The source of the phrase is Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time. Here is the whole quote: "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "

Consciousness may be a part of the story, but I don’t think it’s The Answer.

By way of analogy, Dan Smail (On Deep History and the Brain, 2008), explained that, for the better part of a hundred years, many historians bought into the proposition that mankind, or societies within mankind, did not have a true history unless they were “conscious” of that history. But that leads to putting strong emphasis on unreliable self-reports instead of more objective measures.

Usually, a historian does the greatest good by spotting trends and connections in the society that the society itself missed, being busy and preoccupied with many other things. And so here. The casual observer is not the authority.

Complicated processes go on around us and in us without our ever consciously seeing them. But I think we can sense something of the framework they operate in, even if not always consciously. I think the most important element of consciousness in this regard, in orienting us and interpreting our surroundings, is our sense of self – of self-knowledge of all kinds –of knowledge of ourselves as the observer and actor.

I think the indicated increment of ontology lies in the sensing and interacting (by any form of life) with dynamic process, external and internal – this is the locus of the ontology.

I don’t have a clear grasp of this, but I think there is a roundness of relevance in phenomena, especially in connections, which is not obvious in the present standard rules and equations, though there might be other rules and equations which describe this and are not in our present model.

There are two possible answers:

One is Max Tegmark's answer :" it is you, the self-aware mathematical substructure'. Nothing breathes fire into equations because the equations themselves are the fire: we live in a purely mathematical structure of which we are self-aware substructures - all is math, and anything appearing to be material or physical is but an epiphenomenon arising out of the way math precipitates within different subspaces.

The other answer requires more space to elaborate upon: in essence, it is that to enable a wave function to become real and act in the world, i.e. to "make its mark" upon manifest reality, some consciousness must be present at its outset. (I elaborate on why in my current book.) Under that argument, manifest reality is intermediated by wave functions which themselves cannot occur without the role of some consciousness, because of specific reasons.

Now according to folks such as, again, Tegmark, these two above alternative answers are the same, because there is no ultimate qualitative difference between math and mind.

Mathematic equations are a symbolic model of relation of sometime real existing things. Mathematics has no reality itself in the sense of matter. The description of relations and the behavior of real structures is different to the described objects.

I wonder this question. There is no fire between any formulas not even in the mathematical syntax. Reality is full of fiery and surprising events.

Mathematics is not real life and it is never the universe itself. If anybody think so, real life is forgotten.

Consiousness is a phenomenon of the brain of higher mammals. We never will find it in matter like stones. May be this expression is used as placeholder for something inexplicable. Well there is fire but only between the neurons.

Wilfried,

I think that many people would agree with you. However, my own journey has led me to a very different conclusion.

Not about stones, I hasten to add!

Christoper,

I agree with you. RG is a beautiful platform to discuss about all you want. Each opinion is accepted and welcome.

My posts express my opinion about RG as a scientific platform. So I don't feel comfortable if religious or metaphysical subjects were posted because these subjects are very subjective and expresses special feelings and personal opinions but not facts. Only facts can be discussed. Opinions and feelings can be communicated, but not discussed. We can only take note of them. Whether it's interesting remains open here.

Wilfried,

I understand your sentiment, and I agree with it. However, you are presumptuous to suppose that the conclusions that I have arrived at are consequent upon mere sentiment or some sort of religious belief.

My question has validity as a scientific concern consequent upon an analysis conducted by Professor Ram Vimal and myself into the philosophical problem of the way in which we experience time. The paper provides a very powerful argument that suggests that the neural correlate of consciousness is a macroscopic coherent wave function in the form of a soliton.

Because the theoretical context (Fractal Catalysis) in which this coherent soliton emerges has no other 'special distinguishing features', the conclusion seems to follow that consciousness is not an 'invention' it is associated with a very fundamental state of matter.

As a further support for the approach taken by Prof. Vimal and myself, the theory has attracted interest of people who's expertise is the philosophy of Kant. It seems that the theory offers a theoretical platform within which the concepts of 'space' and 'time' are shown to of especial significance.

Wilfried, - just because it may seem strange it does not mean it is not science. I would prefer it if your criticism referenced my work in this area.

I wonder, perhaps I will be elucidated as this progresses. Kant brought what is intuitively obvious to the fore: phenomena reaching me are meaningless (this doesn't mean that they don't exist) and it is only when they are subjected to an Apperceptive influence that they become 'real'.

From then mathematics (I'm now back in my mode) is essential in deepening my understanding of phenomena; thus mathematics is a tool.

Christopher,

don't misunderstand my last post as derogatory approach to your academic work. Searching for the 'fire' is a work, which is granted only to a few and in this search are all still on the way, such as children in the fog. All possibilities to think over the "hard problem" (David Chalmers) are welcome: anything goes (Paul Feyerabend)!

Functionalist or descriptive approaches, however, differ significantly from each other. The former can model processes so that hypotheses can be investigated, while purely mathematical considerations may provide elegant descriptions, however, let the functional relationship of neuronal activity in the dark. In this case we do not understand how the brain runs and how the brain emerge consciousness. There is also a deep gap between mathematics and neuro-sciences or physics. Mathematic is a tool (!) to express physical relations in a formalistic notation. In these formulas is no reality at all, they relate to measurable effects in something we call "reality" (whatever it may be). These physical objects exist whether there is mathematics or not, but the formulas necessarily require a physical reality. The problem is not a symmetrical one! In this point mathematics offers its character as a mental tool.

Nevertheless, it is a gift of God, if you can formulate the world in equations.

Wilfried,

What lies behind the question is the firm conviction of mine that coherent wave functions may actually be describing conscious states. Of course I am frustrated because it is an extremely difficult thing to prove. The answer to this question, as you say, may always be confined to the metaphysical - not because it is beyond physics, but because it is beyond what can be proved.

