Godel's Law
(c) Robert Neil Boyd


[Robert Neil Boyd]:

Godel's Law applies to all logical systems. Most particularly strongly to human logical structures. Study Godel's Law intimately. Under what circumstances does it fail?

I have the answer. I want to see if you can discover it yourself.

The answer is that the senses are capable to perceive infinitely, while the mind is perforce finite. The intellect is limited by the first theorem of Godel's Law which says, in effect, that "you can't intellectually know everything."

However, you can experience without bound!

In my understanding, both Penrose and Hofstadter are in error in their expressions regarding this fact.

Hofstadter's self-referencing loops are caught in Godel's first theorem, because these are bounded systems. Even more stringently bound than the capabilities of human thought. Human intellectual thought is based on the past, the "known", with periodic updates of the data base by the vehicle of the senses. Hofstadter's self-referencing system does not appear to exhibit the ability to update its information structures, nor to bring current, its database.

Again I say, the perceptions are the doorway to the Infinite. This is empirically provable and experientially self-evident.

Consider Penrose tilings. There is a precognitive requirement involved which requires 4th, 5th, or higher dimensions to be involved in the tiling process. Why shouldn't QM be involved with the same requirements? Tony Smith's TOE tells me that QM does involve hyperdimensionality. This lays the issue of "collapse of the wave function" to rest, because in a precognitive system, there is no collapse. The system is preordained and preordered by the quantum potential acting in a hyperdimensional way as per Penrose tilings and as evidenced physically in the form of quasi-crystals.

I call this the "quantum event potential" (potential meaning "future"). Perhaps we should call it the "quantum future".

Sic., in order for an event to occur, there must exist, a priori, a potential for the event to happen. This potential is instrumentable in the form of various precursor events, particularly in the form of orderings of non-linear systems, and is contained in the information field that is called the quantum potential. The information field is hyperdimensional and probably operates on an extra-normal time axis, and/or superluminally.

It is this event potential which is observable in the form of pre-orderings of substructures in highly non-linear materials, such as the vacuum substrate. This is the basis of the various functional oracular systems, such as the I-Ching. This is related to the Shroedinger equations and DeBroglie waves.

[Barron Burrow]:

Ah, but there is, Neil. Because Kaluza showed in 1919 that effectively electromagnetism (EM) is gravity in the fifth-dimension. Thus, it is the creation of irreversible-time with collapse, as a consequence of an "observation" being made (by "the universe" in this instance), that creates EM, in the fifth-dimension.

The key thing Penrose says about quasi-crystals, as you note, is that they have to *pre-anticipate* how they are going to arrange themselves in the fifth-dimension, before they actually do so. But I put it to you that the actualization must itself involve "collapse", for the reason given above. I think all you are saying is right, except I see no need for superluminality.

The fascinating thing about the throwing of the yarrow stalks in the I Ching, you know, is that it really does seem to be a form of getting a "quantum gravity print-out", for the individual concerned. Some years ago I asked the people on a list that Lawrence was also on whether anyone present knew of any meaningful connection between the number 1/64 and 6 in "physics, mathematics, geometry".

[Robert Neil Boyd]:

I see a need for superluminality in many regards. The Moebius transform non-linear projective solutions to the Maxwell equations spring to mind. Many, such as VanFlandern, hold that the speed of gravity is infinite or near-infinite. Bell's Theorum and the experiments surrounding it, indicate that there must be a superluminal component in the 'information field". Also, there is an aspect of the emotional radiations of consciousness which is demonstrably superluminal. I think that the "c" limit holds only for the Lorentz transform linear variety of E/M propagations. I would go on, but I've got a hundred more emails to deal with this evening.

[B. Burrow]:

The reason for my curiosity arose because in the psychophysical model 1/64 comes up whenever one divides the gravitation in any lower dimension by that of its complementary opposite higher dimension. Since there are six complementary pairs there is a total of six 1/64s -- beginning with what I posit as the "quantum gravitational" relationship between the [extrinsic] "observer" in the seventh-dimension and the 'strings' or "line-object(s)" in the opposite [intrinsic] first-dimension.

