For anybody with some scientific knowledge, the laws of physics are inherently something which does not change: they were created once and for all in the Big Bang, making vain any questioning on the how and the why they exist. With in more a cultural background of creationist religion, then we shall more easily see here a mysterious creation, impossible to match, rather than a process accessible to our understanding, see reproducible.
However, the theory of the logical self-generation process predicts that this can happen, and that we can even cause it, under certain conditions. Indeed, if rule 5 of chapter III-3 really predicts that a logical self-generation process is forced to reproduce itself according to immutable laws (the laws of physics obey this rule), on the other hand, rule 6 also forces the appearance of new laws of self-generation, when a paradox appears. One of the possible solutions of the paradox is then reified, and it becomes the new self-generation rule. This is what the mathematician did, with the paradoxical creation of the number i into their mathematics theory, which then forces a large number of other mathematical concepts. They could have chosen the other solution of the paradox, and make without i, but then the mathematics theories would have a different form.
Similarly, modern physics describes the appearance of the laws of physics in several steps, called symmetry breaking, which took place successively in the first moments after the Big Bang. The main step is called the «great unification», and it corresponds to the moment where a single physical force would have divided into the four forces that we know today. But several other creations of laws also occurred, before or after this one. The most important to understand is that each of these appearance of new laws of physics (symmetry breaking) does not result from magical or mysterious causes, but only of the physical conditions existing in the time when they happen! And if we do not see this process at work in our everyday lives, it is only because the today usual conditions are very far from allowing for it.
The convergence between the two theories is definitively not fortuitous: physicists known for a long time that the physical world self-generates itself according to logical laws of cause to effect. These laws are equivalent to the inferences of an axiomatic system, especially a series. So, I myself built my own theory in such a way that it leads to the known physics (otherwise it would be an useless speculation).
These metaphysical considerations are thus definitively not gratuitous: the process of creation of laws of physics was scientifically reproduced, and physicists allow themselves today to titillate the creation in their particle accelerators, to the point, seemingly, to have reproduced the most recent of the symmetry breaking, the matter-antimatter symmetry (without which our universe would be populated only with radio waves). A process that I predicted in the version 1 of this book, in 2000, although for entirely different phenomena.
But we shall also see that consciousness itself produced the same process, and generated its own laws, which then explain its non-physical properties, while remaining logically connected with physics. This makes that some consciousness stuff needs to be discussed here. And it is perfectly valid to do this here, in this part of physics. Because there are things which need to be said, at last.
Physics has found that the known elementary particles gather together into three generations. The first generation contains the four stable elementary particles which make up ordinary matter: the electron, the neutrino, the up and down quarks (constituents of the proton and the neutron). But each of these four particles has two other heavier forms: two other neutrinos, two other electrons, two other pairs of quarks, which form each the two other generations. These additional particles being of a higher energy, they are unstable, and they decompose in the first generation. Thus they are observed only in the laboratories (except the muon, the second generation electron, which is produced by cosmic radiations, and the two other neutrinos, because each neutrino sort of «oscillates» between the three generations). However, they played an important role in the first fractions of seconds of our universe, at a high enough energy, and short enough time to allow for them to exist in the same way as the first. The kaons, particles containing the «strange» quark of second generation, also favoured matter over antimatter. The two additional generations still influenced the primordial nucleosynthesis, which results allowed to infer that there is really only three generations. Therefore the physicists think that there is no other generations, which would be currently undetectable by lack of sufficiently powerful instruments. Finally, only the «physical» particles (obeying the Fermi-Dirac statistics) have generations, «immaterial» particles such as the photon and other bosons are not affected.
To my knowledge, there is no explanation to these three generations, nor to the masses of the particles which make them. Within each of the generations, the reactions between particles can be explained in terms of charge exchanges (which allow or prohibit transformations). This can be plays of geometrical arrangement of the nibs into the Minkowski space, as I explained above. Physicists say that particles obey to «symmetries», which are structures of sets (After the Sets Theory, chapter I-2) (The very limited number of possible structures of sets generating each a type of particle, or of interaction between them). But there is nothing telling why the same system exists in three copies, of which only one is «usable» to form the ordinary matter. As if a Creator God had missed twice his attempt, before getting the good values.
