If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.
Contests Home
Current Essay Contest
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
Previous Contests
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Current Essay Contest
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
Previous Contests
Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss
What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners
Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners
Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners
The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners
Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC
Lorraine Ford: on 4/24/17 at 1:16am UTC, wrote Dear Rajiv, Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. Re “There...
Rajiv Singh: on 4/22/17 at 16:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, It is a pity that I could not see your email earlier, since...
Steve Dufourny: on 4/18/17 at 9:08am UTC, wrote You are welcome, It is a beautiful plant.At this moment I see the acer...
Lorraine Ford: on 4/10/17 at 0:22am UTC, wrote Thanks Edwin. Our views about the nature of reality have so much in common....
James Arnold: on 4/8/17 at 21:08pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, I'm so sorry -- I didn't see that rating ended yesterday. I love...
Edwin Klingman: on 4/8/17 at 1:50am UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, I very much enjoyed your essay. I read it before and felt...
Lorraine Ford: on 4/7/17 at 22:01pm UTC, wrote Thanks Vladimir
Peter Jackson: on 4/7/17 at 14:35pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, Isn't 'living' itself just an emergent concept from the...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Steve Agnew: "The mind-body problem is among the many questions that people continue to..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...
Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jason, the video is categorized as entertainment." in Emergent Reality: Markus...
Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...
Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...
Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...
John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...
John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
Lorraine Ford: on 4/24/17 at 1:16am UTC, wrote Dear Rajiv, Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. Re “There...
Rajiv Singh: on 4/22/17 at 16:00pm UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, It is a pity that I could not see your email earlier, since...
Steve Dufourny: on 4/18/17 at 9:08am UTC, wrote You are welcome, It is a beautiful plant.At this moment I see the acer...
Lorraine Ford: on 4/10/17 at 0:22am UTC, wrote Thanks Edwin. Our views about the nature of reality have so much in common....
James Arnold: on 4/8/17 at 21:08pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, I'm so sorry -- I didn't see that rating ended yesterday. I love...
Edwin Klingman: on 4/8/17 at 1:50am UTC, wrote Dear Lorraine, I very much enjoyed your essay. I read it before and felt...
Lorraine Ford: on 4/7/17 at 22:01pm UTC, wrote Thanks Vladimir
Peter Jackson: on 4/7/17 at 14:35pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, Isn't 'living' itself just an emergent concept from the...
RECENT FORUM POSTS
Steve Agnew: "The mind-body problem is among the many questions that people continue to..." in Emergent Reality: Markus...
Georgina Woodward: "Hi Jason, the video is categorized as entertainment." in Emergent Reality: Markus...
Steve Dufourny: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..." in Alternative Models of...
Steve Dufourny: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..." in Alternative Models of...
Lorraine Ford: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..." in Undecidability,...
John Cox: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..." in Watching the Watchmen:...
John Cox: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..." in Watching the Watchmen:...
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.
Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.
Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.
Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.
Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.
FQXi FORUM
January 19, 2020
CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC: The Universe as a System that Generates its Own Rules by Lorraine Ford [refresh]
TOPIC: The Universe as a System that Generates its Own Rules by Lorraine Ford [refresh]
Essay Abstract
Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.
Author Bio
Lorraine is a former computer analyst and programmer. She lives with her husband, a cat, some ducks, and a wild flowering garden beloved by birds, bees and other insects. Lorraine is interested in animals, flowers, plants, insects and other living things.
Download Essay PDF File
Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.
Author Bio
Lorraine is a former computer analyst and programmer. She lives with her husband, a cat, some ducks, and a wild flowering garden beloved by birds, bees and other insects. Lorraine is interested in animals, flowers, plants, insects and other living things.
Download Essay PDF File
Hi Lorraine,
Looking for common ground in our naturally uncommon languages. It what way can we consider the Universe to be “isolated” from what? If low level rules emerge via lower level rules; how many rules are at the lowest level?
report post as inappropriate
Looking for common ground in our naturally uncommon languages. It what way can we consider the Universe to be “isolated” from what? If low level rules emerge via lower level rules; how many rules are at the lowest level?
Hi Sherman,
The universe is considered to be isolated as a thermodynamic system (according to Barak Shoshany, the Perimeter Institute graduate student referenced in my essay), but also, the universe is isolated in the sense that it is all there is: almost by definition there is nothing outside it.
Some people cannot seem to believe that our universe could originally have had any capabilities at all, preferring to believe that capabilities, e.g. "law-of-nature" rules and the capacity to implement these rules, came from elsewhere, e.g. the 2000-year-old (i.e. seemingly primitive) concept of a Platonic realm. The concept of a Platonic realm, and the concept of an all-powerful God, are very convenient ways of “sweeping under the carpet” any difficult issues; and they indicate a lack of faith in ourselves and the abilities of our universe.
