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 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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.

Previous Contests

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
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

Conrad Johnson: on 4/10/17 at 14:23pm UTC, wrote Marc – your comment is more than adequate to fulfill my hope for a...

Marc Séguin: on 4/10/17 at 3:42am UTC, wrote Dear Conrad, Finally (!), here are the specific comments on your essay. ...

Conrad Johnson: on 4/7/17 at 13:05pm UTC, wrote Peter - Thanks very much. I meant "technology" to be provocative, but I...

Conrad Johnson: on 4/6/17 at 14:53pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, thank you very much. I agree that our essays are closely...

Lorraine Ford: on 4/6/17 at 13:30pm UTC, wrote Conrad, I really like your essay, and it is beautifully written and so...

Marc Séguin: on 4/5/17 at 6:25am UTC, wrote Dear Conrad, As I said in a recent post on my thread, I'm really spending...

Peter Jackson: on 4/4/17 at 16:15pm UTC, wrote Conrad, An interesting and well written essay reminding us of and...

Conrad Johnson: on 3/31/17 at 15:00pm UTC, wrote Robert -- thanks very much for reading and commenting! I enjoyed your...


Jonathan Dickau: "As it turns out... My personal philosophy specifically treats the notion..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Jonathan Dickau: "I agree Lorraine, I've never been so much a fan of the 'paragon of..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Quantum Antigravity: "EXPERIMENTAL quantum Anti-gravity —..." in The Myth of Gravity

Pentcho Valev: "Money for teleology and silly songs only? The teleology contest is a..." in Towards a Goal — Two...

click titles to read articles

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.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.

Riding the Rogue Quantum Waves
Could giant sea swells help explain how the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum microworld? (Image credit: MIT News)

April 24, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Three Technologies: On the Accidental Origins of Meaning by Conrad Dale Johnson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 17:15 GMT
Essay Abstract

To rephrase the question more broadly: How did there get to be so much meaningful information in the world? There are three distinct dimensions of meaning in everything we experience – human, biological and physical. Each can be seen as a recursive system that repeatedly generates contexts in which things and events can make a meaningful difference, by contributing to new situations where further possibilities can arise. Currently only one of these three natural technologies is well understood – since Darwin, we’ve had deep insight into the world of living things and how they evolve, though we still struggle with exactly what it means to be “alive”. But we have no such clarity about the underlying structure of the physical world, or about the functioning of our own conscious minds. My effort here is to address this lack by emphasizing the recursive functionality of meaning as the common element in human communication, biological reproduction and quantum measurement. Though these processes operate in very different ways with very different results, they’re all able to develop finely-tuned complexity for the same reason – through natural selection, they generate meaningful information by accident.

Author Bio

I’ve lived mainly in the US, currently in Providence, Rhode Island. I have a long-standing interest in the foundations of physics, biology and humanity, going back to my graduate work many decades ago in the History of Consciousness at UC Santa Cruz, where I focused on the evolution of Western philosophy and science. I’ve contributed essays to the FQXi contests since 2012.

Download Essay PDF File

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 00:19 GMT
Dear Mr. Johnson

Your essay has been excellent. Part of physics is in domain of my interests. You say: any two molecules of the same type are identical. I'm not sure that even the two protons are identical. The reason is that in physics we are dealing with irrational numbers. The physical constants are all somehow related to the mathematical constants e, pi. So it is better to say that the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Mark Pharoah replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 22:24 GMT
The sentiments of Branko here echo my own - Mark Pharoah

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 13:52 GMT
Branko - I appreciate the comment. Looking at your essay on physical constants gives me an idea why you might suppose atomic particles are not identical, but of course that's far from mainstream science.

Thanks - Conrad

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 05:01 GMT
Dear Johnson,

Thank you for the nice essay on “understanding meaning "

You are observations are excellent, like…

…There are three stages ” human communication, biological reproduction, and quantum measurement ….. In each of these processes, something that would otherwise be nearly impossible can happen over and over again, all the time. For example, ideas pass...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 14:09 GMT
Mr. Gupta - thank you, I wish you luck with your Model.

Mark Pharoah wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 22:28 GMT
I have enjoyed your writing before and believe your ideas share parallels with mine, which is always pleasing. This passage:

"Even gigantic molecular structures can last indefinitely, if before the molecule gets broken down by its environment, copies of it get made. But the copies must also get copied before they break, and this has to keep on happening. If somehow that can be done, the rules of the game are radically changed; complexity can increase almost without limit."

in particular has relevance to my writing.

