When maths only scratch the surface

Against the general mainstream, Sir Roger Penrose does not believe that artificial intelligence is possible in the near future, in his opinion, consciousness is a non-computational process that is beyond the current state of physics.

It is possible that science ends up turning materialism into a sort of cult, given the cryptic of its discourse, full of enigmatic dogmas in the form of mathematical axioms. Liberal technocrats say no, that it is impossible, but the fact is that they are already treating it like a religion in the economic ground. The profane in the matter should have something to work with, not simply tell us that the universe is the word which goes after immeasurable and existence is an irrelevant accident without purpose; that makes us seem insignificant, we need to know at least why we are in this picture. Yes, I already know the positivist message that says that each one must find his purpose in life, and it would be cool if it was not because, in competitive societies, someone must always lose for another to win. David Bohm believed that in order to avoid the extinction, we must first change the way we use our heads, learn to do it with real common sense, with collective sense… in his opinion, as well as that of many, humanity unconsciously conspires against itself, Because it clings to certain toxic aspects of this civilization, which definitely in essence is the result of fear and violence.

In quantum mechanics, he elaborated a theory in which he calls the universe “the order explained or unfolded” and argued that there is an “implicit or folded” order that we cannot perceive, from which at the moment of the Big Bang, arose the explicit order, the observable. May Bohm forgive me, but it strikes me the parallelism of this theory, with the ancient Heliopolitan cosmogony, which claimed that the god Ra who represents life, arose by an “unfolding” of Atum, the primordial whole. The ancient Egyptians seem to have intuited something. The brain, that prodigious machine, is part of the explained order, not as the consciousness that it not exist according to the majority since it cannot be measured; under Bohm the consciousness does not necessarily have to be in the brain and consequently, perhaps subsists. Most of gurus of the materialist religion profoundly detest this idea, Death is death, period. Stephen Hawking however thinks that the information of an entire galaxy somehow remains on the borders of its inner black hole. In any case, here I leave this surprising experiment that illustrates the theory of the “implicit order”:

At the present moment the authorities in physics are reasonably content because they have managed to assemble in a single formula, the explanation of each and every one of the phenomena that until now we are able to perceive either with our senses or with the appropriate artifacts, from the Cosmic and gigantic to the incredibly tiny, integrating all the known forces and particles on which they exert their action ie; Gravity, electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, matter and the Higgs field:

formuladeltodo

This formula is of course partial, since it does not include yet dark matter, nor does the repulsive energy, which it doesn’t mean disgusting, but it is confusing calling it “dark” too; either way this unification allows us to suspect that perhaps all these different things, in the same way that occurs with electricity and magnetism, are only different manifestations of the same thing. David Bohm, as well as Einstein, Bohr, the old guard, even Feynman in a way, thought that from mathematical algorithms it was possible to draw meaningful sociological or existential conclusions, he dared to do teleology, which is not the same as theology, although it is equally ill-seen, but it seems that biologists and cosmologists are more likely to do so than current theoretical physicists, who are much more myopic, since their only methods of observation are mathematics, although however they can predict things, a remarkable property of maths. Basically Bohm proposed that since the universe in the subatomic ground is an amalgam of closely intertwined particle fields, it was therefore a mistake to look at things as differentiated parts rather than as an evolving “whole”. Therefore we should start to see the world in a different way, in accordance with the essential nature of reality, beginning by understanding that frontiers do not protect anyone, against pollution or plagues, for example; Religions create division, economic inequalities generate conflicts, competitive sports exalt the idea of confrontation … there is a confused accumulation of factors that divide man and society and which feed the idea of fragmentation, to the detriment of cohesion and coherence. He was not naive, what happens is that he was aware of the current scientific and technological potential: there is no purpose or objective beyond the reach of humanity if it was willing to dialogue, to collaborate, and all those kind of goodist (sic) things, so unpopular now. I could not avoid inserting here the monologue of Louis CK, “if god came back to the Earth”:

An interesting appreciation of the many that can be found in his book “the totality and the implicate order” arises from the ethymology of the Latin word medire, which shares the same root as “cure”, herefrom medicine and moderation, meaning that in its origin the concept of measurement was much broader, and then with the commercial habit of counting for example, the routine ended up banalizing it:

Protagoras said: ‘Man is the measure of all things’, emphasizing that the measure is not a reality outside the man nor exists independently of him. But many of those who were already in the habit of considering everything superficially also applied this way of thinking to what Protagoras had said. Thus, they derived the consequence that the measure was something arbitrary and subject to the capricious choice or to the taste of each individual. Naturally, they thus overlooked the fact that the measure is a way of observing that it has to conform to the whole of the reality in which one lives … () … This way of observing can only arise correctly when a man works with seriousness and honesty, placing truth and reality first, rather than their own whims or desires.

Apparently Einstein went so far as to say that if anyone could go beyond quantum physics, that was David Joseph Bohm.

Nothingness is not nothing

Several ancient cultures dispute for the fact of having invented the number zero, a necessary tool for mathematics to work. The thing went well until some disciples of Pythagoras, who as a geometer was a fanatic of the whole numbers, discovered the existence of irrational numbers, with an infinite number of decimals, something very crazy for the time; people died due to it. Later, Newton managed to lift an image of a mechanical universe that remained standing until Einstein began to shake it. The not so modern quantum mechanics now comes to dynamite the idea of emptiness, of zero, of nothing, by the hands of researchers like David Tong, as shown in this short video:

David Bohm would surely have loved it. The truth is that Einstein’s relativity explains only the sensitive universe and has little or nothing to do with reality which our limited senses cannot perceive, that of which we are all made; The fluctuating subatomic universe, saturated, filled with electromagnetic, gravitational, quantum fields, each composed of particles that follow rules different from those of classical physics … that is why quantum mechanics was invented. It’s nothing unusual, it happened with the zero, Newton had to invent the calculus …

Heisenberg demonstrated conclusively the validity of quantum mechanics with its famous uncertainty principle: in the macroscopic world, there is nothing that prevents knowing the position and momentum (which is a value to the direction and velocity) of a ball in movement for instance; in the microscopic world of the Plank scale, this is not as such; When the position is calculated with a very low degree of indetermination, that is to say, the more accurate is the position’s measurement, the particle’s momentum value becomes highly imprecise and vice versa:

incertidumbre-de-Heisenberg

Professor Walter Lewin explains it masterfully in this video, where he first exposes how unfortunate is the image we all have of the atom with its electrons orbiting around the nucleus in a solar system way, and in the end demonstrates with an experiment the mathematical predictions of Heisenberg. The video is long but worth it, in any case, it’s a fact that the behavior of electrons within any chip is governed by the laws of quantum mechanics; which means, that it works, although no one knows very well why.

Like all previous researchers, the present ones are also having problems to prove their theories by means of experiments, but they are on it, apparently they have already found the way to avoid the annoying principle of Heisenberg, without violating it. One of the fattest problems is that normal binary processors go wrong when they have to work with astronomical numbers; hence they are willing to build quantum processors. Andrew Pontzen explains it briefly:

However, it is possible that the biggest problem is that there are too many theories derived from quantum mechanics, many of which are incompatible with each other, so some think that perhaps a simpler way of explaining observations might be found. Terry Rudolph says that we may have to forget the anthropocentric vision that our primate senses have created from reality, in order to really understand it; and to illustrate it, he shows how something like this happened to the astronomers before Galileo, who were forced to design a complex system of geometrical juggling, pretty nice-looking actually, so that the measurements might fit the observations and the prescriptions of religion, which required the earth to be in the center of the solar system … and of the whole universe in fact:

Geocentric                                                 heliocentric

Before Galileo                                                                                  After Galileo

 

Andrew Pontzen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFxPMMkhHuA&t=2s

David Tong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg&t=2323s

Walter Lewin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeK0DV329mU

Terry Rudolph https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKGZDhQoR9E#t=3770.221