As I explain in my essay, rules are categories, i.e. rules are concepts, i.e. rules are subjective experience. What are the most fundamental concepts that our universe could have come up with is hard to fathom, let alone how many concepts at the lowest level: presumably there might have originally have been only one original concept.
The universe is considered to be isolated as a thermodynamic system (according to Barak Shoshany, the Perimeter Institute graduate student referenced in my essay), but also, the universe is isolated in the sense that it is all there is: almost by definition there is nothing outside it.
Some people cannot seem to believe that our universe could originally have had any capabilities at all, preferring to believe that capabilities, e.g. "law-of-nature" rules and the capacity to implement these rules, came from elsewhere, e.g. the 2000-year-old (i.e. seemingly primitive) concept of a Platonic realm. The concept of a Platonic realm, and the concept of an all-powerful God, are very convenient ways of “sweeping under the carpet” any difficult issues; and they indicate a lack of faith in ourselves and the abilities of our universe.
As I explain in my essay, rules are categories, i.e. rules are concepts, i.e. rules are subjective experience. What are the most fundamental concepts that our universe could have come up with is hard to fathom, let alone how many concepts at the lowest level: presumably there might have originally have been only one original concept.
P.S. Thanks for looking at my essay and commenting on it.
The topics discussed in my essay are: The rules ; A note on the place of computers and robots in the universe ; and Emergence.
What is logic?
Rules are relationships (i.e. categories), and further relationships between categories. Rules do not derive from logic. On the contrary, logic derives from an existing premise or rule: logic is like a property of premises, rules and assumptions. Without a premise, rule or assumption, logic cannot exist.
Rules are relationships (i.e. categories), and further relationships between categories. Rules do not derive from logic. On the contrary, logic derives from an existing premise or rule: logic is like a property of premises, rules and assumptions. Without a premise, rule or assumption, logic cannot exist.
Dear Lorraine,
Next time I will copy your views, to save translations.
This is a great start: Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.
You say: “Almost by definition there is nothing outside it”. But please without almost, because in my essay Universe is Unity between the Whole and its Parts.
I also agree: Without a premise, rule or assumption, logic cannot exist.
I also agree: “At each level of complexity, new laws, properties and phenomena arise and herein lies the problem”. So, I calculated a level of complexity (proton). My problem is that only one contest participant tried to understand it, looking for the error. I urge you to try to find the error. After that, one can go to the next level of complexity.
Also: „The universe as an isolated system has necessarily generated, and continues to generate, all its own lower-level rules.“ I will ad: Mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but Universe is eternal. Do you agree?
What do you think about: Terms multiverse and “parallel universes” are very confusing. It is possible that there are bubbles without interaction between them, but there is the same math in bubbles of Universe (see my discussion at Mr. Gibbs post).
Best regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
Next time I will copy your views, to save translations.
This is a great start: Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.
You say: “Almost by definition there is nothing outside it”. But please without almost, because in my essay Universe is Unity between the Whole and its Parts.
I also agree: Without a premise, rule or assumption, logic cannot exist.
I also agree: “At each level of complexity, new laws, properties and phenomena arise and herein lies the problem”. So, I calculated a level of complexity (proton). My problem is that only one contest participant tried to understand it, looking for the error. I urge you to try to find the error. After that, one can go to the next level of complexity.
Also: „The universe as an isolated system has necessarily generated, and continues to generate, all its own lower-level rules.“ I will ad: Mass and space of the universe and any other phenomenon is finite but Universe is eternal. Do you agree?
What do you think about: Terms multiverse and “parallel universes” are very confusing. It is possible that there are bubbles without interaction between them, but there is the same math in bubbles of Universe (see my discussion at Mr. Gibbs post).
Best regards,
Branko
Dear Branko,
Thanks.
Re unity:
I cannot quite see that there is unity between the whole universe-system and its parts unless it has something to do with the number pi (I see that you mention pi in your essay, though I haven’t yet read your essay). I don’t think that all possible numbers, including all possible types of numbers, necessarily exist. I think that the numbers that exist (including the non-algebraic numbers pi and e) are not Platonic objects that abstractly exist: numbers ultimately derive from relationships/rules where (if represented mathematically) you can cancel the numerator and denominator categories, and end up with a number: a thing without a category. And once you have a set of initial value numbers for system variables, then other numbers logically derive from them due to relationships/rules. But clearly pi requires more: it somehow seems to require diminishing levels of relationship between separate categories or parts of a system. So if numbers are not Platonic objects, then it seems to indicate that there is hidden relationship structure in the universe.