However, while I understand much of what you say, I think that you do not really tackle the meat of the question which concerns the derivation of goal-driven agents that possess purpose and intention. What mindless physical law tells us that creatures must evolve with subjective experiences and actions driven by purpose and what might such goals be leading to in the grand scheme of the universe and its evolution?

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 14:24 GMT
Hi Mark - surely no physical law says that any living creatures must exist. And I don't think being "goal-driven" is really what's fundamental in human evolution. I'll have to look at your essay to see what you mean by "the grand scheme of the universe." But my goal here is only to make it understandable that physics, biology and humanity operate very differently, and to show how each of these realms of operation can have arisen by accident. The result is certainly very grand, but it's not the result of any plan.

Thanks -- Conrad

Andrew R. Scott wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 15:13 GMT
A clearer conclusion, even if just a restatement of mysteries, would have helped (or would have helped me, at least).

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 14:30 GMT
Andrew, you're right. I was pressed for time, and as usual tried to get too much into the essay. I hoped that restating the main idea many times in various contexts would work, but I should have left space for a better summary at the end. Thanks.

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 20:39 GMT
Dale Conrad Johnson,

Congratulations on a first-class essay. You speak well, you explain well, and you integrate concepts. Most significantly, you qualify your statements, pointing out in several places that equations can only be solved approximately, and that aspects of the problem are too hard to define. Thus, logical proof being impossible in this situation, you weave a narrative, and...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 14:48 GMT
Mr. Klingman, thank you very much - I look forward to reading your essay.

I'm very far from mastery of molecular biology, but it surely is impressive that all the finely-tuned machinery of the cell can function in a "storm" of random encounters among molecules. And I think very few biologists doubt that this all came about through natural selection operating on mutations, which is to say, by accident. The fact that the process has evolved amazingly tight and complex controls does not imply that these constraints were somehow imposed by an external agency... rather, by circumstances that themselves evolved.

To me, the notion of a "primordial consciousness field" implies an extremely vague notion of "consciousness" that's hardly explanatory. I prefer to consider what's unique about human consciousness, since this is really the only context in which the term has a meaning we can explore.

Member Rick Searle wrote on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 00:45 GMT
Dear Conrad Dale Johnson,

I want to thank you for your wonderful essay. I found much of your essay resonated with thoughts I’ve been kicking around in my own head for quite some time, though I doubt I could have articulated them quite as well as you have.

Parts that particularly struck me:

The distinction you made between living and nonliving systems:

“The thing...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 4, 2017 @ 14:54 GMT
Rick - Your essay is high on my list to read, since I remember the excellent piece on Utopias you wrote for the 2014 contest. Many thanks for your comments.


Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 06:12 GMT
Hi Conrad,

I read your essay with interest.

In particular I liked "That’s how the software gets itself reseeded in each new brain, through daily emotional contact with others whose software is already highly evolved." This resonates with me. I have the notion that emotion is a key to intention and meaning.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 12:26 GMT
Don - thanks for your interest! I was very impressed by the writings of Colwyn Trevarthen who studies infant development... he says emotional connection is basic to sharing perspectives and intentions with others. Seems obvious, yet is rarely emphasized.

Ines Samengo wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 22:14 GMT
Hi, Conrad, thanks for the good read! In the context of your essay, the comments you made about mine acquire even more meaning. Which, by the way, is a good way to stress that I truly valued your idea that context is crucial for meaning. Among the many interesting topics that you touched, one that has really captured me (biased by the ideas of my own essay) is to try to find a meaning (or should I say a context?) in which to understand the difference between replication and noise. Following you, and Dawkins, and Dennet and many others, I agree that self-replication plays a central role, and that so do copying mistakes. But the distinction between the two (between self replication and mistakes) requires a context. What do we mean by self replication? Specially when talking for example of ideas. What is a perfect copy of an idea? And a copy with Variations? Surely if you change too little, there is no mistake at all, otherwise nothing would be a copy. Even when DNA replicates the issue arises, though less dramatically. For example, we say there is a copying error when one base is mistaken, but not when one atom inside one base is replaced by an isotope. So before distinguishing what is a mistake and what is a perfect copy, we need a notion of equality, which is, in a sense, a context. And the context is defined not by what has happened so far, but by what is to happen next, right?

