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

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

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

Lorraine Ford: on 3/23/17 at 3:02am UTC, wrote Gary, I'll have a look at Peter Punin's essay. But why the belief that...

Gary Simpson: on 3/23/17 at 1:07am UTC, wrote Lorraine, If you have not done so, you should take a look at the essay by...

Lorraine Ford: on 3/22/17 at 19:24pm UTC, wrote Gary, Thanks for taking a look at my essay. Re “one-off” local rules:...

Gary Simpson: on 3/22/17 at 1:39am UTC, wrote Lorraine, Thanks for an enjoyable read. I am in complete agreement with...

Lorraine Ford: on 3/21/17 at 23:07pm UTC, wrote Hello Peter, Glad you liked my essay. Thanks for that. Re "did I miss...

Lorraine Ford: on 3/21/17 at 22:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Alexey, Thanks very much for that. I'm looking forward to reading...

Peter Jackson: on 3/21/17 at 17:53pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, I really liked and enjoyed your very original proposition that...

Alexey/Lev Burov: on 3/20/17 at 19:41pm UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, I am very impressed by your essay; to me, it is one of the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

leonae gonzales: "This seems to be very interesting site. Professionally i am a writer at the..." in Quantum Replicants:...

James Putnam: "Quoting Gary D. Simpson: "If you disapprove of one-bombing and wish to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Steven Andresen: "It might be that I have come to know where the hidden variable is, to..." in 80 Years of EPR —...

Lawrence Crowell: "The choice for anonymous commenting is a good idea. A person scoring less..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

dieu le: "The Creation of Momentum From the gigantic Milky Way Galaxy to the..." in Alternative Models of...

dieu le: "What causes Things Move in Universe? Things move when encountering a..." in Alternative Models of...

leonae gonzales: "I would like to prepare a review of this topic with the help of research..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Thewitcher: "Đến với dịch vụ chữ ký số giachukyso.net bạn sẽ được..." in Riding the Rogue Quantum...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

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)

Rescuing Reality
A "retrocausal" rewrite of physics, in which influences from the future can affect the past, could solve some quantum quandaries—saving Einstein's view of reality along the way.


FQXi FORUM
March 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: The Universe as a System that Generates its Own Rules by Lorraine Ford [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

This essay's rating: Community = 4.9; Public = 5.5


Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 16:41 GMT
Essay Abstract

Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.

Author Bio

Lorraine is a former computer analyst and programmer. She lives with her husband, a cat, some ducks, and a wild flowering garden beloved by birds, bees and other insects. Lorraine is interested in animals, flowers, plants, insects and other living things.

Download Essay PDF File




sherman loran jenkins wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 18:30 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

Looking for common ground in our naturally uncommon languages. It what way can we consider the Universe to be “isolated” from what? If low level rules emerge via lower level rules; how many rules are at the lowest level?

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 21:47 GMT
Hi Sherman,

The universe is considered to be isolated as a thermodynamic system (according to Barak Shoshany, the Perimeter Institute graduate student referenced in my essay), but also, the universe is isolated in the sense that it is all there is: almost by definition there is nothing outside it.

Some people cannot seem to believe that our universe could originally have had any capabilities at all, preferring to believe that capabilities, e.g. "law-of-nature" rules and the capacity to implement these rules, came from elsewhere, e.g. the 2000-year-old (i.e. seemingly primitive) concept of a Platonic realm. The concept of a Platonic realm, and the concept of an all-powerful God, are very convenient ways of “sweeping under the carpet” any difficult issues; and they indicate a lack of faith in ourselves and the abilities of our universe.

As I explain in my essay, rules are categories, i.e. rules are concepts, i.e. rules are subjective experience. What are the most fundamental concepts that our universe could have come up with is hard to fathom, let alone how many concepts at the lowest level: presumably there might have originally have been only one original concept.



Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 20:22 GMT
P.S. Thanks for looking at my essay and commenting on it.




Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 22:04 GMT
The topics discussed in my essay are: The rules ; A note on the place of computers and robots in the universe ; and Emergence.




Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 23:15 GMT
What is logic?

Rules are relationships (i.e. categories), and further relationships between categories. Rules do not derive from logic. On the contrary, logic derives from an existing premise or rule: logic is like a property of premises, rules and assumptions. Without a premise, rule or assumption, logic cannot exist.




Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 11:59 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Next time I will copy your views, to save translations.

This is a great start: Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.

You say: “Almost by definition there is nothing outside it”. But please without almost, because in my essay Universe is Unity between the Whole and its Parts.

I also agree: Without a premise, rule or assumption, logic cannot exist.

I also agree: “At each level of complexity, new laws, properties and phenomena arise and herein lies the problem”. So, I calculated a level of complexity (proton). My problem is that only one contest participant tried to understand it, looking for the error. I urge you to try to find the error. After that, one can go to the next level of complexity.

Also: „The universe as an isolated system has necessarily generated, and continues to generate, all its own lower-level rules.“ I will ad: Mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but Universe is eternal. Do you agree?

What do you think about: Terms multiverse and “parallel universes” are very confusing. It is possible that there are bubbles without interaction between them, but there is the same math in bubbles of Universe (see my discussion at Mr. Gibbs post).

Best regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 20:28 GMT
Dear Branko,

Thanks.

Re unity:

I cannot quite see that there is unity between the whole universe-system and its parts unless it has something to do with the number pi (I see that you mention pi in your essay, though I haven’t yet read your essay). I don’t think that all possible numbers, including all possible types of numbers, necessarily exist. I think that the numbers that exist (including the non-algebraic numbers pi and e) are not Platonic objects that abstractly exist: numbers ultimately derive from relationships/rules where (if represented mathematically) you can cancel the numerator and denominator categories, and end up with a number: a thing without a category. And once you have a set of initial value numbers for system variables, then other numbers logically derive from them due to relationships/rules. But clearly pi requires more: it somehow seems to require diminishing levels of relationship between separate categories or parts of a system. So if numbers are not Platonic objects, then it seems to indicate that there is hidden relationship structure in the universe.

Re is the universe eternal?:

Since I’m contending that the universe had a beginning, it may also have an end. Clearly, what is eternal, i.e. what exists outside time, is the ability to generate rules and awareness of rules. I think that models of the universe clarify the nature of time:

In a computer model of a small part of the universe, algorithms must be set up to run the law-of-nature rules i.e. to move the numeric values of the variables from one value to the next, and in addition, electric power must be applied to the system. But in the actual universe there is no behind-the-scenes electric power running the system, and no behind-the-scenes algorithms controlling the rules. Despite the fact that law-of-nature equations imply change is occurring, there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system, nothing except the generation of new one-off local rules, which I contend is what is happening with the outcomes of quantum randomness. I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules is what is moving the universe-system forward to new numeric values, which has a logical effect on other numeric values in the system. So quantum randomness in effect generates time, leaving time always in the “Now”.

Re multiverses and “parallel universes”:

My view is that “parallel universes” probably don’t exist, and multiverses definitely don’t exist. Tegmark’s multiverse seemingly would require an overall controlling multiverse-algorithm that generates whole new universes every time a situation arises where there is more than one possible outcome. The existence of such an overall algorithm seems improbable and unnecessary.



Branko L Zivlak replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 22:28 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

I agree: “I don’t think that all possible numbers, including all possible types of numbers, necessarily existwould I will add: Especially if math is invented. But, Pi and e are discovered, not invented. Pi is everywhere in physics. Without exp no Planck's law. But my essay does not deal with numbers, it is not numerology. It is a relational theory on Much principle.

For me, the ultimate cause of quantum randomness is the irrationality of physical constants.

Instead of the term “age of the universe” I use “Time cycle of the universe”.

