Hello. I tried to be clear that I speak about the actions, and that they cannot be correctly simulated if the needed stuff (feelings) is not really there behind.

As I also tried to explain, it makes no sense to declare something random in the absolute, but only relatively to a specific framework or "explanation" in which we analyze a file, and only by comparing it to a range of other...

view entire post

Hello. I tried to be clear that I speak about the actions, and that they cannot be correctly simulated if the needed stuff (feelings) is not really there behind.

As I also tried to explain, it makes no sense to declare something random in the absolute, but only relatively to a specific framework or "explanation" in which we analyze a file, and only by comparing it to a range of other candidate "explanations" (such as the range of all possible algorithms that can be written and operated with given computing resources). The usual kind of framework is that of some specific algorithm (a computationally defined probability law or equivalently a compression algorithm). The file is random for an algorithm if the compressed version of the file with this algorithm is still big (as such an amount of entropy was expected with this law), and cannot be better compressed with other algorithms we can find (unless we cheat by using a more complex algorithm, which must be corrected by adding the size of the program to that of the data, a detail that also depends on the programming language, but this correction becomes insignificant as the file of observation expands), so that this optimally compressed file is "purely" (directly) random.

In my view, human behavior cannot be well "explained" (compressed) by any algorithm. As long as we only try algorithms, we only get inefficient compressions (big size of compressed files). There needs not be any favorite algorithm either : more and more complex algorithms might be found to be relatively more and more efficient, but the point is that they all remain inefficient compared to the true non-mathematical understanding of "psychological laws". We only observe "pure randomness" in the sense that it conforms to the probability law of quantum physics (without any better explanation even by psychological laws), when we analyze not human behavior but "purely physical" phenomena, where psychological preferences happen to be absent.

view post as summary

Dear Sylvain Poirier,

You and I have significant differences in our global understanding of reality, but I admire any serious, informed effort to formulate a theory of everything. And, of course, as we share conscious existence in a complex world, we overlap in many particulars.

I'm glad you feel free to include consciousness as a (the!) major point of your scheme. I do also, but...

view entire post

Dear Sylvain Poirier,

You and I have significant differences in our global understanding of reality, but I admire any serious, informed effort to formulate a theory of everything. And, of course, as we share conscious existence in a complex world, we overlap in many particulars.

I'm glad you feel free to include consciousness as a (the!) major point of your scheme. I do also, but often suppress mention of it in specific areas, as it can prove too distracting. While you ask how a 'thought' can exist without the fundamental addition of an immaterial soul inside the brain, I view consciousness as the fundamental essence of the primodial physical field, so local organisms represent high density/complexity but not "addition of a new thing" to a local structure, more a matter of degree.

Whereas I see the physical field behavior as governed by laws, the aspects of awareness and volition (free will) are not described mathematically, in agreement with your statement that a purely mathematical world with deterministic laws... would fail to include free will.

I also like your statement that "what a "probability law" rigorously does is to exclude zero-probability cases from the range of probabilities, all other cases remain possible by definition." Very nice.

And I agree with you about Penrose's and others' ideas of "quantum consciousness". I don't agree about waves and particles as dualistic opposites. I see particles as inducing waves, therefore: particle and wave, not particle or wave.

I admire that you even consider the problem of evil. I don't believe anyone has done so (explicitly) in any previous contest. Finally, you deal with a point I touched on in my 2014 essay, which is "not to understand our economic and political systems as they are, but to redesign them." Bravo! I will look at your ideas ("How to change the world..."). I especially agree that the ability to handle money (or its equivalent?) online is key. As any serious attempt to displace corrupt governments and powerful educational establishments would be opposed with both feet, my belief is that a workable system would first have to evolve as a 'game' until it became powerful enough to work as a real system. Even then it would have to run in parallel with the in-place systems for an indeterminate time. It is a terribly tough problem, but for the first time in history, the technological means are present, or almost so. By the way, Bob Shour's essay is probably relevant to this problem.