Ok, not truly sure of what I am saying, but by all means, your thoughts (replicated in my head with or without variations) are very useful to me. Thanks!


report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 15:34 GMT
Yes… but the key distinction made in the context of “what happens next” is not between a perfect copy and a mistake. The organism’s offspring just get whatever genes they get, which may include “mistakes” and will definitely include recombinations. The distinction is whether or not this new version works to make more copies. Accurate transcription is important, but also the mistakes.

When it comes to ideas, we’re even further away from perfect copying. If my essay succeeds really well, for you, it’s not because you have an accurate copy of what I think in your head. Ultimately there’s no way to compare what some set of words means to two different people... unless we're talking in a well-defined and restricted context. So if I succeed here, it’s because fortuitously I manage to set off something that makes sense for you, in the creative context of your own ideas. Instead of comparing, we can discuss. Which, by the way, is for me a rare pleasure… so I really appreciate your taking time for this.


Ines Samengo replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 15:47 GMT
> The distinction is whether or not this new version works to make more copies.

Sure, but in order to decide whether something succeeded or not in producing copies, I need a notion of equality, or similarity.. don't you?

> So if I succeed here, it’s because fortuitously I manage to set off something that makes sense for you

Sure, but again, I need the notion of similarity. Imagine I read your essay, so I get delayed, miss my normal bus, and take the next one. And there I happen to find an old school friend I had not seen for many years. Your essay will have set off something that makes sense to me, but not in the way we are intending it here. Any other thing dealying me would have had the same effect. There is still a causal link between me getting caught by your ideas and me meeting my friend. But the two events are too different from one another to state that one gives meaning to the other, are they not?

So this is the issue I am still trying to work out in my head. You have a recursive definition of meaning. But when I try to make it work, I always fall back on the need to try to define "copy" and "mistake", otherwise the recursive definition seems to dilute away in "something affecting something else", which is no more than to say that in the whole universe, all particles interact with all others. I truly like the your idea that something has meaning if it can produce more meaning. But I cannot separate it from "produce more meaning *of the same kind*".

am I missing something?

Note: In spite of my example of the bus above, I think that I do carry some copy of your ideas, modified to a sufficiently modest extent as to still be recognizable as daughter ideas - at least by me!



report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 14:57 GMT

> in order to decide whether something succeeded or not in producing copies, I need a notion of equality, or similarity.. don't you?

Well, I recall there are complex error-correcting mechanisms that check on RNA and repair mistakes, as well as splicing out introns, etc. But at a basic level, in biology, I think that success means ongoing reproductive success, and accurate...

view entire post

James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 22:10 GMT

I like the clear classification of the studied dimensions of meaning. Your changing context sounds somewhat like Aristotle’s perception of human goals. Recursive functionality of meaning as common element for the three categories. I noted the comments on differences in molecules, but you said "In biology, finely-tuned systems of complex molecules make near-exact copies of themselves," which I thought accurate, not saying that bonding is the same.

I like the way you separate your dimensions of meaning: in everything we experience – human, biological and physical, and compare the recursive functionality, the brain sw installed and reinstalled not like computer sw.

You clearly distinguish the varied elements of the universe but perhaps focus less on the specific function of so-called mindless laws while I emphasize the broader universal scope of such laws, especially entropy.

Well done. I would like to hear your ideas on my essay.

Jim Hoover

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 15:06 GMT
Jim -- I'll certainly take a look at your essay. Yes, my main goal was just to clarify the basic differences between the three dimensions of our existence, to try to explain why they work in such different ways. But concepts like entropy are relevant at all levels.

Thanks for reading and commenting! -- Conrad

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 18:56 GMT
Hi Conrad,

I read your paper and yes, I do see the similarity between your use of ‘contextual meaning’ and my construct of the traveler with in a certain terrain. Interesting how that works within an iterative frame. There is also kindred thinking between your idea of ‘meaningful difference’ and Gregory Bateson’s definition of information as, “a difference that makes a difference,” or something like that.

I appreciated your section on the difficulties of creating a universe ex nihlo; that is fertile ground. How does it begin? If one thing exists only in relation to another, what is the first declarative step?

It felt like we were covering much of the same ground, simply on different paths.

Regards, Don

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 16:16 GMT
The note above was posted by Don Foster, whose most entertaining essay I highly recommend.


Yes, I had Bateson in mind… having been fortunate enough to take a seminar with him many years back. And I’m glad you picked up on my creation fantasy… something that occurred to me a mere 20 years ago. Finally got a chance to use it.

