain length of the thread once in a while. Thanks.

Can you please explain me, how do you come to know that consciousness? [/QUOTE]

...By breathing, then contemplating about it...[zz)]

Whose consciousness are you talking about? Is there a collective consciousness, or a universal consciousness, that permeates everything? And how does this affect gravity?

With the capital C, or rather that contains the wholistic perspective of what you have mentioned. Well, I did mention this before during that moment at chat, it affects because it "feels heavy" .

To the best of my knowledge, gravity is a function of energy, the same energy that is what composes matter, and that is not quite the same energy that is what is consciousness, caaaaaause, if it was, we would have found human consciousness, by now, as we can detect those kinds of energies.

Simple enough?


In the theory, E is constant

More new-age silliness. Consciousness is a complex process of many different parts. Consciousness needs other stuff, including gravity, to exist, not the other way around. If it wasn't for gravity already existing, the environmental conditions for organisms to develop would not exist..just ever and fastly expanding matter and light would be the state of things.


Er, excuse me, but this could be a classic example of closemindedness. I don't think the established belief system that the world is supposed to 'bask' nowadays don't account much anyway, it would be an illusion to assume that the supposed established systems monopolize the concept of reality; but neither would it be rendered not part of Reality in general, perhaps just the erroneous parts of some subjective manipulations that make use of it, like for example, materialism. In another viewpoint what would a drain towards a greed oriented system, commercialized culture, hypocriciy of mercantile morality, bigotry from belief systems, slave and desert based mentality would answer for my personal inquiries? It does not provide much.

The argument seems to discuss about the manifestations, but I was referring to the source of the manifestation. you were referring to the term "other way around". It requires one to be an observer to state it. Hence your consciousness was required to confirm the information.

I think he froze up...

As soon as he reboots ask for the exact value of pi.


Hey I'm on a hot tropical country. Actually I had been to the capital city but its green house effect aftermath at night didn't make me comfortable so I immediately went back to my place Davao for fresher breeze. Good thing though, there was a typhoon and a seeming coup attempt days after I left[actually it wasn't a coup, it was a radical resort of some idealistic army guys who are disgruntled at the suspected corruption and attempt to mimic a local version of 'war economy' of the armed forces here;(I wonder how you deal the latter in your country)by the way it ended peacefully].

If the only answer you'd expect is 3.1416, what is there to ask?

1. Can someone disable these *blinking* avatars, and can it be set as a rule that *blinking* avatars are not done.

2. Shall we explain to Mr. Rocket Art that he has a perception of reality that is nothing less then that of Solipsism, and that actually the world exists outside of his mind also?

3. M. Gaspar. You can stop processing now. Thanks


1. I could have wanted an emoticon more exciting than the one chosen, but that's the only stuff i got .

2.Solipsism?I was referring to "Consciousness" not "I".

3. I think it would be up to a person to decide for that, not you( now that would be worth thanking


Edit: What, beyond information, is consciousness?

Energy? in its eloquent pattern?


Well I did try to reply, I guess the rest had been flowing well on. On a perspective I guess it also goes that on certain sitations,the individual has to seek the musings personally within himself/herself because sometimes that's the way some insights could be revealed.
 
  • #39
First, pi is 4 times arctan 1. Yes, exactly.

Second, the US Army has never mutinied. We had a whole lot of states that seceded, and a lot of the army officers went with them. In that case we fought a four year war and beat them.

Everybody assumes government here is corrupt, and nobody really cares that much. Just so the roads get paved and social security gets paid.
 
  • #40
Hi again . I've been browsing at the diverse comments in this thread, and I hope to try to share views and reactions whenever I can, so it would be appreciated that it would be understood if my postings would seem rather irregular.

First, pi is 4 times arctan 1. Yes, exactly.

Second, the US Army has never mutinied. We had a whole lot of states that seceded, and a lot of the army officers went with them. In that case we fought a four year war and beat them.

Everybody assumes government here is corrupt, and nobody really cares that much. Just so the roads get paved and social security gets paid.


