Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

George Simpson: on 4/6/17 at 18:28pm UTC, wrote Hi Gavin, sorry for the delay in replying - I have your essay open and hope...

George Simpson: on 4/6/17 at 18:24pm UTC, wrote Don, thanks for the encouragement. I will check out your essay. ...

Don Limuti: on 4/6/17 at 13:09pm UTC, wrote Hi George, I was just feeling good about about doing a good job of going...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/6/17 at 1:50am UTC, wrote Eckard, your comment concerning PHALLUS was to Gary Simpson...

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/28/17 at 15:45pm UTC, wrote Dear George, I apologize for typos in my comment concerning PHALLUS. You...

Peter Jackson: on 3/23/17 at 18:41pm UTC, wrote George, I understand. Yes, all my essays have been rather dense for some,...

Gavin Rowland: on 3/22/17 at 10:52am UTC, wrote actually on P2 you said "we will need to find a more general frame, one...

Gavin Rowland: on 3/22/17 at 10:45am UTC, wrote Hi George Thanks for your essay and your ideas - I enjoyed reading them. I...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "Re “I won't reply if you post outside the thread”: Tom, next you’ll..." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

John Cox: "Just posting to reclaim the clickable heading for this topic." in Wandering Towards a Goal:...

Anonymous: "Is the phishing bot attack over? The headings column is still full of..." in Sounding the Drums to...

smith jina: "awesome post, thank you. Epson Help Epson Support Epson Support Number ..." in What Happens Inside the...

Brain Wave: "Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty..." in A Deeper Understanding

Brain Wave: "Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty..." in Building a Better Black...

Brain Wave: "Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty..." in Co-Travelers

Brain Wave: "Beauty Tips Skin Tips Beauty Tips For Face Natural Beauty Tips Beauty..." in Talking Heads


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.


FQXi FORUM
August 22, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Reality Re-Envisaged by George Arthur Simpson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author George Simpson wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 15:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

To explain how aims and intentions arose from mindless mathematical laws, one needs a framework that acknowledges the reality of immaterial entities, which conventionally have been excluded from scientific consideration. We develop this by re-envisaging reality as a system in which information flows back and forth between the physical world and the Ideas Field, driven by the activity of minds. On that basis, we discuss how the emergence of the Ideas Field, with aims and intentions a key aspect of it, was fostered by technological development.

Author Bio

Dr George Simpson (physics, Univ New Hampshire 1977) began his career as an NAS/NRC Research Fellow with Goddard Space Centre. He contributed to the development of the NASA / ESA / Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory until 1990, then moved from academia into business. Currently he has a Data Scientist role with Transport for London, authoring intelligent systems for business analysis. Previously, he worked as an innovation consultant and application designer/developer.

Download Essay PDF File




Jack Hamilton James wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear George,

Interesting to see a dualist (or mulitplicitist) of a physics background. Is the idea field a separate reality? As Descartes said 'a ghost in the machine?' Or is it all one reality with distinct fields?

Best,

Jack

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:41 GMT
Hi Jack, thanks for your question. It is all ONE reality, the fields are interconnected. We have struggled with that in the past (mind-body) because, I claim, we have had an inadequate model of reality - basically we have assumed that everything is ultimately material. But now we are learning that everything is ultimately information, and that is another way of looking at my essay - as providing a starting point for thinking about the structure of an information-based universe.

Hope that helps, best regards, ...george...




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 10, 2017 @ 22:54 GMT
Dear Mr. George Arthur Simpson

I prefer essays with mathematical background. But your essay is entirely on a given topic. It is well presented and has high-quality graphics. It deserves high rate.

If you are interesting to ‘see’ things differently than they have previously“, please read my Theory.

Regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:45 GMT
Thanks for the encouragement Branko, I will have a look at your essay.

best regards, ...george...




William Walker wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 07:03 GMT
Ideas Field? I would hope you could come up with something a little more creative... like the Infinite Consciousness Force...

this would be the force that shattered into a gazillion pieces and allowed for micro consciousness to pull from the ICF (multiverse)... now time needed to be added to the equation to make a space in the light to slow down information so it could evolve back into Oneness gaining knowledge along the way to make consciousness feel real. I know that was a long sentence... sorry.

report post as inappropriate

William Walker replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 13:33 GMT
I have to say I believe your ideas are very good... I was just giving you a friendly jab about creativity... ;)

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:44 GMT
Thanks for the encouragement William. Finding a good name for things is hard. But if I used your suggestion, I might go over the page limit.. best regards, ...george...