Re is the universe eternal?:
Since I’m contending that the universe had a beginning, it may also have an end. Clearly, what is eternal, i.e. what exists outside time, is the ability to generate rules and awareness of rules. I think that models of the universe clarify the nature of time:
In a computer model of a small part of the universe, algorithms must be set up to run the law-of-nature rules i.e. to move the numeric values of the variables from one value to the next, and in addition, electric power must be applied to the system. But in the actual universe there is no behind-the-scenes electric power running the system, and no behind-the-scenes algorithms controlling the rules. Despite the fact that law-of-nature equations imply change is occurring, there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system, nothing except the generation of new one-off local rules, which I contend is what is happening with the outcomes of quantum randomness. I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules is what is moving the universe-system forward to new numeric values, which has a logical effect on other numeric values in the system. So quantum randomness in effect generates time, leaving time always in the “Now”.
Re multiverses and “parallel universes”:
My view is that “parallel universes” probably don’t exist, and multiverses definitely don’t exist. Tegmark’s multiverse seemingly would require an overall controlling multiverse-algorithm that generates whole new universes every time a situation arises where there is more than one possible outcome. The existence of such an overall algorithm seems improbable and unnecessary.
Thanks.
Re unity:
I cannot quite see that there is unity between the whole universe-system and its parts unless it has something to do with the number pi (I see that you mention pi in your essay, though I haven’t yet read your essay). I don’t think that all possible numbers, including all possible types of numbers, necessarily exist. I think that the numbers that exist (including the non-algebraic numbers pi and e) are not Platonic objects that abstractly exist: numbers ultimately derive from relationships/rules where (if represented mathematically) you can cancel the numerator and denominator categories, and end up with a number: a thing without a category. And once you have a set of initial value numbers for system variables, then other numbers logically derive from them due to relationships/rules. But clearly pi requires more: it somehow seems to require diminishing levels of relationship between separate categories or parts of a system. So if numbers are not Platonic objects, then it seems to indicate that there is hidden relationship structure in the universe.
Re is the universe eternal?:
Since I’m contending that the universe had a beginning, it may also have an end. Clearly, what is eternal, i.e. what exists outside time, is the ability to generate rules and awareness of rules. I think that models of the universe clarify the nature of time:
In a computer model of a small part of the universe, algorithms must be set up to run the law-of-nature rules i.e. to move the numeric values of the variables from one value to the next, and in addition, electric power must be applied to the system. But in the actual universe there is no behind-the-scenes electric power running the system, and no behind-the-scenes algorithms controlling the rules. Despite the fact that law-of-nature equations imply change is occurring, there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system, nothing except the generation of new one-off local rules, which I contend is what is happening with the outcomes of quantum randomness. I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules is what is moving the universe-system forward to new numeric values, which has a logical effect on other numeric values in the system. So quantum randomness in effect generates time, leaving time always in the “Now”.
Re multiverses and “parallel universes”:
My view is that “parallel universes” probably don’t exist, and multiverses definitely don’t exist. Tegmark’s multiverse seemingly would require an overall controlling multiverse-algorithm that generates whole new universes every time a situation arises where there is more than one possible outcome. The existence of such an overall algorithm seems improbable and unnecessary.
Dear Lorraine,
I agree: “I don’t think that all possible numbers, including all possible types of numbers, necessarily existwould I will add: Especially if math is invented. But, Pi and e are discovered, not invented. Pi is everywhere in physics. Without exp no Planck's law. But my essay does not deal with numbers, it is not numerology. It is a relational theory on Much principle.
For me, the ultimate cause of quantum randomness is the irrationality of physical constants.
Instead of the term “age of the universe” I use “Time cycle of the universe”.
Best regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
I agree: “I don’t think that all possible numbers, including all possible types of numbers, necessarily existwould I will add: Especially if math is invented. But, Pi and e are discovered, not invented. Pi is everywhere in physics. Without exp no Planck's law. But my essay does not deal with numbers, it is not numerology. It is a relational theory on Much principle.
For me, the ultimate cause of quantum randomness is the irrationality of physical constants.
Instead of the term “age of the universe” I use “Time cycle of the universe”.
Best regards,
Branko
Dear Branko,
I have decided to write a few paragraphs which more fully describe my views about numbers and time (see below). These views arise as a consequence of looking at the universe as a system that generates its own rules. I hope to read your essay as soon as I can.
Regards,
Lorraine
I have decided to write a few paragraphs which more fully describe my views about numbers and time (see below). These views arise as a consequence of looking at the universe as a system that generates its own rules. I hope to read your essay as soon as I can.
