CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Mathematical laws, a necessity but not sufficient by Rajiv K Singh
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 19:55 GMT
Essay AbstractThe laws of physics model the workings of natural phenomena so nearly comprehensively that the physicists have begun to articulate thoughts in terms of 'Theory of Everything'. Yet, there are certain phenomena, in particular, in the domain of our subjective abilities that make those thoughts possible, and our abilities to have purposeful aims and intentions, remain outside the scientific discourse. It is clear then that in the development of modern scientific thinking, certain properties and perspectives of natural function have remained ignored or unexplored. On the other hand, we may ask, does information have an existential reality? Could it exist without having a physical substratum, such as electronic register holding a bit of information, quantum states holding a qubit of information, and neurons representing the whole gamut of semantics of information? If information is not naturally associated with physical substratum, then could it ever emerge by any mechanism? The answer appears to be in the negative. In this article, it is especially worked out, how information is naturally associated with each state description of physical entities, and how natural information processing takes place at each physical interaction. It is further shown, how a self organizing system may evolve by natural processes such that elements of our thoughts and purposeful goals may emerge.
Author BioGained Ph.D (1991) in (Astro)Physics from Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR). Worked on two major experiments, one, on-board NASA's space shuttle to study certain characteristics of cosmic rays, and another, on Giant Meterwave Radio Telescope (GMRT) in India. When my interest shifted to understanding how a brain functions, and how 'mental' abilities arise form neural, logical, and computational points of views, I left TIFR to devote full-time. While working privately, I have constructed a theoretical framework of natural information processing, form established empirical studies, and created a simulation to demonstrate the same.
Download Essay PDF File
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 06:50 GMT
hi rajiv,
it would appear that your essay illustrates a formal mathemtical means by which epistemology may be defined and explored, which is great have you encountered demster-shafer (a generalisation of bayes theorem) before?
warmest,
l.
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 11:31 GMT
Dear Luke,
Thanks for your comment, and pointing me to Dempster-Shafer theory.
After you mentioned, I did look up dempster-shafer theory. But, what I describe does not relate with any kind of probability theories. No attempt is made to derive any statistical information. In fact, the attempt is directly the opposite, what information could a state of matter naturally correlate with...
view entire post
Dear Luke,
Thanks for your comment, and pointing me to Dempster-Shafer theory.
After you mentioned, I did look up dempster-shafer theory. But, what I describe does not relate with any kind of probability theories. No attempt is made to derive any statistical information. In fact, the attempt is directly the opposite, what information could a state of matter naturally correlate with from its own (first person) historical perspective. Third person perspectives or inferences of external agents are of no consequence here.
I have attempted to ground the realism of association of information with states of physical entities, and then tried to show how information processing naturally takes place at each physical interaction. May I request you to peruse the essay from this perspective. Your comments are always welcome.
Rajiv
view post as summary
sridattadev kancharla wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 20:50 GMT
Dear Rajiv,
Universe is an i-Sphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as 4 dimensional dual torus inside a 3-Sphere, which consists of Riemann 2-sphere as Soul as depicted in S=BM^2 diagram in the attached doc. Soul is the simplest of the complex manifolds with in the 3-sphere, Mind and Body constitute the remaining complexity. Soul, Mind and Body are in a toroidal flux in human...
view entire post
Dear Rajiv,
Universe is an i-Sphere and we humans are capable of interpreting it as 4 dimensional dual torus inside a 3-Sphere, which consists of Riemann 2-sphere as Soul as depicted in S=BM^2 diagram in the attached doc. Soul is the simplest of the complex manifolds with in the 3-sphere, Mind and Body constitute the remaining complexity. Soul, Mind and Body are in a toroidal flux in human beings, exactly at the center of the 3-sphere one can experience the unity of the trinity and that is the now moment we experience. As there are 4 dimensions required for a 3-sphere, the regular 3 dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time, it is obvious that the 2-sphere (Riemann sphere) of consciousness with in us is with out the time dimension and hence the saying "eternal soul". Poincare` conjecture implies that consciousness is homeomorphic (same or similar) in all beings manifested in all dimensions of the universe, as i have shown that Riemann sphere can serve as the fundamental unit of consciousness in
There are no goals as such its all play.
Love,
i.
view post as summary
attachments:
7_zero__i__infinity.docx
report post as inappropriate
basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 02:39 GMT
Dear Sir,
In the world of increasing fictionalization of physics, your paper stands apart by its logical consistency. You have rightly observed that “An information always conveys a relation, at least with contextual elements”. We call all objects “padaartha”, for the same reason: a pada – speech form hinting at information about a specific concept and artha – the object having...
view entire post
Dear Sir,
In the world of increasing fictionalization of physics, your paper stands apart by its logical consistency. You have rightly observed that “An information always conveys a relation, at least with contextual elements”. We call all objects “padaartha”, for the same reason: a pada – speech form hinting at information about a specific concept and artha – the object having similarity to that concept. Thus, according to Patanjali, all perception has a form: “I know that this (object) is similar to that (a concept experienced by me earlier, which was referred to as ‘…’). Hence this (object) is that (object signified by that concept”. We have discussed Shannon’s views in our paper http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1776 during 2013.
