Roger Penrose

In these lectures Roger Penrose and I will put forward our related but rather different viewpoints on the nature of space and time. We shall speak alternately and shall give three
lectures each, followed by a discussion on our different approaches. I should emphasize that these will be technical lectures. We shall assume a basic knowledge of general relativity and quantum theory.

"Layman's Abstract:

This dissertation looks at how there is a texture to our temporal experience, how sometimes time seems to go faster, or slower, and how, on rare occasions, it seems to stop altogether. I suggest that this is a result of how time emerges from, and is mutually enfolded with timelessness. I suggest that this experience can be described with a fractal model that links our subjective experience to physical reality.

Traveling at the speed of light, photons exist outside of time. Time interacts with timelessness whenever matter interacts with light. Time emerges from timelessness at very small scales as the potential of a quantum wave function collapses into a physical manifestation. Our consciousness participates in this emergence/manifestation through quantum processes that occur at the smallest scales in our brains. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff's theory of quantum consciousness link neurological quantum processes to our experience of consciousness.

As time emerges out of timelessness the boundary between the two becomes more intricate and complex. This is a fractal boundary. The "edge effect" is an example of a fractal boundary, where at the interface of two ecosystems, such as the edge between a pond and a field, the greatest biodiversity is found. Complexity is the intertwining boundary between two dualities, in this case, between time and timelessness. The fractal dimension describes the density of this intertwining. The more densely we involve ourselves in some activity, the faster time seems to go. The more shallow our involvement, the slower time seems to go. Laurent Nottale's theory of physical fractal space-time describes the process of quantum collapse while Susie Vrobel's theory of subjective fractal time describes our subjective experience of time using fractal measures.

By combining these theories I establish a link between physical fractal time and our subjective experience of fractal time describing the intertwining of time and timelessness. The infinite within the finite–this is the paradox that animates the world–eternity within a moment, the moment within eternity, and the whole body of the universe in between, chasing its tail.


Academic Abstract:
This dissertation applies Susie Vrobel and Laurent Nottale’s fractal models of time to understanding our subjective experience of time, deepening the interface of quantum mechanics and subjectivity developed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. I first outline Penrose’s Objective Reduction (OR) version of quantum wave function collapse, and then the biological connection to microscopic brain structures and subjective states that Hameroff developed from Penrose’s theory. In the next section, I outline Nottale’s theory of scale relativity and fractal spacetime, covering his treatments of non-fractal classical time emerging from quantum, fractal, and reversible time. I then build on Vrobel’s model to identify specific properties of fractals, explore how they might model our subjective experience of time, and interface with the theories of Nottale and Penrose. At the confluence of these theories, I suggest aligning time with fractal scale. In this case, the data of the timeless present moment, like the fractal pattern, is condensed and replicated through memories, creating the fractal dimension, or temporal density, of the subjective passage of time. Thus, temporal flow unfurls from, and nests within, the timeless present. Finally, I consider the implications for the human relationship with time."

"George Derfer, Zhihe Wang and Michel Weber (eds.), The Roar of Awakening. A Whiteheadian Dialogue Between Western Psychotherapies and Eastern Worldviews, Frankfurt / Paris / Lancaster, ontos verlag, 2009. (251 p. ; ISBN: 978-3-86838-039-2 ; 89 €)
The primary goal of this volume is to describe the contemporary state of affairs in Western psychotherapy, and to do so in a Whiteheadian spirit: with genuine openness to the relative ways in which creativity, beauty, truth and peace manifest themselves in various cultural traditions. To do so, it chooses to explore afresh a cross-elucidatory path that was born with the field of history of religion (and Religionwissenschaft): what have we, and can we, learn from a dialogue with Eastern worldviews? In order to generate meaningful contrasts between these different systems of thought, all the papers address the following core issues. On the one hand, how does the given system understand the interaction of individuality, society, and nature (or cosmos)? Especially: what is its standpoint with regard to the nature of consciousness and with regard to the mind/body problem?; how far is it dualistic?; how are destiny and historicity assessed? On the other hand, what is the paradigm of all mal-adjustment (or pathology) and what is its typical tuning-in (or curative) pattern? What are furthermore the ins and outs of the diagnostic and therapeutic assessments involved? Wherever possible, some (meta)theoretical and clinical issues are addressed from the vantage point of selected material from abnormal psychology or psychiatry.
Table of contents
Contents
Contributors
Foreword — George Derfer, Zhihe Wang and Michel Weber
Introduction — Michel Weber
I. The View from the East
1. Consciousness: The Vedantic Approach to Life and Reality, Francis-Vincent Anthony
2. Dual-Aspect Framework for Consciousness, RamLakhan Pandey Vimal
3. The Paradoxes of Radical Asceticism: Jainism as a Therapeutic Paradigm, Jeffery D. Long
4. Yoga Therapeutics: Philosophical, Scientific and Humanistic Approaches, Ashok Kumar Malhotra
5. Can Indian spiritual practices be used in psychotherapy?, R L Kapur
II. Transcultural Dialogue
6. Ineradicable Frustration and Liberation in Tiantai Buddhism, Brook Ziporyn
7. An Exploration and Analysis into Chinese Traditional Psychotherapy Ideas—A Concurrent Comment on the Integrative point of view of Whitehead’s Organic Philosophy, Fengqiang Gao and Yingmin Chen
8. The Kyoto School and self-awareness in the field of the absolute nothingness —A comparison with Whitehead’s philosophy, Eiko Hanaoka
9. Jung and Hisamatsu Re-envisioning Religiosity: Jungian Psychotherapy and the Kyoto School, Tokiyuki Nobuhara
10. Reconstructing the Meaning of Being Human: A Postmodern Reinterpretation of Frankl in the Framework of Whitehead’s Philosophy, Yoshihiro Hayashi
11. The Development of Binswanger’s Daseinsanalysis, Shoji Muramoto
12. The Intercultural and Daseinsanalytical Psychiatry of Kimura Bin, Bernard Stevens
13. A Certain Form of Psychotherapy (Kenosis, Prajna, Jung, and Hillman), David T. Bradford
14. Vedanta, Process and Psychotherapy, Joseph Grange
15. On Zen Buddhism, Clive Sherlock
"

