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

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

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

show all replies (3 not shown)

hide replies

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

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

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

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

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