Why any discussion of the mind must have a basis in a model expressed through process.
Science is all about developing models. A model can be a mathematical equation, physical model or conceptual model. Developing a conceptual model on breakthrough innovation is critical for the smooth and successful evolution of society. Furthermore, this model must be expressed through a process. A process is a way of proceeding with an end in mind. No complex system can be created without it.
A model of how the mind functions must be included within the process of how the entire cognitive system functions. But the cognitive system does not function in isolation so it needs to be included within the process how the entire physical system functions. That is why Edwards Deming said: “If you can’t describe what you’re doing as a process then you don’t know what you’re doing”. This saying can be taken further to state: “If you can’t explain what you’re talking about as a process then you don’t know what you’re talking about”.
Therefore the only valid way to talk about the cognitive and physical systems as a process is to incorporate them into a comprehensive Unified Field Theory (UFT) model. But physicists are creatively incapable of developing a UFT and instead have multiple isolated and contradicting models. That outcome means those models are obsolete since all physicists know that there can only be one unified field model.
One of the main reasons Einstein was the most creative physicist in history was because he was an accomplished violinist. That is why he said: “The greatest scientists are artists as well”. So if the world lacks creative physicists it is because they are not artists. The main reason this state of physics exists is due to internationally homogenized, hierarchical education systems and associated heuristics that have limited conceptual diversity. These outdated education systems nurture a groupthink approach. That is why on this site there is a section outlining an ideal education system that will transform U.S. Education to be a beacon of creativity and innovation.
But at this point the reactive process of physicists working with ‘accepted methods’ lead to ‘accepted models’ takes academic precedence over the creative requirement to innovate a disruptive UFT model. If any company in the private sector had this type of reactive culture, all their innovation would cease. And so it has for physics. Since Einstein, there has been hundreds of billions collectively spent on physics institutions and facilities. Other than some incremental advances, there have been no breakthroughs, only dead-end math equations for quantum mechanics and more questions than answers from the experiments and data.
The integrity of physics requires a reboot through a disruptive UFT model. The physics section on this page contains just such a disruptive UFT model. There are only three criteria a UFT model has to have to be valid:
1. To be an interconnected process from the quantum to the multiverse.
2. Not contradicted by current data and evidence.
3. Include both the cognitive and physical phenomena.
This UFT model will radically evolve as data and experiments offer new evidence with mathematical descriptions being added along the way. This process will create a reinforcing loop where the consequences of math will alter the UFT model and the altered model will open room for new ways to analyze and predict the physical and cognitive phenomena. But as long as the continually updated UFT model meets the three criteria above, it remains valid.
Academic physicists will refute the assertion that a disruptive UFT is required or even possible. But their argument is irrational since they don’t have models based on a comprehensive process. Simply put, because physicist can’t describe the interconnected cognitive and physical phenomena as a process means that they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Why physicists defend current models even when they know they’re obsolete.
Physicists have discovered enough information about our physical phenomena to make their current models obsolete. But they are not rethinking their models or working toward a genuine end. Instead, physicists are obfuscating the failure of their models through hollow corrections, façade of math equations and institution pretense in order to validate their continued funding.
Physicists defend their obsolete models because their compensation and reputation depends on them continuing to be the experts in their models. That overriding human nature for survival overrides scientific value of seeking disruptive information.
The defense of obsolete models is achieved covertly by limiting the potential for new models to be presented. This is done by requiring new models to be developed only by academic ‘accepted methods’ of observation, measurement, experiment, testing and formulation. This is how current models of the physical phenomena have come to have an underlying premise that particle existence and interaction is gratuitous. At its foundation, this is intellectually irrational because that premise would dictate consequences of chaos rather than organization. This is contradicted by the reality that our atomic to cosmological systems are complex organizations. Furthermore there is clear evidence all systems (mineral, botanical and biological) are continually advancing to higher states of organization. Therefore an underlying purpose and continual effort to execute that purpose must exist.
The understanding of matter and the four fundamental forces is incomplete. The understanding of the fifth fundamental force, currently attributed to non-existent placeholders of dark matter and dark energy, is completely wrong. Multiple isolated and contradicting models have been developed to explain these physical phenomena. This is tolerable as a temporary transition to a Unified Field Theory (UFT). But it is intellectually dishonest for isolated and contradicting models to be accepted, as they are currently, as permanent explanations. Since it is concurrently accepted that Einstein was correct when he made it clear that the right model needs to be a unified one based on the field. In total, this irrational, wrong, incomplete and dishonest approach amounts to a failed state of physics.