Well ok. I seem to find the word 'arctan' a bit exotic though, is that an ET language? Anyways, I can search on the net the definiton of it. But I find pi, other than 3.1416, rather interesting.

Even when I'm not american, people here tend to do research about your country's history because oftentimes our information resources like encyclopedias tend to be made in US of A. But I think it is important for each individual to struggle for what is better for humanity, whether from what country one is in-as an Earth citizen protecting the planet. It's not an excuse to just 'not care' as long as things were met, it could be a drain that will drag everything down eventually. I guess that's also one of the reason why these views are shared, to keep us aware that we have capacity, or at least try to.

Consciousness MAY have "mass" but it would probable be so subtle as to be indetectable to instrumentations designed to detect effects in the physical realm. However, I think we might be able to "see" its "tracks" ...that is, the EFFECT that INTENTION (ans ASPECT of consciousness) might have on the physical plane.


I tend to see that the 'mass' of Consciousness, as manifestations of it, are virtually everything that we see: the monitor, table, trees, clouds, sun, planets...Light in its most basic phenomenon, transmit the information and datas and eventuaally it is a synchronicity of such diverse and complex patterns as its manifestation, relative and interconnected.


Note: an elementary particle would have a "lower level" of awareness than a bug ...we more than the bug ... a star more than us ...and the Universe more than a star.


"to see the universe in a grain of sand
and heaven in a wild flower
hold infinity in the palm of your hand
and eternity in an hour" -William Blake
(am not sure whether some are the exact words though)

I'd also like to add about the diference of my views to solipsism. Solipsisim seems to start with the mind. however I tend to view the mind as a tool of Consciousness, though a very important one. Consciousness, as the source of energy patterns, is in the realm beyond the tool. Hence I refer to Consciousness, in general not just the "I". Of course the "I" has gravity too, and also a profound manifestation of Consciousness intimately connected.

There was also that mention about "ANOTHER ATTRACTIVE FORCE"? I tend to agree with it. It's what 'balances' the reality the dimension, or rather some sort of denominator. It's the 'imbalance' of it that sets the certain 'existence', like the remainder of matter-antimatter, of a dimension (I believe in multiple dimensions).

With regards to the mention of 'free energy'. I knew of a friend who's into it and even when we're countries and cultures apart, our discussion of views are interestingly similar. I guess the concept of 'free energy', like the use of magnets on such technlogy, may not necessarily be 'perpetual', but rather the benefits derived from it would virtually provide 'free' energy to last thousands , or millions of years. However I guess he'll have more knowledge about it.

My discussion of Consciousness may also be going on from the relation to gravity, to concept beyond this dimension. Will try to discuss about it when I get the availability. Till then.
 
Last edited:
  • #41
arctan is the standars abbreviation for arc tangent, the functional inverse of the trigonometric function tangent. Sometimes arctan is also written tan-1.

In words, the arctangent of a number is the angle whose tangent is that number. Arctan 1 is 45o, or in dimensionless value [pi]/4.
 
  • #42
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
arctan is the standars abbreviation for arc tangent, the functional inverse of the trigonometric function tangent. Sometimes arctan is also written tan-1.

In words, the arctangent of a number is the angle whose tangent is that number. Arctan 1 is 45o, or in dimensionless value [pi]/4.

ok thanks. nice of you to have a comprehensive knoweldge on the technicalities of arctan.
 
  • #43
Originally posted by rocket art
I tend to see that the 'mass' of Consciousness, as manifestations of it, are virtually everything that we see: the monitor, table, trees, clouds, sun, planets...Light in its most basic phenomenon, transmit the information and datas and eventuaally it is a synchronicity of such diverse and complex patterns as its manifestation, relative and interconnected.
I'm with YOU on this ...that everything may be a "form" of the energy that is consciousness. However, if we are trying to "detect" conscious -- or its EFFECT -- we must either think in terms of "substance" (measurable mass) ...or a DETECTABLE, MEASURABLE and PREDICTABLE effect that consciousness has -- not as a "material" but as part of a "causal process." Maybe consciousness -- like light -- is both a particle (substance that is intrinsic to all things)AND a wave (an energy and/or force that is influential to all things).

rocket art: you were online when I started this. How are things in the 3rd world?
 