So I guess what may have happened, thanks to the theory of the logical self-generation. The logical event which created our nib, that we call resolution of a paradox, or creative absurdity (chapter III-3, rule 6), is also called «symmetry breaking» by the physicists. The later see here the formation of a «domain», an area of space with new laws of physics, what we call here a logical self-generation system, with its own law of self-generation. Such an event would have happened a very small fraction of a second after the Big Bang, in a time where the universe was still at unimaginable temperatures and pressures. Physicists call this event the «Gread Unification» (or rather disunification, because, historically, we would pass from one unified force to our four known forces). What may have happened is that this event would simply have occurred three times, almost simultaneously, or in nearby places. And, having no reason to give each time the same results, it actually gave three different systems. The three systems then got mixed and superimposed, creating the three generations. Only the one with the lowest energy (ours) is stable, because its elements cannot decompose into other elements with a lower energy.
However, that these three systems produced each exactly the same base pattern (2 Quark, an electron, a neutrino, and their laws of transformation from the one to the other) indicates that there was a very strong constraint for this system (as for example a simple geometric play of the nib in the Minkowski space, or plays of symmetry of structures of sets). If this hypothesis is correct, then we even have a strong evidence that many other universes (if not all) would also reproduce the same pattern (two quarks, an electron and a neutrino), but in an indeterminate number of generations, and with random masses. And only the generation with the lowest energy is stable, since its particles cannot disintegrate in anything lighter.
But we also note a strong anthropism (chapter IV-6) into our own universe. The first is that we have only one generation of matter favoring the matter-antimatter asymmetry during the Big Bang, and this one disappears after, leaving only our ordinary matter, symmetric and non-chiral. (The Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa theorem says that we need at least three generations of matter to have, while simplifying, at least one quark violating this symmetry, the strange quark in our case. So an universe with only one or two generations would have as much matter and antimatter, which would totally annihilate). The second «anthropic random» is still stronger: that the proton and the neutron of the first generation (and only them!) have nearby the same mass, minus 0.14%, making them both stable. This in turn allows for a great number of atom nucleus to be stable. An even slightly larger difference would allow for only a few elements to exist. A still larger difference, as with the baryon delta (super proton, 30% heavier, unstable) would allow for an universe containing only pure hydrogen, see only neutrons. So that, even if an universe has the same physics base than ours, it is far from enough for it to contain life, or even anything at all.
Thus, we have highly visible traces of an extremely contingent event in the History of the universe! And different from the Big Bang itself. The time where our physics emerged, in an already existing world, but empty of any matter as we know it. This time is usually called the «Great Unification» by the physicists, because the four forces of physics were also united in one, before this event.
A quite astonishing science fiction game, but with a realistic base that few fictions can boast, would be to imagine what would happen if, for instance, our second generation of matter was stable, and that it formed similar amounts than our ordinary matter. This second generation is based on the «strange» and «charmed» quarks, the muon and the muonic neutrino.
This is not a pure speculation: helium 5 and other nuclei containing a lambda hyperon (kind of strangelet neutron, 19% heavier than the normal neutron) were actually observed in the laboratory, and they would even be stable if the hyperon was. Anyway the helium 5 strangelet is more stable than the normal helium 5!! I even wonder if there would be some nuclei able of stabilizing an hyperon, since they already stabilize the neutron. The best candidate would be in the group of iron, for example stable strangelet iron, 0.3% more dense than normal iron. We could try to synthesize it, with projecting Kaons or hyperons on iron hydride (the hydrogen being used to thermalise the kaons or hyperons, as it is done with neutrons).
I played a bit at predicting what would happen if the second generation matter was stable. Thus, the «omega simple charm» (second generation neutron) has a mass of 2697 Mev, against 939 Mev for the ordinary neutron. We also have the «double charmed omega» (second generation proton), which mass is unknown, against 938 Mev for the ordinary proton. So we would have, besides ordinary oxygen, charmed oxygen,which density would be 2.6 times higher than ordinary oxygen (This would probably make it toxic, as heavy water is). In fact the strangelet atoms, or charmed atoms, would appear only as extra-heavy isotopes of our ordinary matter, with very similar chemical properties and 2.6 times higher density. Nothing really strange until now.