When you say: “If an interaction among physical entities results in an observable state S of a physical entity P, then S of P must reciprocally relate (or correlate) with the cause and the context of the transition to the state S. Otherwise, measurements do not have an interpretation relating to the cause”, you are right, but it is not a universal statement. All interactions are not reversible or reciprocal. Let us take the example of alpha decay. Even if we try to fuse the decayed particle with the mother nucleus, fusion energy is much more than the fission energy. Hence it is not a purely reversible reaction, though total energy is conserved. For this reason, you have rightly used the word context.
Your description of disjunction and conjunction resembles that of Kanada, as explained by Prashastapada. In our essay here, we have defined 10 dimensions based on these works. Your statement: “information remains non-measurable with physical probes” is generally correct. Our ancients have discussed causality at great lengths. For them, judging from effect, cause can be of nine types. However, cause-effect relationship are of 13 types. 5 of these are related to fundamental particles. If we apply those principles, “the resultant state S must also correlate with them”. From this you have rightly concluded that: “Therefore, an observable state S is said to naturally represent the information expressed by disjunction of conjunctions of state descriptions, as well as disjunction of conjunctions of what the states in turn correlated with”. Since information is cognition of result of measurement (before cognition, it is data), where all unknown states collapse to take a fixed form, we call it knowledge (प्रभवः सर्वभावानां सत्तामिति विनिश्चयः). Since everything evolves in time continuously, which is nothing but interaction with energy, the role of observer is restricted to observation, which leads to cognition (सर्व जनयति प्राणश्चेतोंऽशून् पुरुषः पृथक्). Thus, you have rightly concluded that “Therefore, information remains non-measurable with physical probes”.
In your statement, “specifics of semantic descriptions are expressions of conjunction of values in one or more parametric spaces”, “specifics of semantic descriptions” are called “vishesha (विशेष)” and “generalizations” as “saamaany (सामान्य)” by our ancestors. You have rightly concluded that: “Specificity is naturally higher when more independent parametric spaces are added to the list”. Thus, existence (सत्ता) is called the ultimate generalization (महासामान्य), as it covers everything.
Your conclusion: “Interacting simple rules of actions of forces lead to diverse and complex
Contexts of interactions, which in turn lead to self-sustaining/reproducing organizations”, is the logical conclusion. However, there is rule for increasing sophistication of senses and action to be able to reproduce. The plants have only one primary sensory agency: touch (स्पर्श), which incorporates all other senses in a secondary manner. Thus, plants can feel pain and joy. A cell can sense its internal errors during metabolism. The virus and bacteria (स्वेदज) have two primary sensory agencies: touch (स्पर्श) and taste (रस). However, the word taste does not capture the full implication of taste (रस), which indicates the chemical composition. For example, all sugar varieties have a chemical composition like C6H12O6, C11H22O11, etc., which can be written as Cx (H2O)x. According to Ayurveda, sugar (मधुर रस) is formed by equal combination of solids (पृथिवी – यत् काठिन्यं तत् पृथिवी) and liquids (जल). Since ours is carbon based life, addition of carbon (पृथिवी) and water (जल) in equal proportions becomes sugar and confirm the Ayurvedic formulation. The insects (कीट) have three primary sensory agencies: touch (स्पर्श), taste (रस) and form (रूप). The animals (चतुष्पद) and those produced from eggs (अण्डज - birds, snakes, etc) have four primary sensory agencies. They are deficient in one of the sensory agencies. However, they develop extraordinary capability in one of their sensory agencies. Only humans have all five primary sensory agencies in a balanced manner. None of these has extraordinary powers.
You are welcome to visit our essay.
Regards,
basudeba
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 11:17 GMT
Dear Basudeba,
First thank you for perusing the essay and commenting. I am not well versed with the perspective that you offer, in particular the ancient knowledge, but after you mentioned, I read a bit about such schools of thoughts.
> “If an interaction among physical entities results in an observable state S of a physical entity P, then S of P must reciprocally relate (or...
view entire post
Dear Basudeba,
First thank you for perusing the essay and commenting. I am not well versed with the perspective that you offer, in particular the ancient knowledge, but after you mentioned, I read a bit about such schools of thoughts.
> “If an interaction among physical entities results in an observable state S of a physical entity P, then S of P must reciprocally relate (or correlate) with the cause and the context of the transition to the state S”, ... but it is not a universal statement. All interactions are not reversible or reciprocal.
No, I did not mean reversible, I meant that the resultant state S must correlate with (or bear) information about the reality of the event that caused it, even when there are multiple possible indistinguishable contexts from the perspective of the resultant state S.
> "Since information is cognition of result of measurement (before cognition, it is data)".
In my view the data itself is the information, after all the observed state has a context. Please take a moment and think if an observed state can ever have no correlation with any information, that would mean it appeared from void. When I say information, I mean just that what the observed state correlates with. It is possible then to show that at each interaction, information processing takes place, and it is possible to align interactions in such a way that higher level abstraction takes place.
By the way, your knowledge is deeper in certain other field, where I cannot comment.
Rajiv
view post as summary
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:58 GMT
Dear Dr. Rajiv K Singh,
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...
view entire post
Dear Dr. Rajiv K Singh,
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
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 05:35 GMT
Dear Surreal Lord Joe Fisher,
Please excuse me for having all intentions to issue a disparaging remark about no part of your essay.