  • #44
Perhaps what you have required on the EFFECT, may be in reference to the observer-observed phenomenon. Consciousness may not be in the terms you refer to as measurable, because it is beyond that. If the reference is on the measurable, then it may be the realm of MEMORY, such as occurence from the past and so its documentation. I perceive that Consciousness may be beyond what is detectable, measurable, is because from the totality of the mass that we observe, our process on being its observer encompasses beyond the observed(i.e. the perceived universe), hence the phenomenon of Gravity.

Light is considered to be a conscious, but nonthinking entity. However the concept of Consciousness may be beyond the particle and wave concept, it's still a manifestation of Consciousness. However memory can be referred to as measurable.

With regards to your inquiry, I could specifically inform about the country I'm in. It's a strategic location and could affect the whole region in general. Our day-to-day living is otherwise alright, but there's seeming tension with the recent shakeup. Our internal affairs are somehow complicated, and it would be prudent that we deal with it ourselves. However it's getting known here that outside forces are trying to manipulate our internal concerns for its own interests that don't care much about our concerns, and we consider its corruption contemptible.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
A little update on my assertions about thoughts and mass

Hey all, just for the record, I was doing a little checking on my argument that since thoughts contain information, thus energy, they must have a gravitational field and mass. The concept of mass has changed a little bit and really becomes a matter of definition. I was working from the concept of mass being that thing that produces gravity. Now it seems that we remain with the concept of energy. But by the following discussion in the theoretical physics forum, we do have gravity with every thought. I think we can still argue for mass as well.

This is the response to the question: Can we argue for gravity solely on the basis of the energy of the photon?

quote from Marcus
but you said "gravity solely on the basis of the energy of the photons" and that is not quite right, it is gravity solely on the basis of the energy density and PRESSURE of the photons.

But for crying out loud light has almost no pressure at all, so let's neglect it!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=56039#post56039

Some homework has been done to confirm that this is a correct interpretation of current theory...good since 1916.
From jcsd after doing some homework:
Yep, Marcus the phtons of the universe defintely contribute to it's mass and the gravitational attraction, and yes it is related to the pressure exerted by light (the classic analogy is to consider a sealed box, containing photons, on a set of weighing scales).This wouldn't hold true for two parallel beams of phtons as they are acting in the same direction tho'(I'll try and get the correct equatins soon)>


I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I wanted to point out that although alternative models are discussed, this interpretation agrees with General Relativity and the consensus.

It seems that thoughts [ideas] have mass and gravity.
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Originally posted by rocket art


"to see the universe in a grain of sand
and heaven in a wild flower
hold infinity in the palm of your hand
and eternity in an hour" -William Blake

(am not sure whether some are the exact words though)


got a thrill
but Blake wrote metrically (eg. tetrameter and trimeter)
and "universe" has 3 syllables-----two too many---
so I copied this from the Oxford Book of Quotations

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand,
  And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,
  And Eternity in an hour."

William Blake born in 1757 same year as Mozart I think.
Also he evidently believed in what we call "multiple universes"
because he said "a World" instead of "the universe". cool guy.

I trespass into this thread because Ivan alerted me that
he had quoted me to the effect that it is not just energy that
shapes spacetime (effectively causing gravity) but also concentrations of pressure do it. pressure attracts just as energy does. the RHS of the main equation of GR is called the "stress energy tensor" and it combines quantities of energy density and quantities of pressure.