Regards,
Lorraine
Lorraine,
I’m delighted with your essay, which is just as long as it needs to be to make your point perfectly clear. Each time I began to have a doubt about what you were saying – as in “the universe itself must in some sense know the rules it generates” – you go on to explain yourself in an eminently sensible way.
I like your notion that the “outcomes” that arise randomly in quantum measurements amount to the generation of a local rule – since now there is a new fact about the system, that has to be respected as a given by future events. And I especially like your “paradox” that the gradual emergence of increasing complexity is “all about the progressive restriction of existing possibilities via rules and constraints on the system.” This happens to be exactly the point I make at the end of my essay on the evolution of meaningful information. In contrast, quite a few essays in this contest assume that freedom and determination are irreconcilable – that the world has to be one or the other.
Thanks for a lovely and imaginative piece of work... I really hope you’ll find time look at my essay and comment.
Conrad
report post as inappropriate
I’m delighted with your essay, which is just as long as it needs to be to make your point perfectly clear. Each time I began to have a doubt about what you were saying – as in “the universe itself must in some sense know the rules it generates” – you go on to explain yourself in an eminently sensible way.
I like your notion that the “outcomes” that arise randomly in quantum measurements amount to the generation of a local rule – since now there is a new fact about the system, that has to be respected as a given by future events. And I especially like your “paradox” that the gradual emergence of increasing complexity is “all about the progressive restriction of existing possibilities via rules and constraints on the system.” This happens to be exactly the point I make at the end of my essay on the evolution of meaningful information. In contrast, quite a few essays in this contest assume that freedom and determination are irreconcilable – that the world has to be one or the other.
Thanks for a lovely and imaginative piece of work... I really hope you’ll find time look at my essay and comment.
Conrad
Conrad,
Thanks.
I think that is well put: “since now there is a new fact about the system, that has to be respected as a given by future events”.
I guess I’m saying that systems rely on rules, and therefore that freedom is the freedom to generate/create new one-off local rules, within the context of existing rules. With the proviso that it is no use generating rules unless you are somewhat aware of your situation, at least within your local part of the system.
Lorraine
Thanks.
I think that is well put: “since now there is a new fact about the system, that has to be respected as a given by future events”.
I guess I’m saying that systems rely on rules, and therefore that freedom is the freedom to generate/create new one-off local rules, within the context of existing rules. With the proviso that it is no use generating rules unless you are somewhat aware of your situation, at least within your local part of the system.
Lorraine
Lorrain,
I enjoyed, and felt a strong resonance with your essay. As you'll see if you have a look at mine ("Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness") we share an unusual clarity about the limitations of AI.
As for emergence, I have some problems with the concept, and would be very interested in your take on what I've written about it.
Overall, I appreciate your clear and succinct style, and (unlike many others), your fidelity to the question posed for the contest.
report post as inappropriate
I enjoyed, and felt a strong resonance with your essay. As you'll see if you have a look at mine ("Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness") we share an unusual clarity about the limitations of AI.
As for emergence, I have some problems with the concept, and would be very interested in your take on what I've written about it.
Overall, I appreciate your clear and succinct style, and (unlike many others), your fidelity to the question posed for the contest.
Hi James,
Thanks.
Looking forward to having a look at your essay.
Thanks.
Looking forward to having a look at your essay.
Numbers in a universe without a Platonic realm
My essay assumes that there is no Platonic realm to miraculously explain difficult issues like the source of law-of-nature relationships/rules in the universe. The same applies to numbers, though my essay does not consider the issue of numbers.
I contend that numbers in the universe must ultimately derive from relationships/rules where (if represented mathematically) you can cancel the numerator and denominator categories, and end up with a number: a thing without a category. And once you have a set of initial value numbers for system variables, then (to some extent) other system variable numbers logically derive from them due to law-of-nature relationships/rules.
The number pi is a difficult issue. I am contending that numbers always exist as relationships, not as final results. So pi does not exist as 3.14159… but as a relationship between the above-described “things without categories”. And I contend that that the pi relationship is more likely something like the relatively simple Leibniz formula for pi, rather than the more complex formulas for pi. But being a non-algebraic number, for the pi relationship to exist in the universe (rather than existing in a Platonic realm) seems to imply many entities (i.e. particles) somehow being party to the relationship. I.e. pi seems to imply a relationship that somehow holds the parts of the universe together.
Physics can be seen as the discovery of actual relationships that exist in the universe; but mathematics can be seen as the discovery of the properties and nature of all possible types of relationships that can be represented symbolically, where the vast majority of these potential relationships don’t actually exist in the universe. But the existence of numbers in the universe, rather than in a Platonic realm, seems to imply that there is hidden relationship structure in the universe that can only be inferred, because it can’t be directly measured because there is no category to measure.