El presente trabajo caracteriza brevemente la teoría cuántica de la mente desarrollada por Roger Penrose y Stuart Hameroff y ofrece algunas críticas sobre la misma.

This paper explains in short the quantic theory of mind developed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff and offers some criticism on it

Sir Roger Penrose (born 8 August 1931) is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and an emeritus fellow of Wadham College, Oxford. Penrose has made contributions to the mathematical physics of general relativity and cosmology. He has received several prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems.

Stephen Hawking admired A.K. Raychaudhuri’s contributions to Physics. His contributions are widely recognized by the international scientific community. But AKR remains a hidden figure in his own homeland.

Link: http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/45371

Updated February 2022:
The creation, or emergence, of a technological singularity is the subject of a wide array of speculations. Due to their lack of tangible criteria, the prospect of an upcoming singularity is still unclear, if not completely mysterious. This paper proposes to unfold a precise and exhaustive profile that may be applicable to any class of emergent singularity. The guideline for this endeavor is Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy, as expressed in his tripartite epistemological groundwork, The Three Critiques. As Kant never intended the first two of them (Critique of Pure Reason and Critique of Practical Reason) to be merely descriptions of ‘human’ or ‘psychic’ cognition, they have always been an invitation to ponder non-human forms of scientific world-exploration, technical world-building, and moral behavior.
Even the Critique of Judgement, which is more focused on the evolution and culture of actual human beings, can teach us a great deal about a singularity to come. The working hypothesis is that Kant’s Three Critiques are a complete set of universal concepts and principles, involving scientific, technical, and moral reason, and that they must, as such, contain a blueprint for technological singularities. Hence, this paper deduces a set of ten laws that will govern any future singularity. By the force of these laws, the singularity must be a polycentric subject – just as we humans are. In the process, we will confirm Nick Bostrom’s orthogonality thesis, solve David Chalmers’ “hard problem” of consciousness, and confirm the unwavering validity of Kant’s critical philosophy for science and technology in the 21st century, and beyond.

The cosmopolitical imperative to reshape our planetary imaginary in the face of the anthropocene or climate crisis faces not only the question of the spatiality of the planet we inhabit but its temporality. The need to create a new pluralist cosmology becomes, as Lukáš Likavčan has described, a comparative planetology, a composition of topological images internal to the dynamics of the planet itself, and we would say to the Universe. The breakdown of a planetary equilibrium is a breakdown of the internal composition of the planet's images, a subordination to the linearity of the Modern, in the collapse of the curved Sky to the flat Earth, appearing as a positive feedback, J-form reproduction of population, use of resources, and disposal of waste. Unable to enact a cyclical, or periodic, reintegration of waste and death-to partake in the negative feedbacks that keep the Sky-Earth System in balance-the Modern situation appears instead as the nihilism of unending "growth," which reproduces ever more suffering and death. It is the Modern's linear and asymmetric thinking that defines the nihilism of the Modern, the inability to get out of the finite in the very way that the Modern fails to integrate the finite other-the animal-death as the reciprocal of life. The Modern is unable to reverse entropy, for they see such reversal as simply as its denial, a timesymmetry (to use the terms of physics) that makes the two sides indifferent equivalents of each other, eliminating time altogether. The Moderns themselves create the alternative by which they already exclude the "cyclic" thinking of the ancients : either the static elimination of time through an indifferent symmetry, or the preserving of diachrony through an ever-incomplete asymmetry (the arrow of time). The Modern simultaneously over-generalizes the Earth in its horizontality and at the same time is unable to give a "justification" for the Earth, for the animal. The secular and monotheist Modern debases the animal and loses the God in the same fell swoop-from the disciplinarian Catholic boarding-school to the Nazification of agriculture-never finding the Human that is their crossing, the person at the Center of the Universe, who suspends the impersonality of the World.

