Dear Alex, I have considerable sympathy with the phenomenological backbone of your argument. I would caution, however, about relying on quantum theory (a la Planck) as a literal support of it.
I was trained as an engineer to place great emphasis on dimensional considerations, specifically on the Buckingham-Pi theorem <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckingham_%CF%80_theorem>. Engineers reckon the magnitude of various phenomena according to dimensionless ratios. As a rule of thumb, if a dimensionless ratio is either smaller than 10**(-5) or larger than 10**5, the two phenomena being compared can usually be considered dynamically independent. Now Plancks constant and the gravitational constant differ by 40 or so orders of magnitude, and so I remain extremely skeptical of any attempts to co-join the two. Back in the late 90s I wrote (somewhere?) that Hawkings effort to marry the two were futile. He gave up the quest some 10 years later (obviously not in response to my skepticism! :). I have colleagues in ecology, who have tried to portray ecosystems as coherence domains due to the same quantum phenomena as give rise to coherence structures among water molecules. Once again, I remain highly skeptical (macroscopic entanglement arguments notwithstanding). That having been said, I do think that quantum-*like* behavior does exist at macroscopic scales, and that what you have been describing likely is an example of same. The case with water molecules appears to be that minute phasings in the quantum vacuum can travel between molecules faster than the speed of light, at which the inter-molecular forces travel between the molecules, thereby serving as a cue to maintain coherence. In ecosystems, information can travel via light or other physical means faster than the relationships among participating species interact, and so coherence could be maintained via that route. In the brain, electromagnetic waves that accompany electron and proton movements can travel between neurons faster than synaptic signals (which take ca. one-tenth of a second). Whence, I see a significant possibility that consciousness represents a neuronal coherence domain quite in abstraction from the subatomic quantum realm. The notion of consciousness as a coherence domain has some attractiveness when one notes that the subjective feeling of consciousness is one of awareness of everything at once. And so I would conclude that I think you are pursuing a worthwhile hypothesis, but I would encourage you to think outside the envelope of Planckian phenomena. As an example of how quantum homologs might be treated at macroscopic scales, I would recommend the work of Dr. Diederik Aerts <http://www.aaai.org/Press/Reports/Symposia/Fall/fs-10-08.php> <http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0109.pdf> at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, and the ecological writings of his associate Dr. Sandro Sozzo <http://www.vub.ac.be/CLEA/people/sozzo/>. I would urge other participants on FIS also to cast a critical eye upon the efforts of many physicists to totalize cosmological behavior in terms of quantum theory. The form may be universal, but IMHO the actual phenomena are more likely particular to the scale of observation. Peace, Bob U. > Dear Plamen, > > Thank you for the encouragement in the spirit of 'Fare Thee Well', > rather than 'Adieu, Dear Friend, A......', I suspect. > > I am attaching my presentation with the qualification that: > > The first half of the presentation explicitly constructs a new information > theory applying at the apex of biological control systems, showing how it > conforms to properties of experience postulated by Kant, Husserl, Chalmers > and others; the second half applies the information structure to > human-animal mind-to-mind communications from recent decades. > > I hope that everyone will find this novel approach pertinent. > All good wishes, > > Alex Hankey > > > On 23 April 2016 at 13:45, Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov < > plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Dear Pedro, Alex and Colleagues, >> >> thank you for this introduction of the next round on physics and >> phenomenology with Alex' challenging theory. Iâd like to share with >> you a >> curious blog by Phillip Ball which a friend dropped me earlier this >> morning: >> http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/why-physics-is-not-a-discipline. >> >> Farewell, Alex! >> >> Plamen >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > > > -- > Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) > Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, > SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle > Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India > Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 > Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 > ____________________________________________________________ > > 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, > Mathematics > and Phenomenological Philosophy > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3> > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > Fis@listas.unizar.es > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