It seems relatively easy to imagine that the symbols + - x and ÷ could represent actual relationships that exist between actual categories in the universe, forming law-of-nature rules and initial-value numbers. But what these relationship symbols represent about the universe is quite different to what they represent to us because we have to put time and energy into calculating the “solutions” to mathematical equations, but in the universe there is no behind-the scenes calculations involving time and energy in order to arrive at the correct numerical values for outcomes. So what the multiplication symbol represents to us, and what it might represent to the universe, are 2 different things. So the square root relationship is not necessarily a difficult issue if you consider that multiplication of 2 identical categories giving a new category might be a reversible relationship from the point of view of the universe, and if you consider that numbers only exist as relationships, not as final results. So i, the square root of minus one, is not necessarily a difficult issue, if you want to assert that there is no Platonic realm. But the exponential relationship is more difficult to see.
I’m asserting that there is more to our universe than might be expected, and that belief in a Platonic realm underestimates the capabilities of our universe.
My essay assumes that there is no Platonic realm to miraculously explain difficult issues like the source of law-of-nature relationships/rules in the universe. The same applies to numbers, though my essay does not consider the issue of numbers.
I contend that numbers in the universe must ultimately derive from relationships/rules where (if represented mathematically) you can cancel the numerator and denominator categories, and end up with a number: a thing without a category. And once you have a set of initial value numbers for system variables, then (to some extent) other system variable numbers logically derive from them due to law-of-nature relationships/rules.
The number pi is a difficult issue. I am contending that numbers always exist as relationships, not as final results. So pi does not exist as 3.14159… but as a relationship between the above-described “things without categories”. And I contend that that the pi relationship is more likely something like the relatively simple Leibniz formula for pi, rather than the more complex formulas for pi. But being a non-algebraic number, for the pi relationship to exist in the universe (rather than existing in a Platonic realm) seems to imply many entities (i.e. particles) somehow being party to the relationship. I.e. pi seems to imply a relationship that somehow holds the parts of the universe together.
Physics can be seen as the discovery of actual relationships that exist in the universe; but mathematics can be seen as the discovery of the properties and nature of all possible types of relationships that can be represented symbolically, where the vast majority of these potential relationships don’t actually exist in the universe. But the existence of numbers in the universe, rather than in a Platonic realm, seems to imply that there is hidden relationship structure in the universe that can only be inferred, because it can’t be directly measured because there is no category to measure.
It seems relatively easy to imagine that the symbols + - x and ÷ could represent actual relationships that exist between actual categories in the universe, forming law-of-nature rules and initial-value numbers. But what these relationship symbols represent about the universe is quite different to what they represent to us because we have to put time and energy into calculating the “solutions” to mathematical equations, but in the universe there is no behind-the scenes calculations involving time and energy in order to arrive at the correct numerical values for outcomes. So what the multiplication symbol represents to us, and what it might represent to the universe, are 2 different things. So the square root relationship is not necessarily a difficult issue if you consider that multiplication of 2 identical categories giving a new category might be a reversible relationship from the point of view of the universe, and if you consider that numbers only exist as relationships, not as final results. So i, the square root of minus one, is not necessarily a difficult issue, if you want to assert that there is no Platonic realm. But the exponential relationship is more difficult to see.
I’m asserting that there is more to our universe than might be expected, and that belief in a Platonic realm underestimates the capabilities of our universe.
Time in a universe that generates its own rules
Models of the universe can clarify the nature of time in a universe that generates its own rules:
In a computer model of a small part of the universe, algorithms must be set up to run the law-of-nature rules i.e. to move the numeric values of the variables from one value to the next, and in addition, electric power must be applied to the system. But in the actual universe there is no behind-the-scenes electric power running the system, and no behind-the-scenes algorithms controlling the numeric values of the variables contained in the rules. Despite the fact that law-of-nature equations imply change is occurring, in the actual universe there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system, nothing except the generation of new one-off local rules, which I contend is the way to describe what has happened with the outcomes of quantum randomness. I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules, re-initialising the values of one or more local variables, is what is moving the universe-system forward because the new numeric value(s) have a logical effect on other numeric values in the system. Further, I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules in effect generates time, leaving time always in the “Now”.