I incorrectly 'wish to implicate', “Things could be as complex as humans, and only a limited mathematical nature has the ability to create complexity even greater, and endow it with an universal language of expression.", to Lord Joe Fisher, still...
view entire post
Dear Surreal Lord Joe Fisher,
Please excuse me for having all intentions to issue a disparaging remark about no part of your essay.
I incorrectly 'wish to implicate', “Things could be as complex as humans, and only a limited mathematical nature has the ability to create complexity even greater, and endow it with an universal language of expression.", to Lord Joe Fisher, still waiting to be a Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce an abstraction as complex as consciousness, that even cellular amoeba could not possess.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified element called space, which then becomes a source for genesis of all elements, and a ground for uniformity of all interactions, giving rise to emergent notions of time, energy, and self.
An infinitely detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in his Lordship's essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. Yet, I do hope that I will not read his essay until he reads each word of 'The Language of Nature', and expresses himself in a manner that exhibits a proper understanding.
In response to surrealism,
A naturalist.
view post as summary
basudeba mishra replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 07:47 GMT
Dear Sir,
We had responded to your comment on our essay. You can see there. It is not contradiction, but elaboration and explanation.
Regards,
basudeba.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Dr. Rajiv K Singh,
Thank you for confirming that Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it, and that 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.
Do you honestly think that foolishly calling me silly names will alter these facts?
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 06:34 GMT
Dear Joe,
It appears that humor was missed entirely. Let me apologize then.
But then, if you cared to notice, each of the statements on physical universe or mental states are correct to the best of my understanding.
Hope, you take it in new light !
Rajiv
hide replies
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 20:26 GMT
Nice essay Dr Rajiv K Singh,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent on neural networks. I don’t know much about them, I learned a lot today, very good.
Your words in the appendix ….. “If the description of Nature, as defined by classical physics, and as supported by mathematical expressions with analog functions were to be true and exact, then the states could be described with...
view entire post
Nice essay Dr Rajiv K Singh,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent on neural networks. I don’t know much about them, I learned a lot today, very good.
Your words in the appendix ….. “If the description of Nature, as defined by classical physics, and as supported by mathematical expressions with analog functions were to be true and exact, then the states could be described with infinite precision and interactions would have evolved via all intermediate states” are very good.
For a similar thinking Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 01:50 GMT
Dear Rajiv K Singh,
Thanks for an interesting essay, and for your response to my essay.
You begin by saying "information must have reality of its own, otherwise it cannot be created."
Many today speak of information as if it were a type of particle. I do not believe this. Energy flows between systems, and if the energy causes a structural change (ink on paper, electronic...
view entire post
Dear Rajiv K Singh,
Thanks for an interesting essay, and for your response to my essay.
You begin by saying "information must have reality of its own, otherwise it cannot be created."
Many today speak of information as if it were a type of particle. I do not believe this. Energy flows between systems, and if the energy causes a structural change (ink on paper, electronic gate switching, photon exciting retina, etc.) then information is "created" or "written" or "recorded" or "registered". But it is meaningless unless there is a codebook or interpretation; "
One if by land, two if by sea" has a historical context, without which it is meaningless words. So you are correct that information always conveys a relation, at least with contextual elements, i.e., semantics or 'meaning'. In physics this meaning is provided by models or theories through which experiments are interpreted.
In your argon experiment you say "each of these electrons individually carries information". Yes, in the context of our theory. In actuality all the electron carries is energy/momentum. So I'm unsure when you say 'nature is expected to pick such a language to build layers of description…". Nature does what nature does, interacting with itself perpetually. We through our models provide the language. That this is possible, verges on miraculous, but we should simply give thanks and employ it.
If I understand your use of 'conjunction' and 'disjunction', you're defining logical operations for processing conditions. As all possible logic is derivable from AND and NOT gates, I assume you can map these into such if needed to. You note that "the simplicity of information processing makes it much more likely to occur in self-organized systems." I agree. You then find it reasonable that this leads to self-sustaining organization. I also agree, at least I agree that it increases the odds of such happening.
Then you say "it is apparent that more an organism learned about processes and its environment, more it could develop action pathways to meet its own needs." I still agree. In essence, the codebook or interpretational repertoire is growing, allowing the system to handle an increasing number of contingencies. But then you take the big step! You say this creates a
specification-free-want, which I interpret to mean an
aim, intention, or goal. I do not believe this follows. You are suddenly assigning conscious qualities to what is simply a very sophisticated physical system driven by the flow of energy/momentum. This is essentially the basis of the
Darwinian Credo that increasing complexity leads to awareness. That is an assumption, and one that I do not make, or find credible.
Thus, since you apparently
do make this assumption, you claim that no consciousness field is needed for awareness. As I've said several times, "you pays your money and you takes your choice".
My best regards
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 06:20 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thank you very very much for perusing my essay, and offering your views on it. Thank you again for striking on one of the most important contentions of mine that 'information must have a reality of its own'. Yes indeed, I too do not mean it to be something like a particle. I do take it though, as an associated property with a physical entity, almost like charge or mass, but...
view entire post
Dear Edwin,
Thank you very very much for perusing my essay, and offering your views on it. Thank you again for striking on one of the most important contentions of mine that 'information must have a reality of its own'. Yes indeed, I too do not mean it to be something like a particle. I do take it though, as an associated property with a physical entity, almost like charge or mass, but without a physical means to probe it.