Best regards,

Branko

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:02 GMT
Dear Branko,

I have decided to write a few paragraphs which more fully describe my views about numbers and time (see below). These views arise as a consequence of looking at the universe as a system that generates its own rules. I hope to read your essay as soon as I can.

Regards,

Lorraine




Conrad Dale Johnson wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 13:15 GMT
Lorraine,

I’m delighted with your essay, which is just as long as it needs to be to make your point perfectly clear. Each time I began to have a doubt about what you were saying – as in “the universe itself must in some sense know the rules it generates” – you go on to explain yourself in an eminently sensible way.

I like your notion that the “outcomes” that arise randomly in quantum measurements amount to the generation of a local rule – since now there is a new fact about the system, that has to be respected as a given by future events. And I especially like your “paradox” that the gradual emergence of increasing complexity is “all about the progressive restriction of existing possibilities via rules and constraints on the system.” This happens to be exactly the point I make at the end of my essay on the evolution of meaningful information. In contrast, quite a few essays in this contest assume that freedom and determination are irreconcilable – that the world has to be one or the other.

Thanks for a lovely and imaginative piece of work... I really hope you’ll find time look at my essay and comment.

Conrad

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 20:30 GMT
Conrad,

Thanks.

I think that is well put: “since now there is a new fact about the system, that has to be respected as a given by future events”.

I guess I’m saying that systems rely on rules, and therefore that freedom is the freedom to generate/create new one-off local rules, within the context of existing rules. With the proviso that it is no use generating rules unless you are somewhat aware of your situation, at least within your local part of the system.

Lorraine




James Arnold wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 01:37 GMT
Lorrain,

I enjoyed, and felt a strong resonance with your essay. As you'll see if you have a look at mine ("Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness") we share an unusual clarity about the limitations of AI.

As for emergence, I have some problems with the concept, and would be very interested in your take on what I've written about it.

Overall, I appreciate your clear and succinct style, and (unlike many others), your fidelity to the question posed for the contest.

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:01 GMT
Hi James,

Thanks.

Looking forward to having a look at your essay.




Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:10 GMT
Numbers in a universe without a Platonic realm

My essay assumes that there is no Platonic realm to miraculously explain difficult issues like the source of law-of-nature relationships/rules in the universe. The same applies to numbers, though my essay does not consider the issue of numbers.

I contend that numbers in the universe must ultimately derive from relationships/rules...

view entire post





Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 23:12 GMT
Time in a universe that generates its own rules

Models of the universe can clarify the nature of time in a universe that generates its own rules:

In a computer model of a small part of the universe, algorithms must be set up to run the law-of-nature rules i.e. to move the numeric values of the variables from one value to the next, and in addition, electric power must be applied to the system. But in the actual universe there is no behind-the-scenes electric power running the system, and no behind-the-scenes algorithms controlling the numeric values of the variables contained in the rules. Despite the fact that law-of-nature equations imply change is occurring, in the actual universe there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system, nothing except the generation of new one-off local rules, which I contend is the way to describe what has happened with the outcomes of quantum randomness. I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules, re-initialising the values of one or more local variables, is what is moving the universe-system forward because the new numeric value(s) have a logical effect on other numeric values in the system. Further, I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules in effect generates time, leaving time always in the “Now”.




Richard J Benish wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 00:04 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

It strikes me as significant that a "former computer analyst and programmer" describes the Universe in terms related to this former vocation. Perhaps this explains the essay's compositional strengths: clear and well-organized. Is this not what brings it to life!?

A few things in the essay and comment section give me the impression that you may be interested in studying...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 22:20 GMT
Dear Richard,

Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

My view is that (what we symbolically represent as) initial value numbers, initial value rules, and law-of-nature rules are generated by the universe or elements of the universe (from particles to living things), because no Platonic realm exists to explain the source of numbers and rules. My view is that belief in a Platonic realm underestimates the capabilities of our universe, and therefore that belief in a Platonic realm skews our views about our universe.