Models of the universe can clarify the nature of time in a universe that generates its own rules:
In a computer model of a small part of the universe, algorithms must be set up to run the law-of-nature rules i.e. to move the numeric values of the variables from one value to the next, and in addition, electric power must be applied to the system. But in the actual universe there is no behind-the-scenes electric power running the system, and no behind-the-scenes algorithms controlling the numeric values of the variables contained in the rules. Despite the fact that law-of-nature equations imply change is occurring, in the actual universe there is seemingly nothing forcing change in the system, nothing except the generation of new one-off local rules, which I contend is the way to describe what has happened with the outcomes of quantum randomness. I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules, re-initialising the values of one or more local variables, is what is moving the universe-system forward because the new numeric value(s) have a logical effect on other numeric values in the system. Further, I’m saying that the generation of new one-off local rules in effect generates time, leaving time always in the “Now”.
Dear Lorraine,
It strikes me as significant that a "former computer analyst and programmer" describes the Universe in terms related to this former vocation. Perhaps this explains the essay's compositional strengths: clear and well-organized. Is this not what brings it to life!?
A few things in the essay and comment section give me the impression that you may be interested in studying...
view entire post
It strikes me as significant that a "former computer analyst and programmer" describes the Universe in terms related to this former vocation. Perhaps this explains the essay's compositional strengths: clear and well-organized. Is this not what brings it to life!?
A few things in the essay and comment section give me the impression that you may be interested in studying...
view entire post
Dear Richard,
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
My view is that (what we symbolically represent as) initial value numbers, initial value rules, and law-of-nature rules are generated by the universe or elements of the universe (from particles to living things), because no Platonic realm exists to explain the source of numbers and rules. My view is that belief in a Platonic realm underestimates the capabilities of our universe, and therefore that belief in a Platonic realm skews our views about our universe.
The logical consequence of these numbers and rules might well be depicted by your impressive Figure 6 (if what you depict is correct). But my essay is mainly about where the rules come from: it presents the view that it is a logical position to consider that the universe itself, and elements of the universe, that have literally generated/created these rules.
Lorraine
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
My view is that (what we symbolically represent as) initial value numbers, initial value rules, and law-of-nature rules are generated by the universe or elements of the universe (from particles to living things), because no Platonic realm exists to explain the source of numbers and rules. My view is that belief in a Platonic realm underestimates the capabilities of our universe, and therefore that belief in a Platonic realm skews our views about our universe.
The logical consequence of these numbers and rules might well be depicted by your impressive Figure 6 (if what you depict is correct). But my essay is mainly about where the rules come from: it presents the view that it is a logical position to consider that the universe itself, and elements of the universe, that have literally generated/created these rules.
Lorraine
Dear Lorraine Ford,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
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
Hi Joe,
I agree that "Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it", and I also agree with the Einstein quote: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” My essay take these types of ideas into consideration. I hope to find time to read your essay and comment on it.
Lorraine
I agree that "Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it", and I also agree with the Einstein quote: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” My essay take these types of ideas into consideration. I hope to find time to read your essay and comment on it.
Lorraine
Nice essay Ms Ford,
Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…
1. The universe is not merely an open or a closed system, and not merely a thermodynamic system: the universe is all there is - an isolated system [1] that necessarily generates all its own rules.
2. So it is not illogical to hypothesise that the universe itself must in some sense know, must in some sense...
view entire post
Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg…
1. The universe is not merely an open or a closed system, and not merely a thermodynamic system: the universe is all there is - an isolated system [1] that necessarily generates all its own rules.
2. So it is not illogical to hypothesise that the universe itself must in some sense know, must in some sense...
view entire post
Dear SNP Gupta,
Thanks for your kind words about my essay. I hope to have a look at your essay, as soon as I can.
Lorraine.
Thanks for your kind words about my essay. I hope to have a look at your essay, as soon as I can.
Lorraine.
Hello Lorraine,
Happy to see your participation.
Congratulations.I liked and enjoyed your papper.
Regards
report post as inappropriate
Happy to see your participation.
Congratulations.I liked and enjoyed your papper.
Regards
Thanks Steve,
Glad you liked my essay. I have a 2 metre high Amaranthus caudatus flowering in my garden at the moment: I like it even though it is a bit of a weed that self-seeds every year.
Best wishes,
Lorraine
Glad you liked my essay. I have a 2 metre high Amaranthus caudatus flowering in my garden at the moment: I like it even though it is a bit of a weed that self-seeds every year.
Best wishes,
Lorraine
You are welcome,
It is a beautiful plant.At this moment I see the acer palamatums growing and the leaves are beautiful also in my small garden.
Friendly
report post as inappropriate
It is a beautiful plant.At this moment I see the acer palamatums growing and the leaves are beautiful also in my small garden.
Friendly
Hi Lorraine,
Thanks for your clear very readable essay. I can accept the conclusion of "emergence". But am hesitant to use it in my own essay ...I prefer to say "we do not know". And your take on AI is spot on!
Good to see you in another contest.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for your clear very readable essay. I can accept the conclusion of "emergence". But am hesitant to use it in my own essay ...I prefer to say "we do not know". And your take on AI is spot on!