As to your question, how does it begin? My thought is to start with a more radical version of the quantum vacuum of “virtual events” where there are no rules at all, and anything can happen. As in the creation scenario, the problem is that there’s no given context to define what happens. So the only kind of structure that can exist is one that’s able to define all its own rules and parameters, without referring to anything outside itself.

Now our universe is able to do that – as evidenced by the fact that we’re able to define all the known laws of physics, etc. on the basis of empirical observation. All these various kinds of information evidently have contexts that make them meaningful. So can we find simpler patterns within this very complex structure, that might represent more primitive self-determining systems, from which our universe emerged?

In an earlier FQXi essay (page 6), I suggested the electromagnetic field might be such a “fossil” system. This also discusses how emergence might work here. I also sketched the basic idea in a Physics Forums post – that was back in 2009, when they still allowed posting such stuff.

Thanks for asking! – Conrad

Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 11:00 GMT
Dear Conrad,

I estimate you essay exelent. Excellently written.

You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.

Perhaps my essay will complement your understanding of the causality of quantum processes. Your essay allowed to consider us like-minded.

Kind regards,


report post as inappropriate

Stefan Keppeler wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:32 GMT
Dear Dale, thanks for your remarks on my essay. You rightly point out the importance of being able to repeat things in an almost but not exactly identical fashion, both in biological evolution and in human social interactions. I'm not sure I'm convinced that this also applies to quantum mechanics. You also rightly stress that meaning and intention depend on emerged context. Cheers, Stefan

report post as inappropriate

Stefan Keppeler replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:37 GMT
Ops, sorry! Conrad, of course.

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 15:52 GMT

Yes, what gets repeated in quantum measurement is not generally something "almost identical", as it is in biology. Of course it's possible to make repeated measurements on a system and get the same result... but in general, the result of one measurement event will contribute to contexts in which entirely different types of measurements become possible.

The same is true of human communication, though. We can of course repeat ourselves, but in general, if what I say has meaning to you, your response will be entirely different from what I've said... though hopefully not unrelated!

Where the recursive process in biological evolution is essentially about reproducing information, both in quantum physics and human connection the primary process is that of creating contexts in which information has meaning. That is, information gets defined and communicated rather than just copied. That's essentially why these process are so much harder to clarify than the biological one.

Thanks for commenting! -- Conrad

Anonymous wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 19:25 GMT
Hi Conrad,

Thanks for your nice remarks on my essay, and I must say I enjoy your writing style, which is nice and clear.

I am picking up some points of concern in your argument though, particularly with respect to QM:

While these choices are random, they’re correlated with other random choices in ways that aren’t yet explained.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here - do you mean entanglement? If so, I think this is explained at a mathematical level by the operator of QM, and at the level of intuition in many-worlds and similar interpretations of QM.

any two molecules of the same type are identical, always interacting with other molecules in just the same way.

Wouldn't you agree that there is randomness in the way molecules interact - especially for example in DNA?

Best regards,

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 16:08 GMT
The above comment is from George Ellis, whose excellent essay is here.

George – thanks very much for responding. As to the two points you mention –

1) I did have entanglement in mind, and the puzzling question of non-locality. But much more generally, what’s “unexplained” about QM is that measurement results can be individually random, and yet result in statistically precise patterns. Or in short, that indeterminacy can support a higher-level determinism. This looks like a prime example of your “top-down realization.”

But while it’s true that a great deal about this is understood mathematically, that doesn’t seem to me an explanation of how or why this occurs. Maybe such basic facts about nature aren’t explainable, of course... but I suspect there’s much more to be understood about the ability of our universe to make essentially all its information physically determinable.

2) Yes, there’s plenty of randomness at the molecular level, as well described in your essay, so my statement was not well worded. But it’s also important that atomic interaction is so precisely reliable. If there were even slight differences in the behavior of any two atoms of the same type (in the same state), there would be larger differences between two simple molecules of the same type… and there would be no possibility of replicable behavior at the level of huge biomolecules.

Hope that makes sense – Conrad

Christopher D. Fiorillo wrote on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 05:43 GMT
Dear Conrad,

I enjoyed your essay, and I agree with much of it. Also, I have now responded to your post on my essay (The Making of the Mind: What is Intrinsic to Matter and What Emerges with Complexity?).