"Michel Weber & Anderson Weekes (eds.), Process Approaches to Consciousness in Psychology, Neuroscience, and Philosophy of Mind, Albany, New York, State University of New York Press, 2009. (484 p. ; ISBN 978-1-4384-2941-0 ; 65,32 €) (Jan 2011, paperback, ISBN 978-1-4384-2940-3)
A good part of what fuels the current boom in consciousness studies is the robust progress of cognitive psychology and neuroscience toward reaching consensus explanations of just about anything except consciousness. Despite hopes that empirical research and computational modeling would constrain theory, it seems that scholarly debate has not so much reached an impasse as remained at one reached in the 17th century. Given the massive effort currently invested in research and debate, the lack of progress towards a general (and generally accepted) theory of consciousness begins indeed to make consciousness look like a kind of 21st century Philosopher’s Stone, whose hidden nature seems to hold the key to the greatest mysteries, but continues to elude us. Accordingly, the present volume taps leading researchers and theorists in the study of consciousness and Whitehead scholars to explore an interface between process thinking and the burgeoning field of consciousness studies. In sum, the rationale for such a project has two main facets: first, the state of an educated debate that seems, first, unproductive and peculiarly burdened by its deep modernist origins; and, secondly, marked more by disciplinary rivalry than interdisciplinary synthesis.
Table of Contents
List of Contributors
Preface, Michel Weber & Anderson Weekes
1. Main Themes of the Book
2. Précis of the Contributions
I. Introductory Essays, Michel Weber & Anderson Weekes
1. Process Thought as a Heuristic for Investigating Consciousness
2. Whitehead as a Neglected Figure of 20th Century Philosophy
3. Consciousness as a Topic of Investigation in Western Thought
4. Whitehead’s Unique Approach to the Topic of Consciousness
II. Psychology and Philosophy of Mind
5. Consciousness as a Subjective Form, David Ray Griffin (Claremont)
6. The Interpretation and Integration of the Literature on Consciousness from a Process Perspective, Michael W. Katzko (Nijmegen)
7. Windows on Nonhuman Minds, Donald R. Griffin (Harvard)
III. From Metaphysics to (Neuro-)Science and Back Again
8. Panexperientialism, Quantum Theory, and Neuroplasticity, George W. Shields (Kentucky State)
9. The Evolution of Consciousness, Max Velmans (Goldsmiths)
10. The Carrier Theory Of Causation, Gregg H. Rosenberg (New York)
IV. Applications to Psychiatry: Consciousness as Process
11. The Microgenetic Revolution in Contemporary Neuropsychology and Neurolinguistics, Maria Pachalska (Lublin and Gdansk) and Bruce Duncan MacQueen (Bydgoszcz)
12. From Coma to Consciousness, Avraham Schweiger (Tel Aviv), Michael Frost (Tel Aviv) , Ofer Keren (Raanana and Tel-Aviv)
13. Consciousness and Rationality from a Process Perspective, Michel Weber (Chromatiques)
V. History (and Future?) of Philosophy
14. Consciousness, Memory, and Recollection according to Whitehead, Xavier Verley (Toulouse le Mirail)
15. Consciousness and Causation in Light of Whitehead’s Phenomenology of Becoming, Anderson Weekes (New York)"

This book will challenge how you think about time.

Any complete understanding of the universe must include an understanding of time. Yet, so far, no theory describes our experience of time. Physics can no longer purport a theory of everything yet ignore human consciousness. Any complete theory must address consciousness. Likewise, any theory of consciousness must account for how it interacts with spacetime. Understanding time demands a reckoning between cosmology and consciousness.

Physics describes time as spatialized, static, and reversible, while we experience time as textured, flowing, and unidirectional. Reconciling these two perspectives demands a richer understanding of time. No model is better suited to capture time's quantitative and qualitative aspects than the cyclicity, creativity, and infinite depths of fractals. Fractals offer a mathematical model with room for internal richness. Nature inhabits space as branching tree canopies, watersheds, and jagged mountain vistas utilizing multiple levels of scale. What if time follows similar patterns?

We experience time as a tension between frequencies. When aligned we experience timelessness. When misaligned or out of sync, time gains density. We contain a vast spectrum of frequencies from the fastest brain waves frequencies to our slowest breath rate. A fractal model of time attends to relationships between these frequencies or scales of time. For example, EEG brain wave states reveal a fractal, power law signature across their frequencies.

As internal frequencies grapple to lock in with external frequencies, our experience of time emerges as a tension between them. The neurotransmitter dopamine drives internal brain frequencies. So, variations in dopamine levels show up as variations in the temporal experiences associated with aging, ADHD, and schizophrenia. Our experience of time emerges as a tension between frequencies. Fractals do not smooth over these differences of scale, but rather acknowledge them as building the density of a structure, the structure of time.

Possibilities for how to conceptualize a fractal time come from astrophysicist Laurent Nottale and theorist Susie Vrobel. To connect consciousness and physics Welch brings in the model of quantum consciousness as devised by physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. By interweaving these models with insights from relativity, quantum mechanics, the second law of thermodynamics, neurology, and philosophy, Welch offers a solid foundation from which to contemplate fractal time. This interdisciplinary approach weaves an integral understanding of time.

In this model, time deepens into timelessness as energy folds back on itself in repeating cycles building matter, building time. Time deepens into the timeless present through the data compression of memory. The direction of time is in, in every direction. The complexity of our lives unfurl in the intertwining interface of time and timelessness. You are built of time.