Good to see you in another contest.
Don Limuti
Thanks Don,
I am also glad to see you in the contest again this year. I actually agree with you about "emergence": there seem to be a lot of confident claims made that a purely deterministic type of emergence exists (many in this essay contest, supported by impressive-looking diagrams and tables and research papers), but I am skeptical about what they say. Naturally, only more complex versions of what already exists could "emerge". My contention is that there is necessarily a choice aspect to "emergent" molecules, not just deterministic aspects.
I enjoyed your essay, though I haven't yet conmmented on it on your essay page. I haven't rated any essays yet either.
Lorraine
I am also glad to see you in the contest again this year. I actually agree with you about "emergence": there seem to be a lot of confident claims made that a purely deterministic type of emergence exists (many in this essay contest, supported by impressive-looking diagrams and tables and research papers), but I am skeptical about what they say. Naturally, only more complex versions of what already exists could "emerge". My contention is that there is necessarily a choice aspect to "emergent" molecules, not just deterministic aspects.
I enjoyed your essay, though I haven't yet conmmented on it on your essay page. I haven't rated any essays yet either.
Lorraine
Dear Lorraine,
I am very impressed by your essay; to me, it is one of the best here. Your pronounced will to clear and distinctive statements and derivations, your ability to reach that, make your treatise very special and of highest rank in my eyes. I appreciate and share your criticism of the materialistic neo–Darwinist picture with its emergences out of nothing. Your rare understanding of deep unity between metaphysics and ethics, which I clearly saw in several places, is also common to us, and also very valuable for me. Because of all that, and notwithstanding my serious disagreement with panpsychism, I give your essay a high score. To avoid repeating here what was already said in our essay, I am inviting you to my page, where your comments, as critical as you like, would be highly appreciated.
Good luck,
Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
I am very impressed by your essay; to me, it is one of the best here. Your pronounced will to clear and distinctive statements and derivations, your ability to reach that, make your treatise very special and of highest rank in my eyes. I appreciate and share your criticism of the materialistic neo–Darwinist picture with its emergences out of nothing. Your rare understanding of deep unity between metaphysics and ethics, which I clearly saw in several places, is also common to us, and also very valuable for me. Because of all that, and notwithstanding my serious disagreement with panpsychism, I give your essay a high score. To avoid repeating here what was already said in our essay, I am inviting you to my page, where your comments, as critical as you like, would be highly appreciated.
Good luck,
Alexey Burov.
Dear Alexey,
Thanks very much for that.
I'm looking forward to reading your essay,
Lorraine
Thanks very much for that.
I'm looking forward to reading your essay,
Lorraine
Lorraine,
I really liked and enjoyed your very original proposition that the universe continues to generate it's own rules. But I never quite seemed to find 'why' you suggest it does so or needs to do so apart from 'quantum uncertainty'. Perhaps that's enough, but did I miss anything else?
So you write; " the single outcomes of quantum randomness also have the status of “necessity” if you hypothesise that a one-off local rule for each outcome has been generated by the universe, a rule that can be represented by an equation that resets the numeric value for the “uncertain” system variable. It's certainly true that QM currently doesn't and can't predict individual interaction outcomes, but do you not think that may be a result of our inadequate understanding of the interactions?
I also applauded your reminder that; "sloppy definitions of information persist: computers do not actually process information – they process representations of information; computer programs do not actually generate rules – they can only generate representations of rules. But then if we step ahead consider AI and the ability to 'learn' via a feedback process, do you think that can closely model our own learning mechanism?, or not?
I address that and most of the above in my own essay which I hope you'll follow and like. I also propose the layered structure of propositional dynamic logic (PDL) as fundamental (you may recall my analogy with arithmetical brackets last year). You show some understanding of logic so I'd appreciate your views.
Well done and thank you for yours.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
I really liked and enjoyed your very original proposition that the universe continues to generate it's own rules. But I never quite seemed to find 'why' you suggest it does so or needs to do so apart from 'quantum uncertainty'. Perhaps that's enough, but did I miss anything else?
So you write; " the single outcomes of quantum randomness also have the status of “necessity” if you hypothesise that a one-off local rule for each outcome has been generated by the universe, a rule that can be represented by an equation that resets the numeric value for the “uncertain” system variable. It's certainly true that QM currently doesn't and can't predict individual interaction outcomes, but do you not think that may be a result of our inadequate understanding of the interactions?
I also applauded your reminder that; "sloppy definitions of information persist: computers do not actually process information – they process representations of information; computer programs do not actually generate rules – they can only generate representations of rules. But then if we step ahead consider AI and the ability to 'learn' via a feedback process, do you think that can closely model our own learning mechanism?, or not?