However, because of their smaller size, strangelet atom nucleus could reach atomic number of about 150, while charmed matter could reach atomic numbers of about 1500! Which would lead to totally exotic chemical bodies, requiring 338 columns in the Mendeleev table! Already, the 117 and 118 already have properties different of what predicted by the Mendeleev table, and the next would be still more bizarre. Strangelet plutonium would be harmless, just good to sell as a marrow healer in organic shops. Some charmed or strangelet elements may have fantastic magnetic properties (a small magnet levitating a large train), and the heaviest would bring a very different chemistry than the one we know. Indeed, plutonium, the heaviest element studied, also has the most complex chemistry known, with not less than five possible ions, each of a different colour. This is because the heavy elements contain many similar electronic energy levels, easily confused. Elements with atomic numbers in the order of one thousand will still enhance this property, to the point of showing energy bands. Thus, a computer screen using such ions would be white, but able of taking any colour by the application of a small voltage.
The strangelets would also have a very... strange property: to be chiral, this meaning not to be symmetrical of their reflection in a mirror. This property also exists in ordinary matter, but only very weakly, and it took very accurate means for detecting it. It is speculated that this would explain that life uses only left amino acids. The strangelets would also have this property, but much stronger, to the point of perhaps having visible effects, surely very disconcerting for our senses.
But there is even more bizarre stuff: each of the two forms of matter, ordinary or strangelet, would also exist under electronic or muonic form, depending if electrons or muons surround the nucleus of atoms. This is not a speculation: muonic molecules were actually observed, such as muonic hydrofluoric acid. But then, the differences become huge, because muonic chemistry demands much higher energies! Thus, muonic fire would be far more violent than our regular electronic fire, a muonic battery would allow a car to drive tens of thousands of kilometres, and a muonic hand grenade would blow up a whole building! In a general way, our electronic matter would be unable to interact chemically with muonic matter, which would appear, therefore, as a kind of totally stainless super-gold (except with muonic oxygen), melting at tens of thousands of degrees. The muonic matter would be also much denser, and much more solid, allowing for fantastic architectures, or much more efficient aircrafts. The space elevator would be easy to do! However, the muonic matter would not have only benefits. Indeed, muons, while replacing electrons, would make many of our ordinary atoms become radioactive, by muonic absorption (comparable to electronic absorption, but occurring much more easily, as the muons are closer to the nucleus than the electrons). Even better, muonic hydrogen undergoes spontaneous fusion! (this was done in the laboratory, in 1957). Thus the stars would be at the stage of red giant as soon as their formation, and would last only a few million years, not enough to develop life. We would even have hot interstellar clouds, because hydrogen would already fusion here. Even the formation of Earth would result into thermonuclear fusion reactions!
The stabilization of the second generation of matter would probably result in the stabilization of many other particles, such as mesons, which are rather lighter than ordinary nucleons. For instance, pionic hydrogen would be seven times lighter than ordinary hydrogen, which would make of it a much better fuel and a desired resource, for instance as scuba diving gas. But negative mesons may also take the place of the electrons around ordinary nuclei: we would then have mesonic matter, even more dense and resistant than muonic matter.
Could such a nightmarish world host life? Yes, if it leads to sufficiently stable condition, with for instance muonic matter concentrated in the center of the planets. But one thing is sure, chemists won't be bored.
Other solutions are probably possible, such as for instance a single stable generation, but lighter than ours. In this case, the stars burn more quietly, but longer, and then gently wear out. Chemistry could be reduced to some elements only, not heavier than the only four CHON necessary for life. A simple and quiet world, where the atomic bomb would be impossible, where it would be enough to eat the ground to feed. This would realize the old fantasy of the planet entirely made of food, with layers of sandwich, apple pie, shale lasagna, sugar snow, etc.!
It is much feared that strangelet matter, created in particle accelerators, may transform our ordinary matter into strangelet, from simple contact, with such a release of energy that everything would be destroyed. In fact, this is not possible, as we instead need a fantastic amount of energy to convert ordinary matter into strangelet. Therefore, the later exists only in the laboratory, in a very elusive way, and the only place where it would (maybe) be naturally stable is at the heart of some neutron stars, where the pressure would forbid it to disintegrate. However, a really possible accident would be if physicists create a fourth generation of matter, lighter than ours. In this case, ordinary matter would convert to this fourth generation, with a considerable energy release: Earth would blow up into a supernova, which debris would contaminate the whole Galaxy, like an epidemics. But this would require particle accelerators with an energy level totally inconceivable today, able of reaching the great unification of the four forces of physics.