To my surprise, Finnish math physicist Matti Pitkanen immediately posted a message pointing out that not only are there 64 DNA-triplets but also that the upper bound for the number N(AA) of DNA triplets coding to a given amino acid AA is six! He went on to say that he had constructed a model of the genetic code in which the numbers 64 and 6 emerge naturally! Furthermore, he continued, the I Ching (the Ancient Chinese book of divination) had 64 "basic symbols" (or hexagrams comprising six 'bit' symbols)!

The case for the psychophysical model is proven, in my opinion, as far as one can say that anything is proven, in meta-science. But the reason that people go into denial and cannot take it on board -- Lawrence is one of them -- is that it demonstrates that there really is nothing else but *psychophysical* space and time. For some, those on the edge of psychosis, that is a terrible threat to the ego; and therefore to their "sanity", it seems.

All I would add is that if EM is gravitation in the fifth-dimension, then it is when EM becomes instantiated with time-irreversibility that life is created (this being something that must occur in the sixth-dimension, since EM + time involves adding a further parameter). In other words, my thesis is that EM instantiated with quantum histories (past, present, future) in far-from-equilibrium systems IS life.

[Robert Neil Boyd]:

I'm not precisely sure about this. The Life Force is related to Chi, which is related to holographic E/M fabrics, which is related to the spin field, which is related to orgone energy, and so on. However, I have been convinced for quite some time that there is an extra-dimensional component to Consciousness. Since I view that consciousness is the organizing force which precipitates the material form, it might well be that this higher dimensionality is involved. Since I also hold that all material forms possess the attribute of consciousness (however rudimentary), and since I have the view that inertia and charge are related to the 4th physical dimension, in perhaps a quaternionic manifold, related to SO(4,2), I can see how one might arrive at such an expression as you have made above. I think things are just a wee bit more complex than the above description though. In fact, there is a skein of interconnectedness amongst all the varieties of Consciousness, which is in turn involved with an overarching principle which I call the Universal Harmony, a.k.a., the Divine Plan, a.k.a, the Future Worlds, which is related to your "quantum gravity print-out" description. This is the something that puts in the information which will be read and later manifested in a material form or event.

[B. Burrow]:

But man has gone one step further: he is the only species to have ascended to the seventh-dimension (that of the "observer" par excellence) because he is the only species to employ symbol systems *extrinsically*, for the purpose of governing his modus vivendi. He does this by collapsing the wave function on the one-dimensional bits in the opposite first-dimension -- to create "extra-corporeal 'DNA'" (i.e. all of the data retained in our libraries over millennia, without which our species could no longer survive). As we know, supermarket bar codes, library ticket bar codes, in fact all symbol systems -- including language and mathematics -- can be rendered in terms of Boolean binary bits. That is all that our "extra-corporeal 'DNA'" is. And in the most subtle forms of human relatedness, as depicted in classical novels, for instance, this is something that requires being rendered by employing all twelve psychophysical dimensions. Occam's razor dictates using all twelve: no more, no less.

But the chief thing to be learnt from the model is that "extra-corporeal 'DNA'" can express itself in terms of either a RH (paranoid-schizoid) bias or, alternatively, a LH (depressive) bias (in principle the latter being healthier, since it is a prerequisite for gaining separation from the mother, and so acquiring healthy mature symbolism).

Since freedom really is indivisible, all this should be brought together through addressing problems on the human scale. For example, it would be pretty gross if I failed to remark on the fact that Peter appears to be experiencing difficulties with someone who signs herself "Barbara Mutnick". [I have long felt that Peter engages in RH 'sticking'; whilst I suspect that she is more LH biased.] My commiserations, if there are problems -- my apologies if I have spoken out of turn. One reason I mention the matter is that (nearly thirty years ago) I myself was married to someone called "Barbara" ...

I'm pretty sure Lawrence will, as usual, take a negative attitude towards my above remarks. Five years ago when he first encountered my work, he could get away with sneering at the model "... my own chances of going to Stockholm may be small, but Barron's are zilch" is the level of comment I received from him -- a somewhat gratuitous remark, given that no one else had raised the question of "Stockholm"). But the good crits that I have acquired since (some of which are posted on my site) are from people with distinguished academic records often, and they speak volumes. In fact, these people often express such enthusiasm for the psychophysical model, that I suggest that unless some *specific* error can be pointed to in my arguments, then it is entitled to be regarded as fulfilling all of Chalmers' criteria for solving the 'hard problem'.