I do agree that a specific information gets created with interaction. The realism of information can be seen in several ways. As you may have noted, "If an interaction among physical entities results in an observable state S, then S must correlate with the cause and the context of the transition to the state S." Can we deny this correlation? And, the state S correlates with what, 'a piece of information (relation)' about the context of the interaction under natural causation, what ever that may be. It does not require a language. In fact, if the state S did not correlate with this information, we could not interpret it by any means. A 'no correlation' would mean that state S appeared from no where (a void), without any causal connection. Natural causation is the source of this information, whether or not an interpreter exists.
Now, let us bring in an interpreter like us to derive an information from the observation of state S, which would constitute a third person perspective. We use our mental faculty along with the prior knowledge (model) of the universal phenomena. Could the mental faculty have an existence, if the elements of the brain (neurons) could not 'represent' or correlate with information? That is, even before any application of any model happens, the neurons represent information. We just cannot take away the fact that these elements were doing information processing even before any model or language emerged to articulate the information in certain framework. Taking your example forward, "One if by land...", not only the whole construct required a history, even each word of it cannot have a meaning unless brain represented their correlation with elements of prior observations. I am taking it to the level that a visual grapheme of word 'land' or the aural utterance of the same have connection with correlated information, otherwise even the term 'land' is meaningless. All I am saying is that information, and the method of processing existed even before we gained our faculty of interpretation.
IMHO, can we observe a state that does not correlate with any information? If not, then we would have to accept that information has a reality of its own (I am not talking about any particular information, e.g. while talking about 'mass' one does not talk about a particular value of mass).
Now, all I am saying is that this is the missing element that has kept the humanity from understanding the genesis of 'mind'.
Since you have taken time to comment on a few elements, therefore, allow me to do justice to your effort. You inquired,"If I understand your use of 'conjunction' and 'disjunction', you're defining logical operations for processing conditions." Certainly, their direct operands are conditions of positive, negative, and null correlation, but these operands refer to the correlation with absolutely arbitrary semantics, discrete, non-discrete, simple, complex, or abstract. A generic object can be defined in terms of components, their inter-relations, or even the relation of the whole object with others within a system. By having independent positive, negative, and null correlation with each of these elements any object (semantics, relation, process) can be fully defined (constructed). I am sure, you have also noticed the process of emergence of abstraction, which has no limits whatsoever. Take any semantics (object) and see if its construction can be entirely mapped with these correlation values. I am saying that this is what creates a natural language of processing, that takes place at each interaction of physical entities. Then, all that is needed is to organize a system that carries out appropriate correlation processing to give rise to arbitrarily high level semantics.
"But then you take the big step! You say this creates a specification-free-want, which I interpret to mean an aim, intention, or goal." Yes, you are right, if I made this statement without a prior emergence of a 'want' in terms of hard coded requirement of a highly abstract semantics at a high level of emergence, it would indeed mean a leap. I am sure, we all must have felt the pinch of 25,000 characters limit, but may I request you to revisit the section, "Directed Aims and Intentions", and if you still feel, this statement is unwarranted. I would appreciate that very very much.
Separately, I wish to bring your attention to the following points. (1) Does not this disjunction of conjunction of correlation values map directly to the neural organization, that seems to be doing precisely this? (2) We all have hit the wall with respect to the emergence of 'mental states', but does not this information processing mechanism leading to limitless abstraction and complexity appear to be leading us to the highly abstract notions, relevant for the mental states? (3) May be the attention of the scientific community has been taken away by two very deep notions, that information is the outcome of an act of modeling by an intelligent interpreter, and the information is relevant only in the quantitative sense as per Shannon, and that it is always coded in discrete and digital form.
I welcome your comments, and if you gave more of your valuable time, we could take it forward.
With best regards,
Rajiv
view post as summary
basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 20, 2017 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Sir,
We have replied to your comments in our thread. It will surely surprise you.
Regards,
basudeba
report post as inappropriate
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 21:54 GMT
All thoughts and information could be mapped in some “idea” space. This mapping is similar to Hilbert space in quantum mechanics, where each physical property is a ray in complex space. The details of this “idea” space (course code?) are not given, so this could be complex space or something different. This is a time-independent system “the terms ‘causal’ and ‘causality’, as used here, bear no presumption of temporal order.” Effects do not occur before causes, so somehow this temporal relationship must be set-up outside of this “idea” space. Once a proper matrix of information is set up then a solution is some best-fit vector in this space. Learning would be a better-fit vector (unless the attempted vector somehow changes the matrix “learning” would seem to be impossible). Yes, I can see this as a model for bacterium living in certain zone between “attractors” and “repulsion” and this could also be a model for a neural net. We should not assume that this is a model for all possible state just because it includes the simplest and the most complex.
I think this might be a good model for emotions. First, there is a valid evolutionary need for emotions. Anger, sadness, fear, happiness and other emotion change the behavior of an animal in (mostly) useful ways to help conform to conditions. Sad because of a lack of food will slow an animal down to conserve resources, as an example. Emotional state is due to a complex mixture of many factors.
I must note that this essay is not an easy read. The author’s wish to start general and stay general with few examples does not help the reader. Figure 3 with actual size and angular size made me confused until realized the relation to Hilbert space. I read this essay a number of times and I am sure I am still not clear about a number of ideas presented here.