Available at: https://bookshop.org/books/a-fractal-topology-of-time-deepening-into-timelessness/9781734576207?aid=888

Una discussione sulle criticità dell’Artificial Intelligence. Un dibattito, fra scienza e filosofia. Il confronto tra un eminente fisico e matematico, sir Roger Penrose, e uno dei massimi filosofi teoretici del nostro tempo, Emanuele Severino.

Presentado en el IX Coloquio de Humanidades de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

El mito de la caverna de Platón ha tenido un gran impacto la epistemología. Roger Penrose, en el prólogo de Shadows of the Mind, hace una reinterpretación de la alegoría de la caverna, para afirmar con ayuda de la ciencia se puede obtener el verdadero conocimiento sin salir de la caverna. Este giro filosófico y argumental, que representa la perspectiva epistémica de un científico platonista, puede ayudar a plantear de manera optimista los límites de la ciencia. Se plantea en este texto un análisis de la cueva de Platón, desde la estética de la recepción basada en el prólogo de Penrose.

Advances in artificial intelligence and neuroscience claim to have begun to undermine the assumptions of the arts and educational theory community by explaining consciousness through either a reduction to mathematical functionalism or an excrescence of brain biology.  I suggest that the worldview behind such reductionism is opposed to the worldview assumed by many educational practitioners and theorists.  I then go on to outline a few common positions taken in the burgeoning field of consciousness studies that suggest that—though many attributes of consciousness have been identified and explained—individual consciousness itself remains as much of an enigma to scientists as to the rest of us who experience it.  However, I do suggest the necessity of intersubjectivity for conscious evolution.

Raw and unedited notes and considerations on R. Penrose and S. Hameroff's Orchestrated Objective Reduction Theory, Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay studies,  Jürg Fröhlich Bose-Einstein condensation implications, Karthikeyan Marimuthu and Raj Chakrabarti on Dynamics and Control of DNA Sequence Amplification in TQC programs

Recent writings by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose make it very timely to examine afresh whether an infinite temporal regress of events is possible. I argue that physical infinities entail the violation of metaphysical necessity, in particular the violation of the metaphysically necessary principle that the causal powers of a set of entities ultimately depend on the entities in the set and not the number in conjunction with the entities. I show that in certain scenarios such violations would follow only if physical infinities such as an infinite temporal regress of events exist. Since whatever entails the violation of metaphysical necessity cannot exist, physical infinities such as an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

The article discusses developments in modern science that are relevant to Platonic philosophy as well as Jungian concepts of 'unus mundus', the psychoid archetype, and synchronicity.

Keywords: Orch OR, quantum brain, archetype, insect intelligence, Plato, Hameroff, Penrose, Jung.

Critique is directed against lingering philosophical Idealism and its counterpart; rationalistic physicalism. The remarkable discoveries of quantum physics invalidate them both, findings that have largely been ignored. The objective world constitutes of both mind and matter, and so does the subject. There exists no metaphysical barrier. Rather, subject and object are interactive and partake of the very same substance of reality. This has complementary nature, that is, manifests either as mind or matter.

Keywords: philosophy of color, theory of mind, ontology, epistemology, Idealism, Orch OR, qualia, reprentationism, artificial intelligence, AI, machine-human, physicalism, rationalism, complementarity, wave-particle duality, Kant, Descartes, Roger Penrose, James J. Gibson.

The main aim of science is to know and to know is to better understand this paradoxical universe of ours.Then there is technology whose aim is to apply what we know to make the world a better place. However there are questions we ask ourselves everyday that science, despite it's success, has not been able to fully answer, could it be that our approaches has gotten to it's dead end or that our ignorance has taken the most out of us.
Two subfields of science has promoted radical questions that challenges our knowledge of existence and reality, and they are quantum mechanics and artificial intelligence, the former challenging our understanding of reality and the later challenging our understanding of what consciousness actually is. Scientists have made us to believe so many things, but what if at some point they were wrong, what if at the classical world we experience quantum mechanical principles like entanglement, what if there is actually a multiverse and that we access/visit them and what if the interpretations of quantum mechanics can be resolved. The big bang theory explains how our present universe came into be but fails to tell us what caused it and how life came into be, what if this can be resolved too. From a philosophical perspective, what if consciousness and it's hard problems can be understood and resolved and lots more of what ifs. Get to find out ?, then get ready to get your minds blown 😱, as we explore these possibilities and resolve some of these paradoxical questions, using a novel approach that is not wildly known. But first you need to remember this
'' The laws of the universe need not be complicated, all that is required are the right ingredients '' .

Resumen: Al final de su libro "La conciencia inexplicada", Juan Arana señala que la nomología, explicación según las leyes de la naturaleza, requiere de una nomogonía, una consideración del origen de las leyes. Es decir, que el orden que observamos en el mundo natural requiere una instancia previa que ponga ese orden específico. Sabemos que desde la revolución científica la mejor manera de explicar dicha nomología ha sido mediante las matemáticas. Sin embargo, en las últimas décadas se han presentado algunas propuestas basadas en modelos matemáticos que fundamentarían muchos aspectos de la realidad. Dos claros ejemplos provienen de Roger Penrose y Max Tegmark. Esto lleva a pensar en una posición no solo nomológica sino además nomogónica de la matemática. ¿Puede la Naturaleza estar fundada por las matemáticas como señalan algunos físico-matemáticos? Y en ese caso, ¿sería pertinente buscar una nomo-génesis de esta índole en la constitución de la conciencia?