The logical consequence of these numbers and rules might well be depicted by your impressive Figure 6 (if what you depict is correct). But my essay is mainly about where the rules come from: it presents the view that it is a logical position to consider that the universe itself, and elements of the universe, that have literally generated/created these rules.

Lorraine



Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 11:30 GMT
Hi Joe,

I agree that "Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it", and I also agree with the Einstein quote: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” My essay take these types of ideas into consideration. I hope to find time to read your essay and comment on it.

Lorraine




Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 17:49 GMT
Nice essay Ms Ford,

Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…

1. The universe is not merely an open or a closed system, and not merely a thermodynamic system: the universe is all there is - an isolated system [1] that necessarily generates all its own rules.

2. So it is not illogical to hypothesise that the universe itself must in some sense know, must in some sense...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 11:36 GMT
Dear SNP Gupta,

Thanks for your kind words about my essay. I hope to have a look at your essay, as soon as I can.

Lorraine.




Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 08:26 GMT
Hello Lorraine,

Happy to see your participation.

Congratulations.I liked and enjoyed your papper.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 11:42 GMT
Thanks Steve,

Glad you liked my essay. I have a 2 metre high Amaranthus caudatus flowering in my garden at the moment: I like it even though it is a bit of a weed that self-seeds every year.

Best wishes,

Lorraine




Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 23:01 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

Thanks for your clear very readable essay. I can accept the conclusion of "emergence". But am hesitant to use it in my own essay ...I prefer to say "we do not know". And your take on AI is spot on!

Good to see you in another contest.

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 12:17 GMT
Thanks Don,

I am also glad to see you in the contest again this year. I actually agree with you about "emergence": there seem to be a lot of confident claims made that a purely deterministic type of emergence exists (many in this essay contest, supported by impressive-looking diagrams and tables and research papers), but I am skeptical about what they say. Naturally, only more complex versions of what already exists could "emerge". My contention is that there is necessarily a choice aspect to "emergent" molecules, not just deterministic aspects.

I enjoyed your essay, though I haven't yet conmmented on it on your essay page. I haven't rated any essays yet either.

Lorraine




Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 19:41 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

I am very impressed by your essay; to me, it is one of the best here. Your pronounced will to clear and distinctive statements and derivations, your ability to reach that, make your treatise very special and of highest rank in my eyes. I appreciate and share your criticism of the materialistic neo–Darwinist picture with its emergences out of nothing. Your rare understanding of deep unity between metaphysics and ethics, which I clearly saw in several places, is also common to us, and also very valuable for me. Because of all that, and notwithstanding my serious disagreement with panpsychism, I give your essay a high score. To avoid repeating here what was already said in our essay, I am inviting you to my page, where your comments, as critical as you like, would be highly appreciated.

Good luck,

Alexey Burov.

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 22:48 GMT
Dear Alexey,

Thanks very much for that.

I'm looking forward to reading your essay,

Lorraine




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 17:53 GMT
Lorraine,

I really liked and enjoyed your very original proposition that the universe continues to generate it's own rules. But I never quite seemed to find 'why' you suggest it does so or needs to do so apart from 'quantum uncertainty'. Perhaps that's enough, but did I miss anything else?

So you write; " the single outcomes of quantum randomness also have the status of “necessity” if you hypothesise that a one-off local rule for each outcome has been generated by the universe, a rule that can be represented by an equation that resets the numeric value for the “uncertain” system variable. It's certainly true that QM currently doesn't and can't predict individual interaction outcomes, but do you not think that may be a result of our inadequate understanding of the interactions?

I also applauded your reminder that; "sloppy definitions of information persist: computers do not actually process information – they process representations of information; computer programs do not actually generate rules – they can only generate representations of rules. But then if we step ahead consider AI and the ability to 'learn' via a feedback process, do you think that can closely model our own learning mechanism?, or not?