Your essay focused especially on “reproduction” as the key factor that distinguishes animate from inanimate objects. I fully agree that it is a very important difference between animate from inanimate objects (I am a biologist). I argue in my essay that reproduction does not form the basis of a dichotomy that distinguishes a “thing” with “knowledge and intention” from a thing with “no knowledge or intention.” You seem to imply that reproduction is the basis of a dichotomy. If you do believe that, I would like to see a more precise definition of “reproduction.” Gravity and the strong force enable growth, allowing smaller things to come together to make bigger things that are larger and more stable. It is not difficult to conceive of a chemical that directly or indirectly catalyzes synthesis of ‘copies’ of itself (positive feedback). Neither of these is “biological,” but both involve growth and “natural selection” that promote survival. I am not denying that biological reproduction exceeds these processes, only that the distinction is not a dichotomy.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 24, 2017 @ 12:41 GMT
Hi Christopher – thanks very much for reading the essay, and your comment. I’ll respond at more length in the thread to your excellent essay.

As to defining reproduction – like the other basic terms I explore (meaning, measurement, communication), it’s defined recursively. “To reproduce successfully is not to make perfect copies, but to have offspring that also have offspring, on and on.” What it means and what it takes to reproduce is different for each species; it involves many complex functions that have all changed over time. What’s essential is just that the process keep itself going.

Early in the emergence of life, the top priority would have been the accuracy of replication, along with improving the metabolic process needed to sustain this. But as the evolutionary process itself evolved, reproduction became more oriented toward promoting variation (e.g. recombination) and managing mutation (e.g. sex). But as a biologist, you’re better acquainted with all this than I am. The point is to define reproduction functionally rather than formally – this relates to my discussion with Inés above.

Where you want to emphasize the overall continuity from particles to people, I’m trying to describe the basic discontinuities and show how they could happen. Apart from that emphasis, I do think our views have a lot in common.

Thanks again – Conrad

Christopher D. Fiorillo replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 08:24 GMT
Hi Conrad,

I don’t think there are any important differences in the way you and I would define ‘reproduction.’ I would define it pragmatically (to make it a distinct and useful word), and I would say that it is a property of animate but not inanimate things. However, my main point here is that I don’t think that the distinction between a reproducing and non-reproducing thing corresponds to a dichotomy in which the former has intentions and the latter has none.

Surely there is a very important distinction in the nature of the intentions of animate versus inanimate things. If only animate things reproduce, by definition, then I would naturally say ‘only animate things have the intention to reproduce.’ I fully agree that reproduction is a key step in the emergence of higher intelligence and intentionality. In common language I would agree to call it a ‘discontinuity,’ but I probably would not call it that with respect to math.

I have just now responded to your second round of comments on my essay.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 04:40 GMT
Dear Conrad Johnson,

Thank you for your fanscinating and wide ranging essay. I enjoyed reading it and have also in the meantime rated it too. Your essay did give me a new perspective on this topic which I have been thinking about ever since. In particular, what do we mean by an accident? If you consider a person with a driver's license, it would not be very politically correct to say "there's an accident looking for a place to happen". But in truth if you place a million of such people in a large city then the rate of car accidents can be predicted so accurately that companies can make a profit off that distribution. So in a way, the phenomenon of auto insurance is realized by a large sample of individuals, though we have no idea who will get into a car accident next. So the scope of my musing was, if the "accidental" origin of meaning of which you speak were very ubiquitous, what emergent structure would be realized from that?

Thanks again for the read. Good luck for the contest.



report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
Robert -- thanks very much for reading and commenting! I enjoyed your essay as well, and left a note in that thread.

I'm glad you found a new perspective here. Though I'm sure I made my point about recursive systems and natural selection, since I repeated it a lot, I don't think I did a good job explaining why that perspective is important. To me the possibility of coming to understand physics and human consciousness as clearly as we understand biology seemed very striking, but I may not have sold that idea very well.

To your comment -- no doubt accident is ubiquitous... but circumstances that enable random events to connect in meaningful ways are not. Or rather, they are ubiquitous in our universe, but only through the three recursive technologies I describe, which continually regenerate such circumstances.

Thanks again -- Conrad

Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 16:15 GMT

An interesting and well written essay reminding us of and identifying some important points. I think the three 'layers' (I found techologies an interesting word choice! - but I like that) you chose were valid, (if perhaps only representative of a more deeply stratified reality of upward emergence?).

I don't feel I came away with any conclusions or decision on the topic question (though did it really deserve one!?) but that didn't really detract.