A failed state of physics would not affect the world if it were not for the fact that physics is the mother of all science. Therefore the failure of physics has a direct affect on the tethered life and social sciences. The academia within the fields of chemistry, biology, sociology and economics do not understand that they are analyzing the interface of our reality and not its information based nature:
– Chemists do not understand the nature of climate and ecological changes.
– Biologists do not understand the natures of bacteria, viruses and cancers.
– Sociologists do not understand the nature of ego and intolerance.
– Economists do not understand the nature of money and reactive financial systems.
Consequently, these tethered sciences provide abhorrent guidance and solutions to government organizations. This compounds problems that, within an integrated world, metastasize and accelerate into international toxic ecosystems. Blame is then allocated on a variety of other factors, when the core cause is the failure of physics.
The integrity of physics requires a reboot. The theory of relativity did not come from grafting more assumptions and corrections to Newtonian physics. The UFT will not come from grafting more assumptions and corrections to the standard model either. Creating a conceptually coherent, hypothetical UFT model is the only path forward. Continuing with the status quo is not an option.
There are nascent physics and mathematical concepts being worked on by today’s leading physicists that could be slowly evolved into a UFT. Those nascent concepts are currently labeled the “Bootstrap” model. Here is a Quanta magazine article introduction to it: http://www.quantamagazine.org/ using-the-bootstrap-physicists-uncover- geometry-of-theory-space- 20170223
How the foundation of our cognitive system (i.e. mind) and physical system (i.e. matter) is information..
It is not difficult to imagine that the core essence of thought is information. But if neuroscience can quantify thought and causality with math then that would conclusively render our cognitive system as information.
Article on a theoretical neuroscientist who is laying out a mathematical explanation of how consciousness and agency arise: www.wired.com/story/new-math- untangles-the-mysterious- nature-of-causality-consciousness.
Some of the best physicists from Stephen Hawking on down are now interchanging the terms matter and information within broader and broader parameters. Renowned physicist Leonard Susskind talked about information most broadly when he said: “The whole structure of everything we know about physics would break down and disintegrate if even you open the door a tiny little bit for the idea of information to be lost.”
It is really not hard to imagine why this evolutionary comprehension is happening since physics has already proven that, in the words of Nobel Laureate physicist Sheldon Glashow: “A particle is just a manifestation of a field…a mathematical object”.
In 1990 the distinguished theoretical physicist John Wheeler coined the phrase “it from bit” to encapsulate a radical new view of the universe that he had been developing over the preceding 20 years: “It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom…an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-or-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin.” In other words, what Wheeler proposed is that at the most fundamental level, all of physics has a description that can be articulated in terms of information. Article on that: http://physicsworld.com /cws/article/ indepth/2017/jan/05/decoding-the- quantum-horizon.
In November, physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists came together with evolutionary and molecular biologists to talk—and sometimes argue – at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, the mecca for the science of complex systems. They asked: Just how special (or not) is biology? It’s hardly surprising that there was no consensus. But one message that emerged very clearly was that, if there’s a kind of physics behind biological teleology and agency, it has something to do with the same concept that seems to have become installed at the heart of fundamental physics itself: information. Article on that: http://www.wired.com /2017/02/ life-death-spring-disorder. Video on that: https://www.youtube.com/ embed/vAhtgP-1qe4.
How our cognitive and physical systems interact through information.
Since the first double slit experiment, physicists have compiled data showing that the physical interaction of an observer caused a state of energy to be measured as a particle. If there was no physical observer then energy was measured as a wave. But since Wheeler’s delayed-choice gedanken experiment, physicists have new data showing this is not the case. Now it is understood that simply having knowledge (i.e. cognitive recognition) of a state of energy causes it to be measured as a particle. This video not only explains this paradigm the best, but already is using the language of information instead of energy to describe the paradigm: www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4
So the physical and cognitive systems of our reality have a foundational platform of information by which they interact. That is how information, in the form of energy, can manifest as a wave or particle solely dependent on cognitive recognition.