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 09:23 GMT
Dear Dr George A Simpson,

Thank you for the very nice essay…. You correctly pointed out that…. “The view that non-measurables such as aims, intentions, and the state of one’s soul, were best left to the church”. You said “reality itself has become synonymous with the physical world” For the discussion sake …I want to start debate on two points…

1. In part 1 you discussed about the physical world, the world of ideas and concepts, and minds connecting the two. What is the difference between the ideas and concepts and minds? My opinion mind itself is ideas and concepts...

2. Our mind forms a picture about an object, say about a pen for example, so the question comes what is reality actually? Is it that picture formed in our mind of that pen? Is that picture formed by the eye, or the picture formed by the hand which touches the pen? This question about reality is really confusing… Probably you have to define reality first….

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 11, 2017 @ 18:53 GMT
Hi Satyavarapu, thanks for the interesting questions.

re 1., in my model, minds feed on, create, manipulate, and act on ideas and concepts. Ideas and concepts are passive, minds act on the Ideas Field and act on the physical world.

re 2., Reality is not one or the other of these, but all of them - from the physical reality of the pen itself, to the various representations of the pen in our minds, to the idea of a pen which we share with others, an entity in the Ideas Field.

I hope this is helpful, best regards, ...george...




John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 01:22 GMT
Are you following Liebniz?

He defined a "spirit" (my word). A college student calls home and says "send money". Later a check arrives. This is a huge transfer of energy (real) in exchange for a small expendure. This is a spirit force at work. Not real but materail moves.

Is this along your lines of "idea"?

Hodge

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 13:09 GMT
Hi John, thanks for this. I have not studied Leibniz, but am looking into him now. I will start with Early Modern Translations. Do you have a source you would recommend? Hope to post a sensible response after a little while.

Best regards, ...george...



Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 13:35 GMT
Hi Hodge,

I have searched all the Early Modern Texts on Leibniz for a reference to "student" and come up empty. So I will reply tentatively based on what you have said, pending the proper reference.

The interaction you describe, in which the exchange of an idea results in movement in the physical world, is similar to my example of the stop sign. Both appear as miracles, unless one has a frame that admits that reality has an immaterial aspect as well as a material one.

I hope that is useful,

Best regards

...george...



John C Hodge replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 07:19 GMT
Hi George

If I recall correctly Liebniz called the forces in the example Ideal". He also called space (meaning a coordinate system) and time in addition to the family above. They were relation forces - a precursor to relativity.

Hodge

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 12:29 GMT
Hello Mr Simpson,

Congratulations for your relevant general papper.I liked how you analyse this mind body problems and how we can rank these intentions and informations.It is always about this how,why,where,when ...I believe personally in my model of spherisation with 3D quant and coms sphères Inside an universal 3D sphere that the soul and gravitation must be correlated.If we encircle the...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 13:13 GMT
Hi Steve, Thanks for your encouragement. It is indeed a big puzzle, reality, and getting bigger all the time. The more we learn, the more the unknown grows before our eyes.

Best regards, ...george...



Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 08:35 GMT
You are welcome, with pleasure.Indeed,more we learn more we see that we are still so far.

Best Regards

report post as inappropriate


sridattadev kancharla wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear George,

I really enjoyed your beautiful essay and concur with your conceptualization of ideas field, mind and material reality. I hope you will enjoy the essay There are no goals as such in which I put forth a similar concept, just that I am using the term singularity of consciousness or soul or unified field in lieu of your "ideas field". Yes this field is beyond causal space-time,...

view entire post


attachments: SOULFUL.jpg, TBMI.jpg

report post as inappropriate

sridattadev kancharla replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 14:11 GMT
Here is the correct link to the essay There are no goals as such it's all play.

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 14:46 GMT
Hello Sridattadev, thanks for your kind words, most encouraging. Like you, I hope that barriers between people, which only really exist in our minds, will become seen as unhelpful illusions.