Hope you do well in the contest,
Jef
report post as inappropriate
Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 21:56 GMT
Author Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 02:52 GMT
Dear Jeff,
Many writers here have taken a position that complete description of nature is not entirely derivable from mathematics alone. Mine happens to be one of them. In contrast to other essays that base their arguments on emergence of novel properties without having to derive how emergence actually takes place, my essay goes beyond that to actually show the steps. I am sorry that things...
view entire post
Dear Jeff,
Many writers here have taken a position that complete description of nature is not entirely derivable from mathematics alone. Mine happens to be one of them. In contrast to other essays that base their arguments on emergence of novel properties without having to derive how emergence actually takes place, my essay goes beyond that to actually show the steps. I am sorry that things did not make sense to you. But then ...
>> This is a time-independent system "the terms ‘causal’ and ‘causality’, as used here, bear no presumption of temporal order." Effects do not occur before causes, so somehow this temporal relationship must be set-up outside of this “idea” space.
First, I am not sure whether "This is time-independent system" applies to your own essay or mine, since you described part of your own essay first. Second, "the terms ‘causal’ and ‘causality’, as used here, bear no presumption of temporal order", only means that the development in my essay is independent of temporal order. If nature is strictly cause first in time and then effect, my description would stand true, and if it is not so as certain results in quantum physics show then also it stands. So, I really do not understand why the objection ?!!!
Fig.3 is an example of how direct mapping provides a solution, even without a need for mathematics. Noteworthy point is the fact that this directly maps to the way neurons connect, substantiating the method described in the essay.
When I do not understand an essay, then either I do not judge, or I first write comments with examples with complete context (not picking a statement out of the context) what I did not understand, so that the author has an opportunity to respond and elaborate. And if from the response also I could not make complete sense, I presume that author has an approach that I am not fit to judge.
I see that you have also made a similar appeal --
"To whom it may concern, My essay might deserve a "1" and "2", but I would like some explanation as to why my essay scored so low. If my essay is just poorly written then just say that. If you disagree with some point I made, let me try to defend my work. -- Sincerely, Jeff"
I generally want to be doubly sure before judging, since I might simply influence the outcome without even understanding the full implication of the essay. Most new ideas are difficult to understand at first because of our own a priori knowledge (bias). Among the many that I read, I chose not to judge quite a few. Being in a position to judge confers a responsibility that we must exercise only with great care!
Rajiv
view post as summary
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 05:21 GMT
Rajiv,
I have not yet ranked your essay. None of what I said was from my essay, I was trying to restate your essay in my own words. I am not trying to judge your essay, just understand it.
Some essays are for a general readership and others are not. Your essay (we can both agree) is not for a general readership.
Quantum physics never violates causality.
In figure 3, what does angular size mean? I thought this was some angle in some "idea" space. You talk about p and not p being similar to being at right angles. Can physical entities be at less (or greater) than right angles to each others? Is this that angular size?
In nature, understanding the relationship between cause and effect is very important. How would you relate cause to effect in your system?
You talk about oxidation and fermentation for two different types of bacteria. Can you show a case where one type of bacteria makes a choice between two different pathways?
Sorry for the misunderstanding,
Jeff
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 22, 2017 @ 06:40 GMT
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate that (your comment and rating happened around the same time). By all means, you must raise doubts, and it is my job to attempt to satisfy, or in due course may fail.
I see that you have put forward a notion of 'idea space' that you assert maps onto Hilbert Space. But I attempt to present a case that information is naturally associated...
view entire post
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate that (your comment and rating happened around the same time). By all means, you must raise doubts, and it is my job to attempt to satisfy, or in due course may fail.
I see that you have put forward a notion of 'idea space' that you assert maps onto Hilbert Space. But I attempt to present a case that information is naturally associated with states of matter; if it was not so, then no measurement would yield any information, and no one can interpret or draw any inference from measurements. Each interaction then must account for some information exchange amounting to information processing. Then how should one arrange interactions such that higher level complexity and abstraction can be represented by states of matter. As you may have noted, I said that states interact, not the represented information by the states; therefore, information can not be directly measured, it would remain subjective. Moreover, if you notice, all interactions can be expressed as conjunction of states, including contextual states, such as force fields, position, time, energy etc. So, the resultant state also must represent conjunction of information represented by such states. But then, as it appears, there is not only one set of possible state descriptions that may cause a particular transition in the state of a physical entity (may be an observing device), so, the information represented by the resultant state of observing entity also must be disjunction of all possible conjunctions of information represented by the state descriptions.
This turns out to be very potent mechanism of information processing, as I go about explaining how modular and hierarchical structure may capture such a processing mechanism. In fact, it is remarkable that neurons seem to be doing exactly that. I used disjunction method to show the emergence of abstract value of 'right angle' from the specific instances of right angle. An abstract semantics of 'right angle' is orientation and placement independent notion, as we understand when we think of the term 'right angle' in our mathematical description without associating with any orientation and placement. In contrast, the specific instance of right angle, is when you see a particular drawing, such as one line at 30 deg, and another at 120 deg from x-axis. All I am trying to say here is that this disjunction turns out to be exceedingly potent in creating abstractions of all semantics that we normally associate with our minds.