Palabras clave: Método científico, Filosofía de la Naturaleza, Filosofía de la Matemática, Conciencia, Metafísica, Penrose, Tegmark.

Abstract: At the end of his book "La conciencia inexplicada", Juan Arana points out that nomology, explanation according to the laws of nature requires a nomogony, an account of the origin of the laws. This means that the order that we can observe in the natural World demands something prior to posit that specific order. Since the scientific revolution we know that the best way to explain that nomology has been through mathematics. Anyway, in recent decades a number of proposals based on mathematical models that found many aspects of reality has been offered. Two clear examples come from Roger Penrose and Max Tegmark. This drives us to think of a position of mathematics as not only nomological but also nomogonical. Can Nature be founded by mathematics as some physicists and mathematicians point out? And, in this case, would be relevant this kind of approach to search a nomo-genesis in the constitution of consciousness?

Keywords: Scientific Method, Philosophy of Nature, Philosophy of Mathematics, Consciousness, Metaphysics, Penrose, Tegmark.

It is suggested that Charles Sanders Peirce’s triadic semiotics provides
a framework for a diagrammatic representation of a sign’s proper structure. The
action of signs is described at the logical and psychological levels. The role of (unconscious)
abductive inference is analyzed, and a diagram of reasoning is offered. A
series of interpretants transform brute facts into interpretable signs thereby providing
human experience with value or meaning. The triadic structure helps in demystifying
the relations between Penrose’s three worlds when the latter are considered
as constituting a semiotic triangle.
KEY WORDS: abduction, Peirce, Penrose’s three worlds, process ontology,
semiotic reality, the diagrammatic reasoning, the complex plane

Una doverosa avvertenza, di seguito non si vuole specificatamente discutere della consistenza, dal punto di vista della fisica e più in generale della scienza, dell’ipotesi dell'Universo Olografico, della Fisica dell’Informazione, dell'Argomento della Simulazione, del Modello ORCHestrated Objective Reduction, argomenti che chi scrive ritiene più metafisici che fisici, ma solo ricostruire la genealogia delle idee alla base delle ipotesi citate, trattandole come idee connesse tra loro e soggette a mutua influenza reciproca, prescindendo dal loro valore epistemologico per la filosofia della scienza o, in senso più ampio, la conoscenza dei metodi dei principi secondo i quali la scienza costruisce sé stessa.
Per quanto poco plausibile possa sembrare l'idea che la realtà che percepiamo possa essere un ologramma o addirittura una simulazione generata da un computer, motivo per cui la fisica deve anche trattare l'informazione, è indubbio che negli ultimi anni queste idee hanno raggiunto una grande popolarità, sia nella cultura popolare, che in alcuni ambiti della fisica teorica.
Di seguito s'intende evidenziare le reciproche contaminazioni tra le idee ascrivibili alla scienza ed alla filosofia e le concezioni pseudoscientifiche espresse dalla cultura di massa che hanno portato alle ipotesi precedentemente elencate.

This article presents the scientific discoveries of Penrose and Ferent.
In this way you can compare and evaluate their scientific discoveries.

Ferent Quantum Gravity and Einstein's equivalence principle:

“Einstein's equivalence principle is wrong because the gravitational force (negative) experienced locally is caused by gravitons and the force (positive) experienced by an observer in a non-inertial frame of reference accelerated upward”.
The force is a vector not a scalar as Einstein thought”
Adrian Ferent

“Because Einstein's equivalence principle is wrong, Einstein’s general theory of relativity is wrong.”
Adrian Ferent

This entry brings together the philosophies of Charles S. Peirce, John Dewey and Gilles Deleuze, crossing over the continental and pragmatic divide to demonstrate their analogous approach to the action of signs in the world. They conceived of philosophy as proto-science, natural philosophy; yet embedded in cultural life and human experiences. This relation between nature and culture, surpassing the Cartesian schism, is a province of semiotics, the study of signs. Genuine signs have a triadic structure and conform to the a-signifying logic of the included middle. Further, the article discusses reality according to Sir Roger Penrose (who is Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the University of Oxford) positing it as having a semiotic structure where matter and spirit, body and mind are not dualistic categories but form an organic whole via relations and connections. Values which are traditionally inculcated in schools as abstract concepts acquire semiotic reality: values are signs situated in life; as such they can be interpreted and created anew in the process of experiential learning. These signs partake of universal Platonic Ideas at the level of the unconscious and virtual, rather than conscious, particular and actual. The task of bringing them to consciousness, to construct a semiotic bridge between actual and virtual, is challenging, yet it is achieved by edusemiotics. The implications for moral education are discussed.

Geometric and motivationals but especially graphics arguments are presented concerning a posible generalization to the Black Hole (BH) model. The propousals are highly linked (i think) with the spinorial formalism. As a first step, we study the BH perturbations l = 0 and l = 1 in a tridimensional version of the Penrose-Carter diagram.

This essay  thematises an observer-oriented space curved upon itself. Burgin‘s texts “Situational Aesthetics“ (1969) and “Geometry and Abjection“ (1987) as well as the works “Memory Piece“ (1967) and “Park Edge“ are discussed as contributions to Burgin‘s theoretical concept being able to comment each other.