I address that and most of the above in my own essay which I hope you'll follow and like. I also propose the layered structure of propositional dynamic logic (PDL) as fundamental (you may recall my analogy with arithmetical brackets last year). You show some understanding of logic so I'd appreciate your views.

Well done and thank you for yours.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 23:07 GMT
Hello Peter,

Glad you liked my essay. Thanks for that.

Re "did I miss anything else?":

If oneself is entirely of-a-continuous-lawful-piece with the rest of reality, then no amount of philosophical gymnastics can turn this topology into “free will”. Free will requires that a thing possesses the lawful power (i.e. the same status as a law-of-nature) to move itself in relationship to the rest of reality. Clearly, this is a power that even fundamental particles have: these are the outcomes that look random to an observer. Free will also requires us to acknowledge that the power to make laws resides within the universe, not in a mythical Platonic realm.

Re AI:

My point is that AI doesn't actually generate rules, it generates models/representations of rules, and models/representations of learning, and it processes models/representations of information. This is as opposed to actual "living" rules (e.g. laws-of-nature), and "living" information (i.e. subjective experience).

Will read your essay as soon as I can.

Lorraine




Gary D. Simpson wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 01:39 GMT
Lorraine,

Thanks for an enjoyable read. I am in complete agreement with you regarding constraints affecting behavior. That is the basis of catalysts and enzymes and probably all biological functions.

I am puzzled by what you mean regarding "one-off" rules. A rule is something applied repeatedly. How can a rule be "one-off"? This may simply be a question of semantics. Saying "one-off" event might have the same general meaning that you intend.

Can you provide an example of such a "one-off" rule or event as it pertains to physics or chemistry?

Is there a measureable difference between a random event and a "one-off" rule or event? How can you know the difference between the two conceptions?

Your motivation seems to be as a means of explaining some of the oddities from QM. Can an individual particle make a choice? Can an electron choose to be either up-spin or down-spin for example. Can a photon choose its path through the two-slit experiment?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 19:24 GMT
Gary,

Thanks for taking a look at my essay.

Re “one-off” local rules:

One way of looking at the situation in the universe might be in terms of possibilities and constraints: existing “law-of-nature” rules have constrained almost all possibility, but there are still gaps which require local fixing with one-off local rules to constrain “quantum randomness”. We would represent such a one-off local rule with an equation that resets the value of one of the “uncertain” system variables to a new numeric value. Up-spin/down-spin outcomes and photon path outcomes in the two-slit experiment are examples of possibility having been locally constrained.

Atoms and molecules and living structure are also further local constraints on possibility, but it is these constraints on possibility that allows the development of the structure. As structure progresses, all further constraints on possibility seemingly require existing rules plus new rules.

But where are the rules and knowledge of the rules coming from? I’m saying that it is the structure itself that knows and creates new rules, while the structure itself embodies existing rules. The structure “knows” because rules are in effect categories, i.e. categories of knowledge, i.e. concepts, subjective experience.

Lorraine



Gary D. Simpson replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 01:07 GMT
Lorraine,

If you have not done so, you should take a look at the essay by Peter Punin. He presents the question of the first occurrence of a new event. The nomenclature is very formal.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 03:02 GMT
Gary,

I'll have a look at Peter Punin's essay.

But why the belief that what drives reality lies in greener pastures far away in a Platonic realm? Why the belief that our universe has no inherent capability? Why the belief that it's all happening somewhere else? What does that mean about your attitude to our here and now situation? I fear that you are intellectually and emotionally attached to the wrong (hypothetical) place.

See my above post entitled Numbers in a universe without a Platonic realm where I say: "Physics can be seen as the discovery of actual relationships that exist in the universe; but mathematics can be seen as the discovery of the properties and nature of all possible types of relationships that can be represented symbolically, where the vast majority of these potential relationships don’t actually exist in the universe." Mathematics merely symbolically represents possible relationships; but the actual universe has generated "living" relationships, not symbols of relationships.

Lorraine




Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'T' and 'V':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.