Jose P. Koshy wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 15:38 GMT
George Simpson,

It seems that your essay suggests 'idea field' to be different from matter. The biggest surprise is that a structure made up of atoms can create an 'idea field'. What I think is that the idea field remains inbuilt in matter, to bloom at the right time.

You have pointed out correctly the different eras in the history of Earth. I would like to add that this is the golden era, the zenith; and after that there will be a gradual decline, leading back to the 'machine era'; a beautiful symmetry, mathematically.

Jose p Koshy

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT
Hi Jost, thanks for these thoughts. I do indeed say that the Ideas Field - and also minds - are distinct aspects of reality, built on the same platform as matter - which is information.

You have a fascinating thought, that the ideas field is "inbuilt to matter". I don't think you mean that everything is conscious to some degree, but rather that the possibility is latent in the situation. Is that correct?



Jose P. Koshy replied on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 10:54 GMT
George Simpson,

Yes, I meant the possibility is latent, and consciousness emerges only when matter acquires the required structure.

Jose P koshy

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear George Simpson,

You are a data scientist while I was a teacher of EE who dealt with auditory function from IHCs up to cochlear nucleus. Your answer to the topical question is more enthusiastic than mine. While I too am aware of fqxi's intention to prefer refurbished idealistic ideas of an information based nature, I am claiming to have revealed unseen flaws behind discrepancies...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 08:58 GMT
Hi Eckard, thanks for these comments, which I have reflected upon for a few days.

"Your ideas field looks therefore to me as (un)concrete as are all other known to me steps toward the envisaged theory"

I find it fascinating how we are able to be blind to that which is right in front of us. Where would you say your statement exists? It does exist, I'm sure you will agree. It is on your screen and mine, and in your thoughts and mine. Well, I say it exists in the Ideas Field, to give it a name. There is a symmetry between your mind and mine, and others reading this around the notions we are discussing. And that symmetry can have a physical effect, through the agency of minds.

I find this blindness to mental objects understandable, because the current paradigm does not admit of immaterial entities. However I find it harder to understand the position of philosophers of mind who deny the existence of mind. What is your view?

best regards, ...george...



Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear George,

I apologize for typos in my comment concerning PHALLUS. You asked for my view. Of course there are immaterial entities. Koran and politics are even eminently important as something that unfortunately urges women to have too much children. My essays don't hide my trust in basic and critical ideas by Euclid, Galileo, Darwin, Seebeck, Malthus, Nobel, Shannon, and many others, and also not just in physiology but in psychology too.

Nonetheless, I would like to reverse Descartes: Sum ergo cogito.

Among the otheres is Otto von Guericke after whom my university is named.

He should correctly either be called Otto von Gericke (German) or Otto de Guericke (French nobility).

Challenged by those like Descartes, he initiated evolutions that led to steam engine and electricity.

Best regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 01:50 GMT
Eckard,

your comment concerning PHALLUS was to Gary Simpson (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2694).

report post as inappropriate


Francis Duane Moore wrote on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 00:26 GMT
Dear George; The mind-body problem began with what a spherical object is.The sphere with no motion was presented as planes x,y,z, which could be given 2 coordinate positions for each x ,each y, each z. When given motion as in increasing momentum or mass, the Riemann sphere concept fails. Each plane of x, y, or z can change position with each other giving nine planes of influence of some relativistic approximation. The reality of motion is a non linear system of turbulent flow in a continuum of motion where particles as a concept change mass with a topological change in geometry. I hope this connects to your Ideas Field to your specific coordinates of a physical object The essay is a beautiful treatise and has given me further ideas in my work. Reversal of cellular automata in 9 planes of influence may be a way forward explaining reality of relativistic motion.Thanks Francis Duane Moore

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 14, 2017 @ 08:59 GMT
Francis, thank you for your kind encouragement. ...george...




Author George Simpson wrote on Feb. 16, 2017 @ 19:23 GMT
Comments have slowed down since I first posted this; I thought I might reignite interest by compiling the most favourable remarks from the conversation so far.

Branko Zivlak: "your essay is entirely on a given topic. It is well presented and has high-quality graphics. It deserves high rate."

William Walker: "I have to say I believe your ideas are very good..."