(Re-reading the previous paragraph, I realize that our first generations quarks are already very close of the minimum possible mass: 1,6 to 5,8 Mev, compared to the 300Mev of virtual quarks and gluons which mandatorily surround them. So, lighter quarks would not lead to much lighter particles, for instance only a few Mev lighter than our proton or neutron (Themselves separated by only 1.29Mev, which makes the neutron stable for some minutes). This would certainly make our ordinary matter unstable, but not to the point of disintegrating instantly. Therefore, a domain wall of such a lighter generation sweeping Earth would first go unnoticed! Maybe lead accumulator would explode as atom bombs, while iron railways would emit intense blue light, turn red hot and melt. But people in the middle of nature would notice nothing. However the radioactivity would inflict us strong burns and pain in a matter of minutes, while Earth itself would melt entirely in hours, and vaporize. Of all the catastrophes imagined in this chapter, it is the only one leaving us time to suffer)
Finally, I allows myself to make an even more bizarre prediction, but that this time we may be able to observe. Domains (textures) containing matter of other generations may exist in the visible universe, within reach of our telescopes. As these other generations of matter appear simply as heavier or lighter isotopes of our familiar elements, then they have the same spectral lines as our own matter, and we could not detect them with the spectroscope! However their nuclear properties would be entirely different, allowing to detect them by the absence of heavy elements in stars, or by the presence of unknown elements heavier than ours. This is still not easily detectable with the today spectroscopes (2012), but this will cause a different evolution of the stars, especially the giants and supernovas. They would have a different energy, including the Ia «standard candles». And this is highly visible.
In 1999, the idea that we could artificially modify the laws of physics looked «demented» (my own word, which was however not to be understood literally), and it was certainly the most daring prediction in all my book. Here is, (summarized, and in italics) what I wrote in 2000, in the version 1 of the book, in chapter 35:
Textures: A stylish and subtle test
The previous considerations on the appearance of physical laws may be testable with means available to us.
We just need to find a situation where the laws of physics never acted. Examples of such situations would be Bose-Einstein condensates, at very low temperatures, or Q-bits: it is highly unlikely that these things appeared naturally somewhere.
The experiment would be to measure an unpredictable constant of physics, in this situation. The measurement should be made simultaneously at several sites on Earth, or better in space. In these circumstances, the value of the new constant of physics could be assigned differently in each of these places, because no information can be exchanged between the different experiments. (Experiments must not last more than some milliseconds, because light needs only forty milliseconds to cross the Earth)
If the experiment works, we should then find different values for the new constant, in each of the locations. Then, by repeating the experience every 10 milliseconds, we should see one of the textures win over the others, until all the experiments yield the same value.
I also predicted, in the same chapter 35, that each new black hole would create its own laws of physics into its centre. And that this would be testable, with the observation of the Hawking decay of micro-black holes produced into particle accelerators. However, it seems that until now, none of these micro-black holes was observed.
I also though at particles physics, but, from the lack of public information in 1999, I believed that it could happen only at the energy level of the Great Unification, something unthinkable for now. I just ignored that other creations of laws happened at lower energy, within reach of today particle accelerators, and it is actually here that it happened:
Just when I was releasing the previous prediction, in 2000 in the version 1 of this book, physicists of the RHIC experiment at Brookhaven started to collide gold nucleus at very high energy. The resulting temperature and pressure, four trillions of degrees, correspond to the state of our universe one microsecond after the Big Bang, when it contained only quarks and gluons, the most fundamental particles of matter. For this reason this state of matter is called quark-gluon plasma. Only when it cools off, this plasma forms our ordinary subatomic particles (hadrons and mesons) of which the only two stable ones remain (the proton and the neutron).
We guess that, with six quarks, six antiquarks, three colors, three anti-colors, eight gluons, three electrons, three neutrinos, photons, and three weak bosons, the properties of this plasma must be very complex.
