A lot of you are asking about 'C=hf' and since it's easy to misinterpret because we tend to think about 'consciousness' in abstract terms as being our personality or our 'soul', I thought I'd explain the basic meaning of the formula.

The question Zamie asked in his video was: what is this 'C'? Is it some sort of magical 'quantum consciousness'? Is it human consciousness? What is implied by it?

But this is like asking "E=mc²? What does it mean by 'energy'? Kinetic energy of a dog taking a walk? Potential energy of fuel in a car?". Just as E=mc² and all other basic theoretic mathematical statements in science, C=hf refers to any possible minimum unit of spacetime that makes up your consciousness, just as E=mc² refers to any sort of unit of energy or mass. This just pertains to any quantized unit of spacetime, not to abstract concepts of what consciousness is on either neurological or spiritual levels. And the formula certainly doesn't imply that there is some magical quantized 'consciousness particle', it just creates an obvious starting point for a theory of everything: quantized particles behave in a certain way, the ones that make up our consciousness behave the same way, this has certain implications. That is all :).


(oh and to those asking where it is derived from: De Broglie's equations establish that all mass and energy equals 'hf', therefore, consciousness does too)

Views: 5826

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

OK two  things:


1) What is the unit of measurement of C? E is measured in Joules, C is measured in...? Joules?


2) Chiren states that C is a constant (in the livestream he said so) he said something about it being the ration of...can't remember. It cannot be a constant though, as "h" is already a constant and "f" is a variable. It has to be a variable. Explain?

Questions! Awesome :D. (I love it when people ask questions rather than jumping to conclusions very quickly)


1) Sure, we're talking about the basic quantized building blocks so if you'd want to come up with experiments to study the behavior of them, then you could measure these units in, say Joules. C=hf is a very fundamental theoretical statement, in the same sense that you could talk about a bar of gold as "Bar of Gold = hf". What is the bar? Is it centimeters? Joules? Kilograms? Centimeters? It is of course all of those things depending on how you approach it.


This would seem like it would then say absolutely nothing new about the bar, and this is actually true because it's simply stating the obvious, right? However, it's an important starting point to state that this bar of gold is subject to the laws of physics, including relativity and, on an atomic level, quantum mechanics. So far, so obvious. So why is it important to put all those obvious things together? Because by doing that, we can easily point out one astonishing fact: the fundamental repercussions of relativity on the bar's 'existence'.


In quantum mechanics, we look at the 'weirdness' and accept that it has existential repercussions. Even if we might not fully grasp what they are, they are nevertheless a huge part of the debate about the quantum world, except for those who subscribe to the 'shut up and calculate' philosophy. With the theory of relativity, the philosophical repercussions have been overlooked much more.


Since space and time are the same fabric, you can look at our bar from both angles: it is both 10 light-seconds and ten seconds long. If the bar would suddenly pop into existence right now and it disappears again after 5 seconds, only the first 5 light-seconds of the bar will have existed from your frame of reference. The bar has effectively been cut in half, and the other half was unable to have any influence on your reality in any way. It did not interact with you through light, gravity or any type of observable way. The other half effectively did not exist.


We can apply this to molecules as well. Go below something like 200 attoseconds and you don't even have enough time for a simple H2 molecule to come into existence. From our frame of reference, or our 'consciousness', the pattern that makes up everything we experience is the result of such fundamental spacetime units, which are not only subject to the laws of relativity where space can not exist without time, but also to the laws of quantum mechanics. This is the core of C=hf and everything that is explained in Chapter 2, Part 3 are basic repercussions of it.



2) C is not a constant if you want to observe someone else's frame of reference (it helps a lot to replace 'consciousness' by 'frame of reference'). But since every single minimum unit of spacetime that makes up your consciousness is always the basic reference frame that, through interaction with other units (in an abstract arrow of time) you can observe reality with, for you, within your own frame of reference, C can only be a constant. This is can be pretty abstract and any sort of analogy would be flawed but let me try anyway: imagine a clock that is somehow self-aware, it is 'conscious' and let's say one minimum unit of consciousness for the clock is 0.2 seconds. As outsiders we could make all sorts of assumptions and intellectual constructs and say things like: "the clock is experiencing reality at a frequency of 0.2!". But if the clock wants to scientifically study its own reality, what is its frequency? It can not establish a certain number to that, it can only label other observed frequencies of other phenomena. The frequency of the clock's frame of reference is 1 for itself cause it can't really be anything else. But put two of these clocks together and increase the velocity of one and you might have some very interesting things happen to how one clock observes the frequency of the other.


Btw I'm just explaining it the best I can with my limited knowledge (compared to Chiren's). But shoot if you have more questions!

"Bar of Gold = hf". What is the bar? Is it centimeters? Joules? Kilograms? Centimeters? It is of course all of those things depending on how you approach it."

Shouldn't it be Joule, because that's what h*f is?