According to Penrose, the fundamental conflict between the superposition principle of quantum mechanics and the principle of general covariance of general relativity entails the existence of wavefunction collapse, e.g. a quantum superposition of two different space-time geometries will collapse to one of them due to the ill-definedness of the time-translation operator for the superposition. In this paper, we argue that Penrose's conjecture on gravity's role in wavefunction collapse is debatable. First of all, it is still a controversial issue what the exact nature of the conflict is and how to resolve it. Secondly, Penrose's argument by analogy is too weak to establish a necessary connection between wavefunction collapse and the conflict as understood by him. Thirdly, the conflict does not necessarily lead to wavefunction collapse. For the conflict or the problem of ill-definedness for a superposition of different space-time geometries also needs to be solved before the collapse of the superposition finishes, and once the conflict has been resolved, the wavefunction collapse will lose its physical basis relating to the conflict. In addition, we argue that Penrose's suggestions for the collapse time formula and the preferred basis are also problematic.

[NOTE: I no longer agree with all of the propositions in this article.]

Special relativity inclines most contemporary interpreters (DiSalle, Maudlin, Penrose, Sider, Wheeler) away from the Thomistic three-dimensional, substance ontology. Most interpreters say space and time serve only as hermeneutics for accessing the deeper ontological foundation, four-dimensional spacetime. Unfortunately, this reigning narrative seems to replace the conventions of measuring rods and clocks with an even greater convention. Noticeably absent in the literature is a Thomistic interpretation of special relativity. Some Thomistic authors (Feser, Kiley, McLaughlin, Moreno) defend aspects of Aquinas’ metaphysics on the periphery of special relativity, and suggest misgivings about four-dimensionalism. But none have attempted to demonstrate the viability of a three-dimensional alternative. This paper attempts to do just that, to provide a three-dimensional, Thomistic interpretation of special relativistic phenomenon—specifically, length contraction and time dilation. Behind this phenomenon, I argue, is the ordinary physical structure of clocks and the fact that every Aristotelian motion involves multiple true velocities.

This text was submitted to a journal. As it’s rejected and considering that it was very exhausting (a no-man’s land) to write it, no new submission will happen soon. There is actually a relatively similar book chapter written by the same author, hence maybe this text also contains some quality. Enjoy it or ignore it.
Prologue
Once upon a time some people wondered what self-awareness is made of… And they lived happily ever after.
Introduction
The title of this article is inspired, among other things also elaborated here, by the idea of the theory of everything and quantum mechanics and its interpretations (Penrose, 2004a). It is interesting that, as scientists went down the scale into investigations of smaller and smaller objects, they encountered mathematical formulas, wave functions, and waves-particles instead of tiny balls or other geometrical shapes of matter. If reality at its most fundamental (size-wise) is uncertain (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) and prone to interpretations, perhaps an attempt to tell the story of everything is just as legit as searching for the theory of everything. One way or another, that “everything” should, in order to deserve its name, somehow either implicitly or explicitly include consciousness. Bearing in mind what Heisenberg and Pauli (Zeilinger, 1996) had to say about reality, this approach seems to be a natural continuation of their work. Unfortunately, it’s too late to ask them (especially Pauli – “the most radical position” (Zeilinger, 1996)) for opinion.

The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems (after Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking) are a set of results in general relativity that attempt to answer the question of when gravitation produces singularities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems#:~:text=The%20Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking%20singularity%20theorems,of%20when%20gravitation%20produces%20singularities.

Probably, most probably, almost certainly “consciousness” isn’t information but the “contest” by which everything has meaning…I will now address for example by such a perspective the situation of black holes as such a litmus boundary of consciousness in a duality or dialectic between consciousness at a local non local POV and the holographic quality of reality … within an holistic description of such a dipole consciousness ping pong 🏓

If you see that information doesn’t exist without consciousness you will possibly be ahead of the game of understanding gravity and quantum mechanics of understanding what consciousness really is: It is the “context” by which anything has any meaning at all from the wave formation collapse to the event horizon there is only a phenomenology called consciousness …

Here with Brian Green & C. you can see how it is possible to come up 🆙 with some “practical” applications of Quantum Computing as a ER bridge between quantum realm and relativity that I called “quantum relativity” intentionally  bypassing “gravity” as a side effect without substantially manifesting on the boulders between matter and Consciousness-Life “fields”. That is an immaterial “bridge” between “matter” and NON matter that in my opinion is. precisely what really matters:

https://youtu.be/arzr4KWhamU?si=SxWC5235EjB9kAHb

But now this is unfortunately pretty “anthropologically” awkward, precisely like Einstein’s god not playing dice, not evolutionary and THEREFORE  stubbornly to give up on instantaneous Consciousness universal entanglement:)

I teoremi di singolarità di Penrose-Hawking (da Roger Penrose e Stephen Hawking) sono un insieme di risultati della relatività generale che tentano di rispondere alla domanda su quando la gravitazione produce singolarità.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems#:~:text=The%20Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking%20singularity%20theorems,of%20when%20gravitation%20produces%20singularities.