But what is interesting here is that physicists observed in this plasma several bubbles of matter which were breaking the matter-antimatter symmetry in different ways. Just like in my prediction, we see domains (textures) appearing, fighting, until only ordinary space remains (when all the kaons disappear, symmetry breaking can no longer happen). Just the time scale is different of my prediction, and of course the energy level. But the logical principle is the same.
We expect that, if symmetry is broken, it is in a constant way, as observed with kaons (and some other particles). The rate of symmetry breaking is constant, it is a constant of physics, a law of physics: kaons decay more preferably in matter at a given rate, just as water boils at 100°C and the permittivity of vacuum is a fundamental constant of electromagnetics.
That domains with different symmetry breaking rates appear is a clear evidence that this law of physics is created into the quark-gluon plasma. And, at the very fast relativistic speed at which it evolves into the experiment, it does not have the time to be created equally everywhere. So, several domains form, with each a different rate of symmetry breaking.
Why this law is created in the quark-gluon plasma? Probably because there is somewhere a constant which is not defined into the quarks. As the logical self generation theory predicts, this constant has to be assigned a value when the plasma forms, and it can be anything.
Why no other law is created? Probably because the next creation of laws (next in experiments, but previous in the Big Bang) is the creation of quarks themselves (and of all the other particles), the Great Unification, which happens at a much higher energy (and much sooner in the Big Bang), totally out of reach of today particles accelerators. If physicists could one day reach this energy level, they would probably produce other generations of matter, in more of the three we know. A dangerous experiment, as, if a lighter one than ours is created, then it will convert all our matter, in a fantastic explosion.
Why do the created textures do not spread into our own texture of ordinary matter? Probably because they compete with each other, and ours wins. Also, the strange quarks, the ones prone to symmetry breaking, all decay in a very short time, into ordinary matter. So, any difference of texture are cancelled.
Why do we have only one texture into our universe? This is one of the deepest debates in physics today. Either they were all cancelled save ours, or the others are very far. Anyway, the Big Bang happened at a much slower pace than the RHIC experiment, giving much more time for the texture fight to settle. Later, expansion of the universe spread the remaining textures, and they may be so large today, that none other is visible into the observable universe.
The previous process shows that creating laws of physics is possible, and that this even happens naturally, when suitable conditions are gathered. More accurately, what is created is a domain of space (texture), a zone of space which has its own laws of physics. However what happens of a domain depends on many factors, mainly of its energy level. If the domain has a lower energy, then it may spread and convert the neighbouring domains (at the speed of light, say the cosmologists). Otherwise, it will on the contrary collapse, and all the particles it contained will revert to their usual properties. Depending on energy, this collapse may be extremely quiet, or on the contrary produce devastating effects. In the case of the violation of the matter-antimatter symmetry, the collapse is discrete, producing no visible effect, save of course that the matter reverts to its usual behaviour. But a domain with a lighter generation of matter, will on the contrary spread into a fantastic explosion.
An interesting detail is that the domain walls (limits between two domains) move into space, but the matter content does not necessarily move: the domain wall just sweeps through space and all ordinary objects, as would do a political change sweeping a country without moving the cities or persons. This is why the word «texture» was first used, as if a zone of space was painted with a colour, like countries on a map, each with its own laws. In the case of the matter-antimatter asymmetry, passing through the domain wall produces no noticeable effects. A domain containing a lighter generation of matter will not either move objects, but our ordinary matter would become highly radioactive, releasing such an amount of energy that the shock wave will probably carry the domain wall with it. Only in the case of a domain affecting the geometry of space itself, for instance a domain of curved space, then the objects would be moved when the domain wall passes on them. In this case, immobile objects may be instantly accelerated. Such a domain wall may look like a galaxy-sized water bubble, or like a black wall cancelling stars as it advances and absorbs them. Strange and terrifying catastrophes...
So, domains are not necessarily violent or large objects, they may be invisible, very small, with only very subtle effects, or affecting only a category of particles. This makes that, in the next sub-chapter, we can go toward the subtle rather than toward the tremendous: life itself may have created its own laws of physics! Oh, nothing fantastic, no folded space or symmetry violation. But the very basic functioning of consciousness may occasionally call for subtle and very located domains into our brain. Let us see on a very common example: free will.