In short, I very much enjoyed your (first?) FQXi essay. I hope you do well and decide to enter more contests. I invite you to read and comment on my current essay and I think some of my previous essays may be of interest to you.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

In reply to Eckard Blumschein's "objection to the neglect of the distinction between past and future" as he asked in another thread.

I agree there is indeed such a distinction to make between the past which is fixed and the future which is not determined yet, as I did in my essay.

The problem was to specify the source of this distinction that gives the concept of time its special...

view entire post

In reply to Eckard Blumschein's "objection to the neglect of the distinction between past and future" as he asked in another thread.

I agree there is indeed such a distinction to make between the past which is fixed and the future which is not determined yet, as I did in my essay.

The problem was to specify the source of this distinction that gives the concept of time its special substance, and what role it plays. As I explained, I see 2 kinds of time which are independent but similar to each other. One is in the foundations of mathematics, and the other is in consciousness which is the source of existence of the physical universe. Only the latter is related to the time of physics but it only parallels it, not being directly involved in its fundamental laws.

In your writings, you presented this as a topic of divergence between (for example) Einstein who ignores this subtlety of time, and Shannon who takes it into account. In my viewpoint there is no real opposition here, only the fact that not the same concept of time is relevant to different aspects of reality. Both Shannon and Einstein are right in their respective fields of study.

Einstein focuses on fundamental physics. In fundamental physics, time only appears as a geometric dimension among others indeed, with no need of any distinction between past, present and future. Why would it be a problem ? The amazing success of theoretical physics shows that there is no problem with its block model of time. But this "only" concerns theoretical physics, which does not account for all aspects of reality.

The time of thermodynamics and information theory, considered by Shannon, belongs to another aspect of reality, outside the strict scope of theoretical physics. It is a time of finite mathematics, which is rebuilt at a higher structural level of the universe (away from its foundation) from a combination of finite mathematical data (physical states) and conscious time. See the diagram on page 7 of my essay to see what I mean.

view post as summary

Dear Sir,

We thoroughly enjoyed your excellent essay. Here are certain elaborations of your concepts.

The halting problem (what can/cannot be computed) arises due to a wrong question: “How long are you willing to wait”? We are familiar with irrational numbers, which are mostly non-computable. Yet, we know that they hover around a limited range. We choose as precise a value we...

view entire post

Dear Sir,

We thoroughly enjoyed your excellent essay. Here are certain elaborations of your concepts.

The halting problem (what can/cannot be computed) arises due to a wrong question: “How long are you willing to wait”? We are familiar with irrational numbers, which are mostly non-computable. Yet, we know that they hover around a limited range. We choose as precise a value we want and proceed with it. Thus, the right question should have been: “How precise we want to be”?

The other problem is equating language to a set of strings over an alphabet. In our essay in this forum, we have defined language as the “transposition of information to another system’s CPU or mind by signals or sounds using energy (self communication is perception). The transposition may relate to a fixed object/information. It can be used in different domains and different contexts or require modifications in prescribed manner depending upon the context”. In our 2013 essay, we had said: “In perception, these tasks are done by the brain. Data are the response of our sense organs to individual external stimuli. Text is the excitation of the neural network in specific regions of the brain. Spreadsheets are the memories of earlier perception. Pictures are the inertia of motion generated in memory (thought) after a fresh impulse, linking related past experiences. Voice is the disturbance created due to the disharmony between the present thought (impulse) and the stored image (this or that, yes or no). Video is the net thought that emerges out of such interaction. Software is the memory. Hardware includes the neural network. Bytes and bits are the changing interactions of the sense organs (including sound that produces words - strings) with their respective fields generated by the objects evolving in time.” The problem arises when we treat the language as a set of strings. The elements of a set have fixed value. But the words in a sentence can have various meanings depending upon the context.

The unpredictability of behaviors arises from our method of measurement, where we can measure only limited aspects over limited time, even though everything perpetually evolves in time due to interconnectedness and interdependence of everything with every other thing. Because of these limitations, a physical universe has to be described by a probabilistic law. You are correct also regarding past and future. Please note that future is strictly ordered in a sequence based on present. But past can be related to present in various random ways. This signifies the arrow of time. Your reference to the bigger set is interesting. We have also used the same concept along with Russell’s paradox in our essay in this forum.