Ivan thanks for being so considerate. You are welcome to quote me in Philosophy forum if and when you think proper. But I cannot be a participant because it would scatter my already scattered wits to the four winds.

metric matters in Blake
I am thinking it should scan like this 4-3-4-3
no verse has an absolute metrical pattern but
various rhythmical possibilities grow out of verse and
here is one such

"To SEE a WORLD in a GRAIN of SAND,
  And a HEAV'N in a WILD FLOWer,
Hold inFINiTY in the PALM of your HAND,
  And eTERniTY in an HOUR."

duh DAH/ duh DAH/ duh duh DAH/ duh DAH
duh duh DAH/ duh duh DAH/ DAH duh
duh duh DAH/ duh DAH/ duh duh DAH/ duh duh DAH
duh duh DAH/ duh DAH/ duh duh DAH

iamb, iamb, anapest, iamb
anapest, anapest, trochee
anapest, iamb, anapest, anapest
anapest, iamb, anapest

Einstein's 1916 equation of GR is often written
as the curvature tensor G is equal to the stress-energy tensor T
either with the "mu, nu" or "m, n" subscripts as

Gmn = Tmn

or without the subscripts simply as

G = T
 
Last edited:
  • #47
got a thrill
but Blake wrote metrically (eg. tetrameter and trimeter)
and "universe" has 3 syllables-----two too many---
so I copied this from the Oxford Book of Quotations

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand,
And Eternity in an hour."


Hi. Just as I thought, somehow there's a word left when I tried to remember it, so there it was. My time's limited here as to accessing the net for checking it on search engines, so thanks.


metric matters in Blake
I am thinking it should scan like this 4-3-4-3
no verse has an absolute metrical pattern but
various rhythmical possibilities grow out of verse and
here is one such

"To SEE a WORLD in a GRAIN of SAND,
And a HEAV'N in a WILD FLOWer,
Hold inFINiTY in the PALM of your HAND,
And eTERniTY in an HOUR."

duh DAH/ duh DAH/ duh duh DAH/ duh DAH
duh duh DAH/ duh duh DAH/ DAH duh
duh duh DAH/ duh DAH/ duh duh DAH/ duh duh DAH
duh duh DAH/ duh DAH/ duh duh DAH

iamb, iamb, anapest, iamb
anapest, anapest, trochee
anapest, iamb, anapest, anapest
anapest, iamb, anapest




With regards to poetry, I also find it interesting to compose some. Years ago my works were also chosen and had been a Fellow to a National Writers Workshop here. Last year our art group had an island wide exhibit and my contribution was entitled "Contents in a Box of Patterns". It was a box with about more or less 15 small paintings inside with a corresponding poem each. it was actually inspired with my being a physics enthusiast, and with the postulation I presented. The community here though needed much exposure regarding these. However the poems I wrote were written in such a way that no technical physics terms were used, but simple words, and it's good to be aware that some viewers take notice of the ESSENCE of it.

However on my empirical viewpoint at writing poetry, I do not find it encouraging to be bridled by technical aspects of writing, and prefers it to be that way. Such technical terms may be quiet useful in such endeavors as science because it is a language tool used. However the communication of Art is not primarily about technicalities but rather the ESSENCE of an individual's expression. To see it on the technical rather than on the essence will be barking at the wrong twig.

Any attempt to bridle Art with technicalities (it is to be perceived a tool not an institution, and it is the individual's perogrative to responsibly deal with it), I can assure that sooner or later someone will deconstruct it. Not that technicalities are unnecessary, but rather it was not the issue. Art will always be beyond technicalities. However in literary fields, it would be understandable that such measurements would materialize as words are patterns in itself, provided that the Essence of a literary work is not stifled or disregarded in the process. However it will be the writer's prerogative.

I would rather that we talk on poetry or Blake's perspectives about its Essence and such World, or flower, or a sand grain, rather than on tetrameters or iambs. I believe that's what Blake's soul wanted it to be.

I believe that Consciousness isn't necessarily controlled by pattern (rather more of a guide), but rather pattern follows the needs of Consciousness.

On the other issue, I tend to like the discipline of composing Haiku on 5-7-5 syllables. Here Consciousness
chose to follow pattern.

Einstein's 1916 equation of GR is often written
as the curvature tensor G is equal to the stress-energy tensor T
either with the "mu, nu" or "m, n" subscripts as

Gmn = Tmn

or without the subscripts simply as

G = T


This is more apt as to the use of technical stuffs on science issues.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
6K
  • Sticky
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top