Probabilmente, molto probabilmente, quasi certamente la "coscienza" non è informazione ma il "contesto" per cui tutto ha un significato... Ora affronterò ad esempio da una tale prospettiva la situazione dei buchi neri come un tale limite di tornasole della coscienza in una dualità o dialettica tra la coscienza in un POV locale non locale e la qualità olografica della realtà... all'interno di una descrizione olistica di un tale ping pong di coscienza dipolare 🏓

Se vedi che l'informazione non esiste senza coscienza sarai probabilmente in vantaggio nel gioco della comprensione della gravità e della meccanica quantistica per comprendere cosa sia realmente la coscienza: è il "contesto" per cui qualsiasi cosa ha un significato dal collasso della formazione delle onde all'orizzonte degli eventi, esiste solo una fenomenologia chiamata coscienza...

Qui con Brian Green & C. puoi vedere come è possibile arrivare 🆙 ad alcune applicazioni "pratiche" del Quantum Computing come un ponte ER tra il regno quantistico e la relatività che ho chiamato "relatività quantistica" bypassando intenzionalmente la "gravità" come effetto collaterale  tra “campi” di materia  e Coscienza-Vita . Questo è un immateriale “ponte” tra “materia” e NON materia che a mio parere è. esattamente ciò che conta davvero:

https://youtu.be/arzr4KWhamU?si=SxWC5235EjB9kAHb

Ma ora questo è sfortunatamente abbastanza "antropologicamente" imbarazzante, esattamente come il dio di Einstein che non gioca a dadi, non è evolutivo e QUINDI rinuncia ostinatamente all'intreccio universale della Coscienza istantanea :)

Erwin Schrödinger 1944 yılında yazdığı Yaşam Nedir? kitabında, fiziğin içerisinden doğan bir bilimin canlılığı açıklayacağını iddia etmişti. Geçtiğimiz yüzyılda, madde ve enerji hakkında pek çok yeni şey öğrenildi. Schrödinger'in varlığından dahi habersiz olduğu pek çok yeni fenomen keşfedildi. Ardı arkası kesilmeyen bu bilimsel keşifler bilim ve bilim insanlarına duyulan güveni arttırdı. Ancak geçen zaman içerisinde Schrödinger'in işaret ettiği, organik ile ingorganik dünyayı birbirine bağlayan fiziksel köprü henüz bulunamadı; üstelik, moleküler düzeyde atomlar biyoloji ve fizikte aynı yasalara bağlı olmalarına rağmen. Canlılık neden vardı ve bilinç nasıl var oluyordu? Modern disiplinlere miras kalan bu çok boyutlu enigma, kendisini sıkı sıkıya koruyordu. Bu, gizeminin hiçbir parçasının üzerine henüz ışık düşmedi. Günümüz fizikçileri canlılığı ve bilinci açıklayacak o kıvılcımı, kuantum fiziğinde aramaktadır.[1] Makalemizin konusu olan Roger Penrose'un zihin teorisi de bu bağlamda ileri sürülmüş bir teoridir. Penrose, ileri sürmüş olduğu "Orch OR" teorisi ile bilince kuantum fiziği açısından bir açıklama sunmayı hedefler. Bilince açılan bir köprü bulduğunu ifade eder, hücre dinamiğinin en temelde bağlı olduğu yasaların ancak kuantum fiziğinin imkanları ile anlaşılabileceğini ifade eder.

intact and appears in PR as the "theory of extension." It differs from Whitehead's earlier formal ontology because it is now supplemented by and systematically correlated with the "theory of prehensions," which provides the foundation and context for the dynamics of subjectivity. The challenge is to make the theory of extension and the theory of prehensions cohere in such a way that they constitute one theory with two mutually interdependent parts.

In this paper, the author introduces the reader to Roger Penrose´s program against the dualism mind-world and discusses the most important philosophical consequences of Penrose´s program. The subject of the analysis is the constitution of a theory of consciousness within
the contemporary scientific and philosophical view of the world in the precise sense according to which the physical world is the shadow of the mind. Penrose names this new theory Objective Reduction (OR) and its aim is to show that the brain is sometimes governed by classical processes and some other times by quantum processes. After the characterization of consciousness by its ability to intuit truth from falsity, this paper puts the subject of discussion in the frame of a theory of fundamental processes or also in the line of complexity.

Connes utilizes the fact that spatial distance is now measured as inverse frequency of noncommutative time-frequency nonlocality. He realized that the Pythagorean 3/2 ratio as a multiplicative power factor for music resonance also relies on a noncommutative inverse frequency for the time as the wavelength. This explains why the Pythagorean discrete rational ratio "Infinite Spiral of Fifths" is actually the 5th dimension as an alchemical listening meditation process. The "infinite spiral of fifths" in Daoism as the 2, 3, infinity music secret is also the same as Connes two, three, infinity claim as is the "three gunas" of the oldest philosophy of India.
Therefore as qigong master Chunyi Lin teaches, "The simplest is the most powerful." As Sir James Jeans taught in his "Science and Music" book, "All Simplicity Disappears" when we realize the secret of the Pythagorean noncommutative time-frequency quotient space of the inverse exponentials against the exponentials.
Thanks to both Dr. Ruth E. Kastner for his brilliant analysis of de Broglie's Law of Phase Harmony and thanks to Fields Medal Math Professor Alain Connes for his genius level of Pythagorean music math analysis.