You could say that it is indeed Joules. But just like anything that is Joules, it is not just 'Joules'. The bar of gold in the example can also be Joules. That doesn't make it into an abstract 'Joules entity' of course, it's a measurement. And that measurement, in certain experiments would then allow you to say more about its mass, its momentum and so forth.

Sorry, I still don't get it.

h is expressed in Joules per Second - f is expressed in 1/s therefore C, Bar of Gold, Energy = J

Joules is defined as (kg*m²)/s²

makes sense for me

Than I looked deborglie up in wiki: if I now messure this on a specific objects, lets say a photon - due the frequency I can define it's energy (but not his mass).

can makes sense to me

BoG=hf expressend in centimeters ??

Don't get that


You guys honestly didn't read Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, and P.A. Zizzi's work on Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness. You guys botched this one real good.

So the frequency we are talking about is the frequency of experience? Of existence? Why is the frequency of existence for that one clock 1 for itself? It can compare its own frequency to other frequencies and then calculate its own frequency...

And if it is 1, then C would just equal "h", as "h" X 1 is just "h". So if I observe myself, my consciousness = 6.626068 × 10-34 joules?

Okay, imagine: you're the clock. Because your spacetime is divided into quantized units depending on your frequency, you can't go beyond a certain limit. This is why we have things like Planck's constant. We can not divide things infinitely because the frequency of the basic building blocks of our frame of reference only creates a finite reality.


Another wacky example: let's say you're the solar system that is self-aware and intellectually capable of studying itself. And one cycle of the earth around the sun is one moment of consciousness for you. You would observe planets as disappearing from one location and appearing in the other, you won't be observing the in-between states. Even stranger: many phenomena will pop in and out of existence. If you encounter a human being that could tell you "your frequency is 'this'", you would say this is the perception of this human being and that your experience is continuous, not quantized or not defined as a certain frequency. You would label that as the frequency of him, not of you.

That was a nice example.

But then in the end "C" is not a constant, at least not universally.


And this also means that "f" cannot be defined as one, EVEN for yourself, (it makes sense, yes) but you can't have this as a universal formula then, because it might be individual for every person. The frequencies of consciousness are different, there for C will always be different. What are you trying to accomplish with this formula in the end then?


ALSO: what defines the frequency of C?

Indeed, you could call it 'one' or 'not applicable' when looking at 'your own' frequency.


What it accomplishes to think like this: there are many phenomena that we attribute to the shift in frequency of light and sound, the Doppler effect and so forth. There are other phenomena, such as time dilation and length contraction, where the fabric of time and space itself is shifting. These are currently seen as "how it is" with no further explanation why (aside from establishing the model of spacetime). The answer lies in how frequencies shift related to our frame of reference, defining the experience of spacetime for ourselves and for other people that we observe.

Reese, I'm wondering why Chiren isn't replying to anything when he's the researcher. You admit it yourself, "I'm just explaining it the best I can with my limited knowledge (compared to Chiren's)." I understand he doesn't want part in the media coverage, but defending one's thesis is part of the job of a researcher.

As for your explanation, I'm trying to understand but to no avail. What I'm still waiting for is a simple MATHEMATICAL definition of C. I'll give you an example of what I mean:

The SI-unit of mass is kg, and the definition of the smallest unit of mass is 12 u which is the weight of a carbon-12 atom. In kg, that is approximately 1.66x10−27kg.

Now if you could define C in that manner, I'm confident you'd have clarified A LOT. This is much simpler than writing a wall of text, and definitely much easier to understand, leaving no room for wrong interpretations.
You can do  this, you can take, for example, a brain and weigh it. But this would tell you only one aspect of consciousness. You can take things apart and study the basic building blocks of the universe, the same ones that our consciousness is made of, this would then tell you other aspects of it. C=hf is an abstract statement that says that all of these aspects apply and we need to look at all of them to understand how and why we interpret the space and time of our reality.


Latest Activity

RIMILITIA posted a status
"Freedom suppressed and again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered. Marcus T. Cicero"
RIMILITIA posted a status
"If a businessman makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences. If a bureaucrat makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences. - Ayn Rand"
RIMILITIA posted a status
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.Voltaire"
RIMILITIA posted a status
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell"
Feb 20
RIMILITIA posted a status
""It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire"
Feb 18
RIMILITIA left a comment for Minsc
"CON TROLL SAYS TIME IS UP JOEY................................"
Feb 17
Shepard of Peace liked Professor Kizomba's blog post K-TOE - The Science/Religion Debate
Feb 16
Professor Kizomba and Shepard of Peace are now friends
Feb 15
RIMILITIA left a comment for Minsc
"Now Do It.................and Don't Make me come Back here........."
Feb 14
RIMILITIA left a comment for Minsc
Feb 14
RIMILITIA posted a status
"“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” ― Mark Twain"
Feb 13
RIMILITIA commented on RIMILITIA's blog post Reverse Ageing - is it possible?
Feb 13

© 2015   Created by Reese Leysen.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service