Satyavarapu Gupta: "Thank you for the very nice essay…. You correctly pointed out that…"

Steve Dufourny: "Congratulations for your paper, you are going to be well ranked and win a prize,it is general ande it is the most important also."

sridattadev kancharla: "I really enjoyed your beautiful essay and concur with your conceptualization of ideas field, mind and material reality."

Francis Moore: "The essay is a beautiful treatise and has given me further ideas in my work."




Matthew rapaport wrote on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 01:23 GMT
Hello Dr Simpson, thank you for a thoughtful essay. I'm wondering what in your mind grounds the "ideas field" metaphysically? Physicists do not know what metaphysically grounds the physical universe but they do have the big bang which can at least be considered a brute force beginning of the universe we inhabit. Perhaps there was something "before", perhaps nothing but a random fluctuation in some eternal (or at least indefinite) quantum vacuum. But what is key here is that everything that follows that bang is physical. It's quantum underpinning is physical and all its fields are physical: they can be measured with physical instruments. But the "ideas field" cannot be measured by physical instruments. How does the non-physical (mind) emerge from the physical? What about the physical gives it the power to produce the non-physical? If you have God then no problem. God could be the source of both sides. But you don't raise that possibility, so what else could it be?

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 16:09 GMT
Hi Matthew,

I am arguing that "the non-physical (mind) emerging from the physical" appears to be miraculous only if you start from premises that exclude it happening. So change the premises, I say.

There are things in nature that are real, yet are immaterial - in particular information. Information governs events, and therefore is real. The diagrams in section 3.1 express this. In section 2.3, I argue that the physics of this is grounded in information symmetries. This is not "metaphysical", it is actually measurable in principle. It is incorrect to say that the Ideas Field is not measurable. Immaterial yes, but immeasurable no - it just will take a different kind of detector. I touch on this in the Conclusions, point 3.



Member George F. R. Ellis replied on Feb. 19, 2017 @ 20:21 GMT
Dear George

I think you are touching on some important ideas here that are not often recognised because they are unpopular. But I think most of what you say is correct, and is congruent with my own ideas and my own essay.

Thoughts are indeed causally effective, as for example the existence of digital computers decisively demonstrates. Calling this causal power a "mind field" seems quite acceptable, as we must recognize as being real anything that can be shown to alter the physical world around.

Just one thing: you say "The Ideas Field consists of symmetries among information patterns (minds)". I would prefer to talk about multiple realisations of the same abstract patterns. The concept of multiple realisations can be claimed to be key to recognising the deep nature of causation in complex systems, as is discussed in my book on Top Down Causation.



Best regards,

George

report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 02:14 GMT
Dear George Simpson,

I very much enjoyed your essay formulating the 'Ideas' field.

You say that, in your model, "minds feed on, create, manipulate, and act on ideas and concepts. Ideas and concepts are passive, minds act on the Ideas field and act on the physical world." You also seem to believe matter is built on information. I do not believe "information" exists in any material sense, but information is registered when energy/momentum causes a structural change in a material system. Even then information can only be interpreted or given meaning via a given context or through code-books. Unless and until interpreted, it's only energy flowing through space and rearranging material structure.

You envisage reality as a three-part system, consisting of the physical world, the world of ideas and concepts, and minds connecting the two. It's unclear how the brain fits into this. Whereas you define mind as an information pattern, I believe the information pattern is found in the neural network. I see the mind as possessor of consciousness, which I propose exists in a universal field that physically interacts with matter in motion. You seem to be saying something similar when you say the individual mind takes its shape from "idea gestures" which seem to originate in the brain. You posit the mind gives physical form to concepts, whereas I propose the form is derived from physical flows in the brain, sensed by the consciousness field.

Unless I've missed it you do not specify 'how' the Ideas field interacts with matter. Do you envisage the manner in which such occurs?

Best regards, and congratulations on tackling the 'hard' problems.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate


Author George Simpson wrote on Feb. 26, 2017 @ 14:11 GMT
Hi Edwin,

"You also seem to believe matter is built on information." Quantum mechan"ics, as I understand it, establishes information as a foundational component of reality. It is information that determines the outcome in the twin-slit experiment. However, this is not central to my argument.

"Unless and until interpreted, (information is) only energy flowing through space and rearranging material structure" Agree. Therefore minds are needed.