You have correctly described that mathematics is only the quantitative description of Nature, whereas physics describes its qualitative aspects. You are also absolutely correct that “Consciousness can explore mathematics, but mathematics cannot describe consciousness”.

However, there are many problems with relativity and there is no standard interpretation of quantum physics. Many of its interpretations are contrary to observation elsewhere. Thus, there is a need for introspection and review of the present theories based on the presently available information. Unfortunately, most papers are building on “established theories” even though the latest observations prove it to be not true.

The points you raise at page 7 are interesting and important. We can explain it all. But this is not the forum for that. Just to give one hint: pain may be in the legs or hands, but it is experience in our brains just like a tiger may be confronted in the jungle, but fear in our mind induces reactions in our body. Thus, the cognizer is different from the physical cause. The content of cognition as “I know …” remains invariant in all cognitions. That it is universal is proved from the fact that language conveys the same information to the other. By this we are not talking about religion or God, though we are hinting at a universal meeting point which you may call Scientific God.

Regards,

basudeba

view post as summary

Dear Sylvain,

Following the conversation we already had on my essay's page, I am now going to comment your essay in detail.

The way I understand it, your system is based on the twin entries at the bottom of your table on page 7: Mathematics and "The Matrix", which encompasses all relevant aspects of "reality" that are not mathematical. That's why you begin your essay by arguing for...

view entire post

Dear Sylvain,

Following the conversation we already had on my essay's page, I am now going to comment your essay in detail.

The way I understand it, your system is based on the twin entries at the bottom of your table on page 7: Mathematics and "The Matrix", which encompasses all relevant aspects of "reality" that are not mathematical. That's why you begin your essay by arguing for the existence of laws that are not mathematical. You give the example of "artistic laws" and "psychological laws" as being impossible to define in an algorithmic fashion. I agree that those type of laws can certainly seem non-algorithmic and un-mathematical, but could it be that it is just due to our failure to be able to consider complex enough algorithms and mathematical entities? You claim that the behaviors that result from these laws would require algorithms that are "too big to be stored in a computer", but do we really know what is the theoretical limit that a computer can achieve? Even if we could show that the physics of our universe prohibits such a computer, how can we be sure that our universe is not being "run" on a computer in a higher-level reality where the physical laws do allow for such complex algorithms? I know, from reading your website, that you firmly believe that artificial intelligence will forever remain impossible, because of the classic "computers have no soul" argument. We certainly do not agree on this issue: I think we will see true general artificial intelligence within the next 20 or 30 years, and I am convinced that this technological breakthrough will have a profound impact on philosophy and on the way we see reality. I guess we will just have to wait and see!

On page 2, your discussion of "Time and unpredictability in mathematics" is very intriguing. I will have to dig deeper and explore what you wrote on your website about the "time order" of mathematical reality. Since, in my view, there is a way to understand the totality of what exists as a a mathematical structure, I believe that, although mathematics as a whole is "atemporal" and "eternal", it is possible to define mathematical structures that evolve and change relative to other mathematical structures that play the role of "time counters".

On the issue of the relationship between mathematical and conscious existence, I agree with you that "the conscious perception of mathematical structures can explain and constitute their physical existence". In my view, mathematical structures that do not contain "self-aware substructures" are not physical, since there is no one to "feel" their "physicality". Where our views diverge (but maybe not that much), is on the question of the need to "add" something to brain computation (what you call an "immaterial soul") to explain consciousness and feelings (qualia). I think that the mathematical computation, the biophysical reactions, and the conscious experience are three different levels of description of the same structure --- a structure that can be seen, from one point of view, as purely mathematical (all is computation), but at the same time, from another point of view, as purely mental (all is thought). Of course, I think most physicists, and most authors in this contest, would say that it is the middle ground, the biophysical reactions, that is the true fundamental level... which make essays such as ours terribly counter-intuitive and almost nonsensical to many!

