As an initiatory demonstration of the power of Dialogue for Science, the Center is applying a Dialogical process to the Science of Consciousness, engaging physics, neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy in a rigorous conversation. Outputs from this project include Papers , Videos, and Books. The ongoing Process includes Working Groups and Workshops (below). To get involved or to support this work, please get in touch.
Getting the One, Done
Original Aim:
If local reality is dynamically-conventional, then modern science acquires the sorts of contingency and uncertainty asserted by reasonable postmodern critiques. But if it is dynamically-unconventional, then science can safely take past accomplishments forward, into new and expansive territory. (See: From Gödel to Trump.)
Thus, the actual dynamical character of local reality is science’s most pressing issue. This workshop will explore ‘the One Experiment’, which can in principle determine that character. Ideally, we will leave this event with a concrete, feasible, project plan, for ‘Getting the One, Done’.
Concluded: Q3, 2024
For technical details on dynamic un/conventionality, implications for science as a whole, and the One Experiment, please see the book ‘From Gödel to Trump’, and/or the papers ‘True Consciousness Science’ and ‘One Experiment’.
Gödel-Hamilton-Riemann
Original Aim:
In principle, the One Experiment can resolve problems for science arising from Gödel-like theorems for the dynamically-conventional biophysics of conscious experience. (See Part 1 of ‘From Gödel to Trump’.) However, the formulation of the Gödelian parallels points beyond immediate experimental resolution, to a potential convergence of the frontiers of pure mathematics, of empirical biophysics, and even of subjective cognition (the ‘GmHRH’ program from subsection 2.7 of Part 1, ‘From Gödel to Trump’).
This workshop will explore the GmHRH territory from various perspectives: the prospects for provably-consistent mathematics (‘G’), the kinds of brain-processed information (or ‘truth-discernment’) that meter-Hamiltonian arguments can support (‘mH’), and interpretations of the Riemann Hypothesis (‘RH’) that invoke the quantum break-time of an as-yet unknown (chaotic) physical system. More crucially, participants will explore how these apparently disparate G/mH/RH avenues may point to (or even constructively lead to) an objective but transient common-value trajectory.
Concluded: Q3 2025
‘Essential Singularity’ (courtesy Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0)