[Most of the quotes in this piece are taken from Lee Smolin's *Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe*, which was published in 2013.]

This piece focuses on Lee Smolin's position on what he takes to be Platonism in (mathematical) physics. Smolin's words are also used as a springboard for discussing other issues and positions (including my own) within this general debate.

Firstly, Platonism in physics is tackled as it was explicitly stated by the physicists John Wheeler and Stephen Hawking. Max Tegmark (as a Platonist) is also featured. The position advanced by Tegmark is that mathematics can perfectly describe the world/reality because the world/reality is itself mathematical. Wheeler and Hawking argued against such a position (or at least they appeared to).

Then there's a section on a position best described as “the-map-is-not-the-territory”. This too inevitably focuses on Platonism in physics. It also asks the question as to how, exactly, (mathematical) models relate to the world/reality.

There's also discussion of the relation between mathematical objects and mathematical concepts as this is brought out within the specific context of Platonism in physics.

An old problem is then discussed: the precise relation between our world and the Platonic world. The issue of (as it were) “causal closure” was the traditional focus of this particular debate; though other aspects are tackled in the following.

Finally, mathematical structuralism - and how it relates to Platonism in physics - is discussed. This leads naturally on to the final section which discusses what Smolin calls “intrinsic essences” (or what philosophers call “intrinsic properties”).

In working on Optimal Human Functioning, it has become clear that what it means to be a human being and how we treat human beings is changing. We realize now that an Individual Human Consciousness produces and integrates information unlike any other state of matter in the Cosmos. Through my own intuitions, during and after acquiring a General Studies Degree with a concentration in Mathematics, being hit by a car, singing to my mother for hours before she died, and most importantly living daily life with my wife and family, I have worked out an idea. Creative Conscious Mathematics, which is just a fancy word for one's relationship with the nature of Mathematics. My Journey has taken me to a working understanding of Mathematics, Physics and Biology in a way that has added to the way of life of my family. In optimizing our collective psychoneuroimmunological functioning, we must have a general working understanding of Mathematics, Physics and Biology, and put in daily effort to become a better person. Moreover this human progression produces unique tradable information actionable within high frequency quantitative finance! Mathematical Understanding, Physical Intelligence and Biological Empathetic Awareness generate an expansion of the utility of Consciousness that is beyond calculation, existing within every human being in a density and utility unlike Any other state or form of Matter in the Cosmos. Equally, it is each person's individual responsibility to work on their Altruistic Self-Mastery, not as a level of attainment, but more of a direction that guides daily practice.

Four state spin-time reversal invariant has been discovered in URu2Si2, where a spin of an electron must be double-time reversal approximate symmetry breaking. This takes place at 17.5 kelvin and is believed to be a byproduct of the 5f orbitals share in an odd Anderson lattice. This
odd symmetry breaking will produce extra heat and free electron state a thousand time its resting mass.
A proposed application of the Hastatic order is in the complex particle condensate like the Skrymion. The skyrmion and dyons are not as simple as fermionic condensates making a bosonic group. Here, it is an arrangement of fermionic spinors into a staggered quasicrystal with a four order system with 0Z0:1/2Z2:-1/2Z3:1Z4:-1Z5 giving a structure that drives a different levels of bosonic action. The integration helps explain order and probability.

Six fold symmetry systems in time order open a new statistical order beyond the fermionic and boson models. These new models take a variation on skrymionic order and are composed of standard statistical smaller groups like fermion, but are a meta-group of links and order of N sub groups with an emergent behavior from geometric order of group which take on contradictory orders.
The Penrose’s twistor model is fundamental to emergent meta-groups and is reliant on variations of its interpretation on wave particle duality and time. This statistical model gives a dyonic model to understand composite mass, spin and charge.
The skyrmionic bosonic stars are evidence of the break from the standard model, since they offer a tensor field that gives mass to particle beyond the higgs field. Secondary fields proposed give pairs of particles that go beyond concepts of particle and antiparticle pair or majorana particles like neutrinos.

Inspired by the Penrose-Hameroff thesis, we are intuitively led to examine an intriguing correspondence of 'induction' (by fields), with the complex phenomenon of (metabolism-sustained) consciousness: Did sequences of associated induction patterns in field-susceptible biomatter have simpler beginnings?

There are many layers to our understanding of the world. There are things that are immediate to our senses, which we know (or think we know). There are models we construct to explain, and which correspond with, the physical world that we sense, observe and measure. There are mathematical concepts we imagine that can be seen to be true in-and-of-themselves. But, over the last century, advances in science and mathematics have revealed many things we would like to know that we do not. Some have been proven to be impossible to know. FQXi has asked us to explore these limits in our ability to understand the world. How are these limits related and what do they mean? This essay addresses that challenge by exploring features that the physical world and mathematics share with consciousness. Self-reference, entanglement and purposeful agency are key features of autonoetic (self-knowing) consciousness. They are also found in physical and mathematical systems and are manifest at the limits of knowledge that FQXi is exploring. These autonoetic features serve as gatekeepers limiting our understanding of the world we live in, but they also make living in this world so marvelously interesting and beautiful.