Sadomasochist scientistists, and everybody in the world who is stuck, sociopathic or fascist, all actively fight the idea of free will: we just have to look in their media the shameful display of pseudo-scientific articles which insidiously «explain» everything we do in terms of neurological mechanisms. The motive of this disparagement of human consciousness is just too obvious, for these people unable to master their own life, and ready to change us all into zombies slaves if they could.
However this arrogant scientistism is not necessarily the position of science. Today scientists (2012) are also digging the idea. In a general way, they recognize that free will is incompatible with the physical functioning of neurons. So, either they consider it impossible, or they admit that there is a mystery. Let us see about, without arbitrary metaphysical dogma such as the absolute supremacy of matter over consciousness (chapter III-1).
To speak scientifically of the free will, we must start by not mistaking its definition. The free will is not about making choices between identical buttons. To do this, the brain can very well use «random generators», at need quantum. We saw in the experiment of chapter IV-2 that the brain is perfectly designed in a way to eliminate the quantum noise of neurons. If it does so, it can also use it. And the experiments of neurologists or cognitivists to test the existence of free will with choices of buttons will never give any result, neither positive nor negative.
The first definitions of free will independently appeared more than twenty-five centuries ago, in Zoroastrianism (first monotheist religion) and Hinduism. From there they spread to Judaism, Christianism, Islam and Buddhism. Despite the use of different concepts, these definitions are the same. For instance, in the Christian conceptual system (chapter I-9), free will is to choose to engage freely in the path of God (the good, the truth), and for this, no more being manipulated by the suggestions of the devil (suffering, error). Of course, as with any important idea, the notion of free will quickly emancipated itself of religious concepts, toward philosophy, especially humanism (explaining its explicit recognition by Human Rights and democratic laws). However it is psychology and neurology which allow to assess the more modern definition (2012): the free will is precisely to escape any neuronal or psychological conditioning. Since, precisely, such conditioning eliminate any choice, any freedom. (It is worth noting that the view beyond the concepts did not changed since twenty-five centuries.)
But above all, in a scientific study, it is very important to understand that the free will is not a «personal choice», such as when we choose the colour of our clothes, or our style of music. Just as twenty-five centuries ago, the free will is about to go toward the good (chapter V-3). For a scientist, it will be to go toward the truth; for a spiritualist, it will be to go towards understanding and happiness. Choices such as going toward error, or toward suffering, can definitively not be the result of a liberation process! If people do such unfortunate choices, it is therefore not from their free will, but precisely because they were not able to escape their neural or psychological conditioning, which subjugate them to error and suffering. So, if people are not free of their own thinking, how can their will be free?
Thus, the mere fact that people choose the good against their neurological or psychological conditioning is a clear enough demonstration of the existence of free will. (Gandhi explained well this process, and the fight he had to sustain against his own psychology before success)
In more, we must thoroughly keep in mind, in a science study on free will, that the notion of good or evil has no meaning into physics. As we shall study in details in chapter V-5, it is typically a notion of the domain of consciousness (where it, on the contrary, plays a fundamental role), that even a robot imitating the human brain will be unable to discover. To choose the good, or even only discovering it, clearly tells an action of consciousness into the physics of the brain.
The hitch is that, according to scientistist theories of the 20th century, which can be gathered under the name of «neuronal reduction», consciousness is just the result of the physical functioning of the neurons. Therefore, after the scientistist dogma of the absolute supremacy of matter over consciousness, we cannot escape from this operation, and therefore there is not free will (at best «drawing lots», giving an appearance of choice, but indiscriminately toward the good or toward the evil). This impossibility has been extensively developed in scientistism, especially positivism and its continuation, to the point that the neuronal reduction and the absence of real free will were elevated at the level of «scientific truths», even for many scientists and cultivated citizens. However, anybody even slightly spiritual, from the simple humanist thinker to the most advanced yogi, will say that his spiritual choices are the result of his free will. Even for the basic citizen, the denial of the existence of free will appears absurd and stupid, although he will usually give up any attempt to discuss the scientistist sophistry. The scientists, them, are stumbling on the base question: a real free will fundamentally request an action of consciousness on the material world (on the brain). Many hold such as action as impossible, because it would violate the laws of physics. Others admit the existence of free will, while recognizing that they do not know how to resolve this contradiction.