Separately, I also show that the universe must be indeterminate within limits. The method that I describe can deal with such indeterminism but mathematics cannot. Therefore, very humbly I state that I am not demanding that the method of processing (disjunction of conjunctions) as detailed here must map to Hilbert Space. In fact, it may not map to any established mathematical methods entirely.
Please also note that we have no idea how 'mental thoughts and senses' occur, and if there exists a mechanism that seems to lead us to that, then we must evaluate that seriously and critically.
So, abstract notion of 'right angle' is not similar to 'p or not p', but it is similar to 'right angle at location x1' or 'right angle at location x2', or ... 'right angnle at time t1 or t2 or t3 ...', or 'right anlge with one line orientead at a1, or a2, or a3'... I mean, disjunction of all possible instances is the abstract notion of 'right angle'.
In Fig.3, angular size is the angle subtended by an object on the observer (device, an eye for example). Simple multiplication of angular size and distance of an object gives the actual size of the object. This is only meant to demonstrate the method of mapping.
Cause and effect: We always understood the meaning of cause that occurs before which forms the entire reason for the effect. But some recent experiments in QM [Kaiser et al., Science 2012, vol~338, page-637] show that a future event may also effect the result in the past. So, I simply wished to declare that 'disjunction of conjunction of states' does not depend on any particular order. If the future events effect result in the past, then the observed state in the present would also correlate with the information about events in the future by virtue of natural causation.
Bacteria example can be seen from the expt. by Tso and Adler as cited in my essay [8].
Thanks for asking.
Rajiv
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Cristinel Stoica wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Rajiv,
Very interesting essay, I finally got to read it. I loved this "an information is necessarily semantic in our consideration", which indeed is true. Information is always relative to something, but if all that is is information, one should stop somewhere, and that place should be the source of the meaning. You said it well that "Natural association of information with states of physical entities and the mechanics of information processing at each physical interaction are the critical missing elements in our scientific understanding that are needed to bridge the fissure between the tangible material and intangible purposes!". Also I liked the idea of conjunctions of disjunctions.
Best regards,
Cristi
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 03:43 GMT
Dear Cristi,
First, thank you very very much for perusing and commenting on my essay.
It is downright satisfying to observe that someone like you who can analyze and critique my essay well has liked a few things in my essay. Though, I would have further liked a statement on whether in your view the method of information processing described here is indeed potent enough to form the basis of semantic build up by natural processes? And whether neural system indeed appears to have used this method of information processing?
If I understand your statement, "... but if all that is information [as a description of relation], one should stop somewhere, and that place should be the source of the meaning", correctly, then it seems to be pointing to some ultimate and absolute reality that is independent of relative nature of all descriptions. When I think of this relative nature of all descriptions, I conclude that at the most fundamental level, elements are not absolute in the sense of having an existence independent of everything else, independent of any a reference frame. In fact, at most fundamental level, elements are not needed to be stable, as long as there exists a constancy of relation among such elements, even if limited to some extent.
Thanks again.
Rajiv
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 16:57 GMT
Greetings Rajiv,
After reading your timely and welcome thoughts on the flavor of this year's contest, I will most certainly return back with comments after reading your essay. Agree or disagree; I am sure it is worthy of my attention.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 17:45 GMT
Dear Jonathan,
I would appreciate your perusal of my essay. And be in the knowledge that I do not need any sweetener, so feel free to analyze and dissect as plainly as you could.
In the mean time, let me also have a look at your essay, given the fact that your main profession for living is not physics or maths, yet you follow them both so earnestly. Moreover, I rarely encounter an artist's view on such matters.
Rajiv
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 04:24 GMT
You have done well Rajiv..
I like that you describe 'an information' as conveying a relation, and having a reality of its own, including all categories from the most abstract to the most definite. The use of 'atomic' in describing the orderly progression of numbers is confusing. But overall your terminology is refreshingly clear. The concept of conjunction and disjunction does have parallels with the topic in my essay, non-associative algebras and geometry. In the octonions, my main example; the algebra fails to be associative, but is alternative - which means alternating associative and anti-associative elements.
I'm guessing you already read my essay. In my conversation with Tevian at GR21; I was mainly concerned with how certain geometric elements break down between the quantum gravity scale and the Planck scale. What defines geometry is relational information, like independent objects that can be separated and move differently from each other, so the concepts from General Relativity only hold down to about 10^-12 cm. But I am arguing that evolutive properties in Math have a broader footprint than the nanoscale realm alone.
However it's nice to see that some of my ideas about the mechanics of emergence can arise in a much simpler context or rules base. And this is what you have shown. I like how you wove in constancy and semantic correlation. I do not like that you made me wonder if you were going to connect it back to the assigned topic, as you finally did at the end. Of course; showing the mechanics of sentience emergence is a big deal, and does address the topic, but that has to be inferred. So I can't give you full credit, but I do give you high marks and kudos.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 04:38 GMT
The syntax of the octonions is notable..
I have the following comments. It ranges from most abstract to most specific. It starts and ends with an identity declaration. It alternates involutive and evolutive terms. It forms a seven level hierarchy of abstractions. I've written out several dozen, but my favorite goes like this...
One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self.
This can be put in a list-like format instead.
Oneness, openness, as-ifness, multiplicity, ...
Identity, receptive, projective, multiple, ...