The frustration runs deeper because, if it COULD be proved then the door would be open for a whole set of new and exciting questions. Are all types of quantum coherent wave function to be associated with conscious states or just solitonic coherent wave functions? Does this mean that the universe is made of consciousness? Is the observable universe that classical physics describes actually just 'implicit' in the ordered unfolding of discontinuities (or cracks - collapses of the wave function)? Why would a universe comprised of fractured consciousness give rise to what appears to be, from a conscious perspective, a universe of space/time and rules of conservation and symmetry?

For me, these are the REALLY interesting questions, but I can't get people to start talking in these terms unless I can get them to accept (at least as a possibility) that quantum coherent wave functions may actually be describing conscious states.

Christopher,

in my understanding quantum mechanics is related to the behavior of subatomic particles at very low temperatures. May be this is the reason, why I have some problems to follow your fascinating idea.

I feel the fire in your words if you are talking of REALLY interesting things. Can you tell a little bit more of your idea.

Wilfied,

Yes, you are quite right. The only way that we seem to get enough atoms to fall into the same ground state is to use extremely low temperatures - but, I don't believe that this is the only way.

Long range coherence effects that seem to contradict Tegmark's analysis have been discovered in algae.

At the risk of annoying you, I have attached a little paper (just a couple of pages based upon my comments in another thread), It is my (mathematically ignorant) attempt to communicate my insights to a mathematician.

I think that there may be something here that will entertain you.

I appreciate your participation in this thread. If I can persuade people like yourself to look seriously at the possibility of macroscopic quantum coherent states in the brain then it might persuade other respected scientists to engage in the discussion - even if it is only theoretical or academic.

Chris

Whoops, forgot the paper:-

Wonderful read here between a "sensor" (Wilfried) and an "intuitive" (Christopher). It is extremely difficult for sensors to find any credibility with anything that cannot be understood by the senses, i.e. "Only facts can be discussed." I have found the same opposition Christopher, from our Mathematics faculty who resist acausal connections and are quick to flee from any topic that suggests a degree of chance. They are the type of people who have never moved the furniture in their bedrooms around (as a child), just to see what their room would be like with the bed on another wall (smile).

Getting back to the topic at hand, I do consider myself educated in the field of personality type, yet I read a statement by Carl Jung that "you know nothing about personality type unless you have a full understanding of the conscious and the unconscious." This was exactly the motivation I needed to re-frame my research. For brevity sake, I'll call "mathematics" the "natural reasoning mind," and NO, the universe, nor the life that exists within those limits, are built solely from the natural mathematical reasoning mind.

Christopher,

thanks for your paper. I'll read it carefully.

Hi David,

So, I am an intuitive! An ex colleague of mine studies the enneagram. She said I was a 5 - an 'observer'. I don't know if that is compatible with intuitive or not!

On the question at hand. I try to imagine an event - somewhere and 'somewhen' in a universe far far away. This event occurs in a universe devoid of consciousness!!!

I find this idea strangely disturbing.

Perhaps I should post another question - 'Does a universe without consciousness make sense?'

I don't mean 'make sense' in a purely logical way - what I mean is that I find the proposition that existence necessarily entails consciousness infinitely more acceptable than the idea that there can be existence and no consciousness at all. Besides, one can be justified in asking, 'Given that, from a conscious being's point of view, there is nothing except consciousness, where is the justification to be found that there can be existence without consciousness?'

Not a ripple on the deep blue sea?

Nothing bothers me!

Chris

1There are 4 numbers that represent the principles of how the universe operates'. Christina Muns, what are these numbers, specifically?

Kev,

If you vote her question up then perhaps she will take notice.

Also, if you put her name first she will be more likely to notice it.

Chris

Chris,

Thanks for sharing your enneagram with me and yes, no question you are highly intuitive (which I'm sure you know). I am sorry that I cannot diagram your personality type for you electronically to show how your mind is able to connect with your unconscious and the events which perhaps might trigger such events.

I find you statement that "existence necessarily entails consciousness" to be agreeable (for what it is worth). In my field, it is actually the unconscious world that holds an entire library of truth and understanding. Our consciousness is simply our way of accessing (in and understandable way), what is happening around us. As wonderful as "facts" are, they actually limit our ability to extract new information from the unconscious and it is our imagination which helps us to leap those barriers of fact and explore beyond what is known.

Just as a side note, my personality type would much rather have a reputation of having a keen imagination than one of being extremely knowledgeable. Your idea of coherent wave functions is unknown to me, but I will enjoy looking at it.

Thanks,

David

Christopher,

"Does a universe without consciousness make sense?"

How should this question be answered if we don't know if an universe with conscious creatures make sense ...

Wilfried,

I admit, there is no real logical reasoning behind the question "Does a universe without consciousness make sense?" (I certainly did not expect Christina to be so forthright in her positive response). I asked the question to put readers in the frame of mind to consider the possibility. I want to know what other people think and whether, like me, they feel deeply disconcerted by the idea that there could be existence without consciousness.

In this way, I was hoping that people would read the papers I have written on the subject of phenomenal time and my related work on the catalytic theory.

Wilfried, let me ask you a question - 'What do you think? - Does the universe require anything in addition to the equations in order for it to exist? If the answer is 'Yes' then what is the missing component(s)?

I am pleased that you read the paper - it was quite informal - the mathematical ideas are there but expressed in a way that that makes sense to me.

Chris

Christina,

the Higgs-boson field is not conscious. Not every new and mysterious discovery is a candidate for consciousness. Please do not confuse physics and metaphysics. These are different things and have nothing in common.