This question is of paramount importance for our lives, because not only neuronal reduction condemns us to despair and nothingness after death, but in more it completely forbids us to escape from our neural mechanisms and psychological conditioning into this world. And without free will, conscious beings would be unable to control their thinking, as we do on a daily basis. We would live as under LSD, in a world of neurotic hallucinations which would send us knocking at all the walls, like in a pinball, without any way to stop this torture.
However, the existence of at least some forms of free will is easy to demonstrate. And it is the most naive science which provides us involuntarily an example: whenever a scientist abandons a personal opinion, for the benefit of a proven scientific knowledge, then precisely he escapes his psychological, neural, or quantum determinism, which were keeping him on his false personal opinion. He then acquires new motives (applying the theory) which are in the domain of the spirit, of knowledge. If such scientists join forces, shape pieces of metal according to these theories of physics, and guide them with an extraordinary accuracy in such a way to bring life on another planet, so we can say that not only they have escaped physical determinism, but that in addition they produced a major intentional change in the History of the universe, for the sole purpose of promoting consciousness. Not going so far, such a simple discovery as a flint axe to make a shelter, was a major forward step in the History of Earth, ultimately due to the only ability of the human mind to escape from its neural mechanisms, and determine itself as a function of a technical reality which is totally independent of these mechanisms.
Eh yes, without free will, there would simply be no science!
However, the existence of an exact science is a well established observation fact...
So, thanks to free will, not only humans control their lives in order to escape from suffering, but increasingly they are able to participate in the writing of the History of the universe, as a function of non-physical determinisms, in the domain of knowledge, emotions or spirituality. I would even say that it is one of the main activities of mankind! And this is even not a novelty: since tens of millions of years, animals and birds perform their own genetic selection, on purely aesthetic criteria (colour, songs, etc.). Humans are just faster at this sport.
But what is the relation of this with the creation of laws of physics, of domains of space with different laws?
And what is the point of speaking of neurology in a chapter on Physics?
It is that, precisely, neurons are physical objects, which obey to the laws of physics. Thus, neural determinism really exists as a physical phenomenon. So, we must be able to explain how a physical phenomenon is affected by consciousness, without invoking a mysterious «influence», but without either stupidly deny the existence of consciousness (Chapter II-3).
It is the physical functioning of neurons who leads the dance, usually. And, as a physical law, we should not be actually able to escape it. Therefore, to allow the free will to happen, this law of physic must be violated. And how can it be violated? In the same way as in the RHIC (but less brutally!): by creating physical conditions containing a logical indeterminism, which will be naturally resolved by forcing the emergence of a new self-generation rule, as seen in chapter III-3, rule 6. In the case of the quark-gluon plasma, it seems that there is a symmetry parameter which is not determined: so it takes any value. In the case of free will, let us see with more detail.
The non-psychoeducated brain does no handle facts, but opinions, which are an attraction or an aversion attached to a concept, called the neurosis of desire/aversion: we desire or we hate something (chapter V-12). Normally, the brain has evolved in a way to propose a desire or an aversion adequate to the situations in the world, as for instance to desire food, or to be afraid of a predator. Thus, the animal or the person feels the desire to do the relevant action: eating, or fleeing. Which will generally result in him performing this action, by neurological conditioning, without any «intent», «will», «choice» or «reasoning» involved. But it does not always work, and in more human civilizations created many situations which were not foreseen by evolution. Then the neurosis engine runs without beacons, labelling all this as «good» or «bad», at random... From there comes the multitude of desire/aversion for such or such opinion, anyhow, resulting in so much suffering and illusions, such as the absurd puritan dogmas of the past, or nowadays (February 2012) this rage of voting for sadomasochist politicians who ruin our countries.
But if two neural signals of desire/aversion, for two different opinions, have a similar energy? There is then a logical indeterminacy. However, there must be a single nerve output, to one of the two behaviours. The theory of neural determinism says that a «drawing lot» would take place in this case. Pure chance, without any reference to good or evil, therefore not a free will.