This would appear to be a variation on, or an extension of, your theme of alternating conjunctive and disjunctive elements to form a valid decision making protocol.
More later,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 16:31 GMT
You may find value in the attached paper..
Paola Zizzi is one of my inspirations, so I hope you enjoy this too. It is not an exact match for what you are doing, but it addresses some similar concerns, so it may be useful or helpful.
Regards,
Jonathan
attachments:
zizzi_paper.pdf
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 16:33 GMT
Oh the paper above is called..
"Poetry of a Logical Truth"
Enjoy,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 22:05 GMT
Copied from my thread:
Thanks anyway Rajiv!
In a way, you have paid me a compliment and shown me I am at a crossroads. I felt the same, the first time I read Alain Connes' paper "Noncommutative Geometry Year 2000" I would get a few pages in, get overloaded, then come back again another day until I could get a little further each time. Much of it seemed utterly incomprehensible, but I eventually grasped a few key concepts - due to sheer repetition. Later I learned that Connes advised budding mathematicians to do exactly that, adding that when his own brain became full he would recline for a while and nap or lay in reverie while letting the new ideas sink in.
I am presenting an idea that is foreign to almost everyone literate in Math, which goes against the grain of some of what we are taught early on, and that only a handful of mathematicians are masterful about. The fact that I see it as a key is only that I have focused so intently on certain points of interest for years. No worries!
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 19:43 GMT
I would like to add..
Your comments illustrate why endnotes are allowed and sometimes needed. I said upon finishing the body text "why bother since it won't count anyway?" but I now see that I owe someone like you a bridge between the ordinary approach and what I am championing. My view is that the portion of Math most people learn covers only what is regular, and this is a small part of the total landscape. However; you did not have the benefit of conversations with the world's foremost experts on irregular Math, Ben Mandelbrot, 30 years ago - to spur you into seeking out some of the more arcane subjects in Math. Nor have most of my readers.
I am glad you pulled no punches, and honestly informed me of my deficiency. Thanks again for your honest sharing of thoughts.
All the Best,
Jonathan
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 04:29 GMT
Hi Jonathan,
Readers do not care if forced reduction of the text of your idea is the reason something is not clear. They begin to believe that the author is resorting to leaps in his/her logic, that is, the rationality is not well founded. Therefore, one has no choice but to cut down on the themes to be presented. At the same time, no reader has the patience to read properly even 25,000 chars (so called 9 pages). Therefore, a two step evaluation process is better. In the first step, one writes a smaller version of 15000 chars (5-paqges), and the selected ones are asked to resubmit with liberal limits.
Rajiv
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 01:28 GMT
Dear Rajiv,
Your essay has several interesting points, which I’d like to stress and follow up with some questions. It would be more convenient to start from your comment to our essay:
“You ask, "If the two branches of being [thought and matter] were totally alien to each other, how could they interact? If they have a common ground, how can that ground be understood?". What if...
view entire post
Dear Rajiv,
Your essay has several interesting points, which I’d like to stress and follow up with some questions. It would be more convenient to start from your comment to our essay:
“You ask, "If the two branches of being [thought and matter] were totally alien to each other, how could they interact? If they have a common ground, how can that ground be understood?". What if they do not interact, but are inseparable in such a manner that interaction of physical states constructs the semantics for another, as I have tried to work out. This way, the path to subjectivity is laid down with the processes of objectivity.”
You are trying to assign objectivity to concepts like “information”, “meaning”, “semantics”, thus assuming that they exist independently of humans. To follow you, I have to assume that certain semantic units did exist billions years ago. Well, I fully agree: some of these units are called the laws of nature. They are mathematical, having clear mathematical meaning and beauty, and as physicists we assume that they worked since at least the Big Bang. Mathematics is a mental entity; thus, mentality is very real; it structures the material world. The assumption of the Mind primacy is actually embedded in Physics, although many scientists do not see and do not want to accept it. As soon as the primacy of Mind is realized, we do not need to go through the Epimenidian business of derivation of human minds from material processes; it is much more reasonable to assume that our minds are rooted in the Absolute Mind, the Author of everything. Thus, by suggesting the objective information, meaning and semantics you are making a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient; “meaning” without mind is meaningless.
Another interesting thing in your composition is your appendix. Your consideration about the infinite number of states in the continuous space-time and the problems appearing from that reminded me similar ideas of D. Hilbert (in his comments on the Achilles paradox) and R. Feynman’s conclusion that in this case nature must calculate infinitely fast. I would suggest you to find these places, think about and quote them in the updated edition of your essay.
Lev and I will discuss and rate your essay.
All the best,
Alexey.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Rajiv K Singh wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 06:20 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
First let me thank you for perusing my essay, but I do hope you did peruse! Thanks are due for pointing me to "Achilles paradox, and Feyman's conclusion", I will hunt down and use appropriately.
I am writing this to contest the comments, assuming that the responders are willing to take the time, and effort to move forward in our understanding.
"You are...
view entire post
Dear Alexey and Lev,
First let me thank you for perusing my essay, but I do hope you did peruse! Thanks are due for pointing me to "Achilles paradox, and Feyman's conclusion", I will hunt down and use appropriately.
I am writing this to contest the comments, assuming that the responders are willing to take the time, and effort to move forward in our understanding.