I agree with your comments, consistent with my own work, that; "the human mind has to get itself reinvented itself in every baby’s brain. Each new version of this software is unique, and will never be repeated. and then also of QM;

" quantum physics, things are interconnected in more complicated ways". ..and ...we haven’t had any clear notion of what a measurement is. which I raise because I further address that this year (wearing last years red & green socks) with what 'should be' the last component deriving it all mechanistically, so removing all 'spookyness'! You do have a handle on QM so I hope you may look and tell me if you follow the mechanism (4 out of 5 barmaids could!)

Very well done for yours. I do like your writing style. Your essays cover much good ground like mine (I deal with macro levels too!) but I feel mine have to be more 'compressed'. (when you get time watch the video too). A complementary score now being applied.

Very best


report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 13:05 GMT
Peter - Thanks very much.

I meant "technology" to be provocative, but I don't think I got the point across very effectively - that physics is a highly functional system, directly comparable to the functionalities of life and language. A more direct statement of a "conclusion" would certainly have helped. After 5 years I'm still trying to get the hang of this essay format!


Member Marc Séguin wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 06:25 GMT
Dear Conrad,

As I said in a recent post on my thread, I'm really spending too much time this year exploring the ideas and the references I find in people's essays instead of responding and leaving comments! I started the evening intending to write up my comments on your essay, but as they relate to your previous work (that I am quite a fan of, having stumbled upon your "Physics Forum" and "The World from Inside" pieces while researching this year's essay), I started by re-looking at them. I also read the posts above in your thread, got intrigued by the comment you left to Don Foster about electromagnetism as a "fossil", read your "It from Bit" FQXi essay... Wow! I'm really impressed... and saddened it didn't get the recognition it deserved. It is nfortunate that I had read all your previous FQXi essays EXCEPT this one: in my essay this year, I almost put some your work in my references, but if I had read this essay before, I would have done so for sure. As your comments on my essay make it clear, there are many apparent incompatibilities in our frameworks, but I think they are due in great part to the fact that we define "abstraction" and "mathematical" in different ways. I am also willing to admit that my usage of these terms is not optimal. I may "evolve" towards the use of "informational" and "relational" instead...

It's getting late, so I will be getting back to you with more detailed comments and questions about your essay. (There are a few other essays I must leave comments on before Friday, so it may take a few days.) In the meantime, I just scored your current essay (which I really liked, by the way), with the hope this will increase its "visibility" in the rankings and encourage more people to read it, comment on it and rate it.


report post as inappropriate

Member Marc Séguin replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Conrad,

Finally (!), here are the specific comments on your essay.

I think you did a nice job overall, although this year's question, related to aims and intentions, was so wide that it was easy to get lost by trying to deal simultaneously with too many subjects! I think that's why, for a lot of us, our essays this time were less focussed than last time --- good examples, I...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Apr. 10, 2017 @ 14:23 GMT
Marc – your comment is more than adequate to fulfill my hope for a substantive response to my essays; it means the world to me that somebody connects with these ideas. Sorry to have kept you from your lab reports – I had a difficult 30 years trying to fit these pursuits into real life, but am now thankfully in “retirement”.

You’re right that many of the best essays here lost...

view entire post

Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 13:30 GMT

I really like your essay, and it is beautifully written and so easy to understand.

In many ways, your essay and my essay are saying the same or similar things, only your essay is far better written and far better explained.

Your idea that meaning is based upon already existing meaning is, to me, essentially the same as my contention that conscious concepts are categories of information that are based upon other categories of information, and this goes all the way down.

You end your essay by saying “These things could only have come about by accident, through the emergence of contexts where selected outcomes can have meaning, by setting up new contexts.” I think my essay has more a sense that this selection is free will/conscious creativity on the part of the inhabitants of the universe.

Best wishes,


report post as inappropriate

Author Conrad Dale Johnson replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 14:53 GMT
Lorraine, thank you very much. I agree that our essays are closely related. I really enjoyed reading yours, and I found it impressively clear and vividly expressed.

Yes, it's important to emphasize that active creativity is going on here, and maybe "accident" sounds too passive. But I didn't mean it that way. Certainly the notion that things happen accidentally doesn't make them meaningless; in fact I personally think of accident and divine providence as indistinguishable. And I'm glad that we're in tune on the idea that rules and freedom are not contradictory.

Best wishes for you and your cat, et al.


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.