What might however happen at this point, is that it would be an element of the experience of consciousness which would logically force one of the two solutions to the undetermined physical behaviour of neurons. For instance, a scientist will do the free will choice of preferring heliocentrism to geocentricism, a spiritual person will make the free will choice of preferring altruism to egocentricity. Oh, nothing spectacular, no explosion of plasma, no disaster... just a small stealth domain, only some neurons large, which lasts only a moment, the time to say «Eureka», before collapsing. Then the brain resumes its normal functioning, obeying the material determinism, but with modified connections, to apply the neurosis of desire only to the new view, more accurate. And the person has a feeling of discovery, usually called illumination. In comic books, this feeling is even represented as a bubble with a small lamp which lights up.
And how to reproduce the phenomenon? (Within the practical meaning, but also within the meaning of the epistemological requirement of reproducing the experiments, chapter II-5). Often, it appears fortuitously, as soon as the two connections have the same level. And perhaps never happens again. But we can also cause it, through meditation, which precisely is about cancelling the neurosis of desire/repulsion: the various options then produce all equal neural signals, of zero energy, thus easily realizing the logical indeterminism at the physical level. In addition, the zero energy will not activate any random drawing circuit. It would be this total physical indeterminacy which would make possible the interference of a determinism from the domain of consciousness into the physical functioning of neurons. This is possible, because it is not a violation of strong laws of physics, such as for instance the conservation of energy: it is simply the selection of a path among several of equal energy, which are as likely to happen by chance. But a person mastering meditation can then reproduce the phenomenon, and thanks to it, free his thinking of any psychology or neurology, and freely explore all the domains of life, no longer bound by neurosis, opinions, conditioning or manipulations. A certainly extremely enviable state, and a fantastic advantage over conditioned beings.
I imagine that many conventional scientists will feel totally sceptical for the above, as this violates the fundamental metaphysical dogma of materialist science: the absolute supremacy of matter over «metaphysical» facts such as consciousness (chapter III-1). But they can consider that we have another much stronger and more visible case, which is in more scientifically verified today: during a NDE, we have memories written into the brain, at a time where it cannot work (hypoxic coma, in studies). In addition, this brain is modified into several places (the person develops altruistic and spiritual concerns). I myself observed such phenomena, in a strong enough and convincing enough way to prove that such violations of physics are possible, if not common. In front of this, when one has only an atheistic dogma as sole line of defence, one is a bit light.
(As to the usual hazing of the pioneers of knowledge: insults, persecutions and accusations of madness, those who exhibit such behavioral disorders clearly show that they are not scientists. So it is useless to discuss with them. And I may even allow myself for some fun too...)
So we can explain that the immaterial consciousness can command the material brain, while emerging of it.
And this explanation is «rational» (see the discussion on the meaning of this word in chapter II-6). What is called «magic», or «parapsychology» suddenly finds a valid scientific theoretical frame. And this scientific explanation is neither a childish denial of the facts, nor their reduction to materialistic pseudo-explanations in the Mickey Mouse style. It is the recognition of the real and autonomous existence of these consciousness phenomena, out of matter, and without any dependency with matter, into the more general frame of the theory of the logical self-generation process. This is possible, because logic has no ideology: logic makes no segregation or hierarchy between the elements of physics and those of consciousness. And this allows to mix the two, in a psychophysical reality. The difficulty is to find a logical self generation law involving the two (chapter III-8). Precisely, the brain would have this property, and we shall see more accurately why, in the fifth part on consciousness.
That such a thing is possible certainly makes of the human brain the most fantastic object in existence: a machine able of manipulating the very laws of physics which ensure its own operation! Pity so few people think of using their brain...
This chapter was written in February 2012. But there is in facts many years that I suspected the thing, and I even mentioned «psychophysical episodes» as soon as 2000, in part 7 of the version 1, on unexplained phenomena. However it would have been extremely daring, scientifically speaking, to write that we can ourselves modify the laws of physics... before that scientists do it themselves. And it is the result of the RHIC which validated the idea, and allowed me to present it in a clear manner, here, in February 2012. (Yes, I know, there is no common point between high energy physics and the functioning of the brain... except that they obey the same logical laws. Therefore, what is true in the RHIC Collider is true everywhere.)
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.