"You are trying to assign objectivity to concepts like 'information', 'meaning', 'semantics', thus assuming that they exist independently of humans. To follow you, I have to assume that certain semantic units did exist billions years ago. ... Thus, by suggesting the objective information, meaning and semantics you are making a step in the right direction, albeit insufficient; 'meaning' without mind is meaningless."
You made it so utterly clear that the sense and meaning of terms like, 'information' and 'semantics' mean different things to you than what they mean to me. Let's give it a genuine try to resolve the differences, without drawing a battle line (even if friendly) yet.
We set the base line where we may agree to begin with. We both base our views only on scientific methods to establish our points. We do not go back to how universe came into existence, and why the changes in states have a pattern reflecting natural causation. We just trust they are given.
Now, in the first experiment, if an electron was ejected by an interaction at (x,t), the existential state of electron must correlate with this information. An electron does not convey this information to anyone, it just correlates with the information that interaction at (x,t) changed its course. As shown, any test of coherence relation designed to determine if interaction did take place at (x,t) succeeds, and test for any other point except (x,t) fails. This defines the limits of positive and negative correlation range within space and time. We wonder what is the meaning of this coordinate (x,t)? Does the electron know its location and the time of interaction. No, it does not know in the sense we know anything, it just correlates with this information. If this is the difference between our views, then it should settle the issue. But can we deny that the state of the ejected electron correlates with the information of its interaction, e.g. space, time, and a whole lot etc.? As further shown in the experiment that when an electron interacts with an observing device specifically pointed towards (x,t), the resultant state of the observing device does not exclusively correlate with electrons location or time of ejection at (x,t), but it just correlates with the electron's incoming direction and time of observation that is in congruence with (x,t), without being exclusive. If the state of observing device is further tested with a coherence relation among such devices, it shows that it correlates with point of ejection of the electron. So, we infer that a transmission of information takes place at each interaction, in such a manner that a limited history of one interacting entity is passed to another that depends on the observing limits of the observing entity (in this case the device). That is, information processing takes place at each interaction.
I have always requested to take the definition of terms in the essay. That is, even if a reviewer has her/his own definition, it must be shed while reading the text. I define, "An information always conveys a relation, at least with contextual elements." Can we deny that? "Therefore, an information is necessarily semantic in our consideration; here, information refers to the semantic value rather than the quantity. The term ‘semantics’, as used here, is independent of any language or interpreter; it is synonymous to ‘meaning’, a value that expresses a relation (an object)."
If someone says semantic information or semantics of information, does not one refer to the value content of the information which is the relation. I have also stated that 'semantics' is synonymous to 'meaning' in this text, which is always conveyed by the relation of the object with the context, its relation with other objects etc. Please think of any object which has an existence or a meaning without having this sense of relation. All objects are necessarily relative in this sense. If you do not succeed in finding an object, simple, complex, or abstract, which could be referred to without referring to its relations, then should not I request you to take the meaning of the term semantic as a reference to these relations.
Therefore, does not the electron carry around the information about context of interaction? In fact, the real picture of the essay begins here, when I show that through a properly arranged interactions, the information of correlation can grow arbitrarily to represent any object simple, complex, or abstract. I have always wished that the reader sees the essay in the this context to take home the point that there is no 'meaning', or 'semantics', or 'information content' that cannot form the information of correlation in this perspective. That is, all our mental thoughts are such correlations of states of neurons with the semantics of information. All mathematics have originated from such processing of information. Please retest my views in the text of the essay, shedding for a moment any a priori consideration we may have. In doing so, when we find the authors claim do not hold, then we also have ready rationality as to why claims do not hold. My essay also resolves the following issues.
1) Neurons do seem to connect and process information in a manner that directly maps to proposed disjunction of conjunction. 2) If information processing was not taking place in the neural domain, then how would we come to have such information about objects that we have? 3) If information is not based on natural correlation of states of matter, then where and how do they exist at all?
"To follow you, I have to assume that certain semantic units did exist billions years ago". No, to follow me, you did not have to assume this, but you did have to retest if there is a natural association of information with the states of matter.
I thank you again for perusing, and hoping that you do take the discussion forward.
Rajiv
view post as summary
Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 03:53 GMT
Dear Rajiv,
Time is running fast and I feel that most likely I will not find a possibility for a proper pondering and responding on your last post before April 7th. It was a pleasure to discuss all the issues with you, and regretfully many things are left underdiscussed. Please excuse us for that. Our score, which we give you right now, reflect our impression from both your essay and discussion.
Many thanks and all the best,
Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
George Kirakosyan wrote on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 11:17 GMT
Hi dear Rajiv
You have present one interesting and well narrated work that seems to me as deserving to a good rating, in first glance. I am saying this because for me somewhat is difficult to say something more definitely, as I cannot spent the necessary time to properly study it and say to you something more useful on this. I see just that you are somewhat skeptical on the opportunity to positive solution of contest question in whole, in that formulation as it are suggested. Here we can be like-minded definitely (if I'm right in my impression!) So, I just would simply to ask you (as the time is limited) to open my work to seen can we suggest each to others some useful remarks. Hope you will answer in my page and we well continue this talk. And, here is nothing mandatory, my dear!
My good wishes
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 08:18 GMT
Dear Sirs!
Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».
New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.
New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.
Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.
Sincerely,
Dizhechko Boris
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.