Let's assume for a moment that you're right and that there is a non-mathematical Matrix, a set of minds united in a coherent whole, that uses the mathematical (and sometimes physical) Maxiverse as a "playground". You claim it is the Matrix that "selects" which universes truly exist: as you say on page 4,

"To create the Universe, Consciousness first chose a mathematical law as "theory of everything" of physics [...] The physical Universe is the trajectory of this exploration of the Hilbert space by consciousness."

It is an intriguing hypothesis, but to entertain it, we need to postulate an entire, separate level of reality, "The Matrix", that has remarkable capabilities and complex behavior, such as the ability to "choose" and "explore". Everything that current scientific understanding has trouble with (the hard problem of consciousness, the flow of time) gets conveniently explained and taken care of by The Matrix. The Matrix even allows us to have "real" free will, while making sure that we do not have too much liberty to individually select which part of the Hilbert space gets explored, by enforcing global coherence across all physical perceptions... But the fundamental nature of the Matrix remains a mystery, and it seems to me that we are back to square one: instead of having no idea what the fundamental nature of the Universe is, we've separated the Universe in two: one part is what we understand (math/physics), and all the rest is The Matrix, but we have no idea what it truly is, where it comes from... As Morpheus says in the movie, "No one can be told what the Matrix is... You have to see it for yourself!"

Although we do not agree on many issues, I find your essay and your website fascinating, and I will certainly be going back to what you wrote (and continue to write, as I see your process as a work in progress) when I have the time. Meanwhile, I've given your essay a boost that, I hope, will make it more visible: with so many essays, the essays at the top of the community ratings have a better chance to get more attention and more votes, while many good essays remain buried and forgotten in the middle of the heap...

Oh, I almost forgot one specific question I have: in your essay's abstract, you talk about the mathematical world being a "Platonic mathematical realm slightly less than infinite". Why "slightly less than infinite"? To avoid the paradoxes associated with infinity and incompleteness? I find the concept of "slightly less than infinite" intriguing, so I would like to know more about how you think about this.

Best regards,

Marc

view post as summary

Dear Sylvain,

Drawn to your essay by your clear (and often very accurate) comments in other places here, your essay then drew me to the "new social network" ideas in your other writings. Especially re trust!

It's in this context that I'd like to address an issue that has applicability to your essay and your trust-forum ideas. An issue that is already troublesome at FQXi; as you have...

view entire post

Dear Sylvain,

Drawn to your essay by your clear (and often very accurate) comments in other places here, your essay then drew me to the "new social network" ideas in your other writings. Especially re trust!

It's in this context that I'd like to address an issue that has applicability to your essay and your trust-forum ideas. An issue that is already troublesome at FQXi; as you have seen. An issue where I believe us to be in general agreement as to ends, though differing as to means.

Allowing that my own essay may be nonsense,* the question arises: How is it that, in public and semi-public fora, non-science receives so many "top rankings"?

Suggestion: From psychology we have the well-known ripple-effect of small kindnesses; it being well-established socially that the gift of small kindnesses to friends and strangers motivates the exchange of similar kindnesses in return. This is especially effective with those who crave or are needy of such; and I'm not talking about withholding encouragement, for the pro-evolutionary benefits in general society are clear.

But the modern con of this in science-related public fora is that the cost-free gifting of fake-praise and unrealistic support (its high value often signalled) leads to the ongoing spread of pseudo-science in return! And hence (in turn) to the rise of a cohort of misleading pseudo-intellectuals in their mutual admiration societies and cliques.

Perhaps it was ever thus ... in politics ...

Please: How is the related issue of trust addressed in your new social network?

* Given the following approximate pattern, it seems that my essay is not entirely nonsense; though the consequent negative-ripples of my concrete tough-love responses shine through:

Public vote: 10x4 + 1x5 => 45 votes/9 = 5.0.

Community vote: 10x4 + 1x5 => 45 votes/9 = 5.0.

With best regards; Gordon Watson: Essay Forum. Essay Only.

NB: Re-posted with typo corrected.

view post as summary

show all replies (1 not shown)

hide replies