"It's unclear how the brain fits into this. Whereas you define mind as an information pattern, I believe the information pattern is found in the neural network." I am a bit nonplussed here - I thought it would be obvious to readers that the information pattern exists in the brain, constructed on the infrastructure offered by neurons. I could have been more explicit about this.

"I see the mind as possessor of consciousness, which I propose exists in a universal field that physically interacts with matter in motion." I'm sorry here I think you are going off the deep end, hypothesising something enormously hard to verify and understand. Why would we think that matter in motion would always interact with mind? And motion is relative to some frame - there is always a frame in which the motion is zero.

We can verify that there are information patterns in brains, and we can verify that actions in the physical world take place as a result of the changing configurations of these patterns - i.e., what they believe.

"the individual mind takes its shape from "idea gestures" which seem to originate in the brain" Idea gestures are simply the analogue of physical gestures, which we already know rely on a causal link between activation patterns in the brain and motion of the body.

you do not specify 'how' the Ideas field interacts with matter You are right, I did not specify this explicitly, and should have. My "idea gestures" in the mind, which are patterns of activation, can remain internal to the mind, not affecting the areas associated with motor control, or they can interact with these, resulting in motion of the body.

congratulations on tackling the 'hard' problems. THANK YOU!!!




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 19:55 GMT
Dear George,

I commend both your interesting fresh viewpoint and excellent presentation. Top Job. I agree with your proposal and discuss similar patterns and pattern matching. But I also suggest improvements in 'field structure and use' are both possible and needed. Comments? (perhaps read my essay first - interesting we both discuss neural Architecture).

I suspect recognising such a field exists at all is a big first step. I also agree and show that most are very poor at seeing new things even if right before our eyes (or even just behind, along the optic nerve!)

The mechanisms for turning pure 'ideas' into actions are well developed in our motor neural and bio chemical responses, and used in AI. It really shouldn't be as incredible as some seem to 'think' (lol) yet I too expose the simplest classical 'quantum' mechanism hiding in front of us and passing un-noticed to almost all!

And yes, I'm sure Apes do have 'ideas'. Do you think maybe it extends to AI?

Great Job. I look forward to discussing in relation to mine too.

Very Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 07:40 GMT
Hi Peter, Thanks for your encouraging comments.

Sorry it is taking me a few days to respond - am reading your paper in spare moments, and will get back to you soon. ...george...



Author George Simpson replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 13:01 GMT
Hi Peter, Having reviewed your dialogue with George Ellis, I'm afraid I have nothing to add. Best wishes, ...george...



Peter Jackson replied on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 20:45 GMT
George,

Is that as you're not an 'expert' in QM's foundations? If not can you elucidate?

George said he'd read my essay and respond, but hasn't yet. I Did you read it? Understand it?

You may see from my blog there are currently a handful who have done both. Yet the most established 'professional physicists', rather than comment or tell me where the classical derivation may be wrong, just shut up and run a mile! (as do editors as it would be 'new physics').

Do you think all our academic professors (who all believe different things anyway) have it all spot on so no-one else can make useful contributions?

Do you think we're really now so familiar and happy with weirdness that we can't advance understanding?

Best

Peter

report post as inappropriate


William B Goodwin wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 13:23 GMT
George,

Your Ideas Field corresponds to the Information Dimension in my essay. We both maintain that ideas, intentions, and imagination don’t have the same properties as the physical world where mindless mathematical laws determine the actions of the basic elements.

“An item exists in the Ideas Field if two or more people share it.” This suggests that the idea field lies outside of the brain. I would suggest that a single person’s imagination also reaches the idea field. I have struggled on whether the idea field or the information dimension is within the brain or outside of it. Certainly the brain is the access medium to the idea field. Yet there are some connections of ideas that seem to involve multiple persons, as though the brain is reaching an outside field.

William Goodwin

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 16:14 GMT
Hi William,

Thanks for these thoughtful remarks.

What minds do, in my model, is explore reality, and reality consists of those things that can be seen and measured, and also those abstractions that allow us to evaluate and explore the way things relate to one another, including abstractions themselves, such as number. I agree that a single person's imagination can do that; however in my model, that exploration (assuming it is original) does not yet exist in the Ideas Field because there is no symmetry among the minds that share the idea. That symmetry is a physical fact that can be in principle detected, and which we know may have an effect on outcomes in the world. The individual who does not share the idea he has, however important, has no effect.

We vastly underestimate the importance of the enormous pool of ideas we live and breath, acting as if our own ideas sprung from nowhere, when in fact originality is rare.

I note from the start of your essay "Humans with aims and intentions can program an artificial intelligent (AI) agent to have intentions." NO. All an AI can do is pursue the goals it has been programmed to pursue. Aims and intentions are the conscious choice of a mind and can be amended or abandoned.

best regards, I will continue reading your essay.

...george...




Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 14:59 GMT
George,

Your theme and the conclusions you draw from it seem very good to me.

I have hesitations about the notion of the “Ideas Field”, because the “field” metaphor has such strong physical connotations. Also because to complete the picture – as in your section 3.1 – we really should include a “Life Field” – but there the connotations would be even less appropriate.

But it’s certainly true that human consciousness (and also the evolution of life) have important effects in the physical world, that wouldn’t happen through physics alone. And you give clarity to the “field” notion when you point out that things belong to the field insofar as people share them. We’re not talking about some mysterious entity that affects the physical world from outside, so much as the web of communication that arises from foundations in physics and physiology as well as language and culture.

I hope you’ll have time to look my essay, which also makes an attempt to cover the whole territory, and let me know what you think. Among other things, I try to give a rough sketch of the kind of human connection that gives rise to our ability to share ideas.

Thanks for contributing – Conrad

report post as inappropriate


Author George Simpson wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT
Conrad, thanks for your kind and helpful remarks.

Re the Ideas Field, my point is that it is physical - it is a real-world symmetry among minds.

I have had an enjoyable read of your essay, thanks for putting the link here. I'm studying it now, to see if I have anything to say that others haven't already said.

...george...




Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 10:45 GMT
Hi George

Thanks for your essay and your ideas - I enjoyed reading them. I didn't notice any explicit comments in the essay to the effect that the information of the ideas field was material-type only. But I see that in the comments above that you DO consider it to be materially encoded in the neurons etc.

I felt this was an advantage of the essay - that you left it open, because it left me translating the ideas field along my own 'quantum consciousness' leanings. To expand on this I am talking about the various manifestations of nonlocal information evident in the different types of quantum 'weirdness'. Non locality of information would see to leave the way open for free will and creative manipulation of ideas within your field. I think this is the way some physicists, e.g. Henry Stapp, Roger Penrose, are inclined. i.e. the mind is a quantum computer - a combination of the material brain and a quantum 'ideas field', to borrow your term. What are your thoughts on this possibility?

I also invite you to read my essay and would be interested in your thoughts.

Best of luck

Gavin

report post as inappropriate

Gavin William Rowland replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 10:52 GMT
actually on P2 you said "we will need to find a more general frame, one that admits the existence of an immaterial "field" of ideas and concepts" - so I think that is where I started thinking along quantum consciousness lines.

Gavin

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:28 GMT
Hi Gavin, sorry for the delay in replying - I have your essay open and hope to have something useful to say for you before long.

With the weather getting nicer here in the south of england, getting out on the unicycle has taken priority over more time on the laptop after working on screens all day (I am a data scientist).

kind regards,

...george...




Don Limuti wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:09 GMT
Hi George,

I was just feeling good about about doing a good job of going over the essays. However, I missed yours! I think it is excellent in that it provides a mechanism for humanity's expansion into the future.

To quote you "We have a rich and growing body of knowledge regarding physical entities, but our understanding of entities in the Ideas Field and their relationships is at an early stage. Rectifying this seems likely to enhance our ability to guide the future more reliably"

Your use of the time diagrams to show how an idea (thinking, consciousness) field expands the future. Yes, we are about being and becoming. And it is a continuing business that we can investigate.

You have provided a welcome respite from all the "emergence" and physical & biological complexity papers.

Nice work, I rate it highly.

Don Limuti

PS Do check out my essay. It is a little different and short!

report post as inappropriate

Author George Simpson replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 18:24 GMT
Don, thanks for the encouragement.

I will check out your essay.

...george...




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.