I address that and most of the above in my own essay which I hope you'll follow and like. I also propose the layered structure of propositional dynamic logic (PDL) as fundamental (you may recall my analogy with arithmetical brackets last year). You show some understanding of logic so I'd appreciate your views.
Well done and thank you for yours.
Peter
Hello Peter,
Glad you liked my essay. Thanks for that.
Re "did I miss anything else?":
If oneself is entirely of-a-continuous-lawful-piece with the rest of reality, then no amount of philosophical gymnastics can turn this topology into “free will”. Free will requires that a thing possesses the lawful power (i.e. the same status as a law-of-nature) to move itself in relationship to the rest of reality. Clearly, this is a power that even fundamental particles have: these are the outcomes that look random to an observer. Free will also requires us to acknowledge that the power to make laws resides within the universe, not in a mythical Platonic realm.
Re AI:
My point is that AI doesn't actually generate rules, it generates models/representations of rules, and models/representations of learning, and it processes models/representations of information. This is as opposed to actual "living" rules (e.g. laws-of-nature), and "living" information (i.e. subjective experience).
Will read your essay as soon as I can.
Lorraine
Glad you liked my essay. Thanks for that.
Re "did I miss anything else?":
If oneself is entirely of-a-continuous-lawful-piece with the rest of reality, then no amount of philosophical gymnastics can turn this topology into “free will”. Free will requires that a thing possesses the lawful power (i.e. the same status as a law-of-nature) to move itself in relationship to the rest of reality. Clearly, this is a power that even fundamental particles have: these are the outcomes that look random to an observer. Free will also requires us to acknowledge that the power to make laws resides within the universe, not in a mythical Platonic realm.
Re AI:
My point is that AI doesn't actually generate rules, it generates models/representations of rules, and models/representations of learning, and it processes models/representations of information. This is as opposed to actual "living" rules (e.g. laws-of-nature), and "living" information (i.e. subjective experience).
Will read your essay as soon as I can.
Lorraine
Lorraine,
Thanks. But another question, on 'subjectivity'. What would you say the difference is between these pairs;
A; Two advanced & complex 'fluid learning' AI Android brains, (a&b) getting different experiences, then categorising cross referencing and storing them, then accessing the data to inform 'test run' decisions, then again when the 'feedback' comes back, (ether from internal or external response mechanisms) maybe many times, to 'refine' to a final choice of decision. The decision (or it's neural switch pattern) may then be retained as a reference guide, so becomes what we call and an 'aim'.
and B) Two humans given exactly the same two sets of different inputs, remembering them, then evaluating choices by imagining possible outcomes before reaching a decision which may become an 'aim'?
Sop the question is; Are A (a&b) inputs and processes less 'subjective' that the two humans? If so; what do you see as the key difference/s?
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Thanks. But another question, on 'subjectivity'. What would you say the difference is between these pairs;
A; Two advanced & complex 'fluid learning' AI Android brains, (a&b) getting different experiences, then categorising cross referencing and storing them, then accessing the data to inform 'test run' decisions, then again when the 'feedback' comes back, (ether from internal or external response mechanisms) maybe many times, to 'refine' to a final choice of decision. The decision (or it's neural switch pattern) may then be retained as a reference guide, so becomes what we call and an 'aim'.
and B) Two humans given exactly the same two sets of different inputs, remembering them, then evaluating choices by imagining possible outcomes before reaching a decision which may become an 'aim'?
Sop the question is; Are A (a&b) inputs and processes less 'subjective' that the two humans? If so; what do you see as the key difference/s?
Best
Peter
Peter,
Re What I think are “key differences”:
1. Lawful relationship.
Subjectivity is information/knowledge/subjective experience that derives from lawful relationship, not from representations of relationship.
E.g. you can represent the lawful mass-energy equivalence relationship on paper, or in a computer, but the computer components that symbolise m and the separate computer components that symbolise E are not themselves related by the lawful mass-energy equivalence relationship: they only represent the lawful relationship. Obviously, the representation does not have the power of the law.
Similarly, the computer/ robot/ “AI” components that represent supposed brain processes are merely representations of inputs to brains, representations of physical brain components, representations of lawful causal relationship via representations of algorithms (e.g. logic gates represent an IF/THEN part-algorithm), representations of supposed connections linking brain components, and representations of outcomes.
The representation does not have the power of the living/lawful relationships embodied in advanced molecules. It is the co-opting of law-of-nature rules, and their further lawful constraining, within the structure of advanced molecules, cells and organs that distinguishes higher-level information in living things from the lower-level particular-, atomic- and molecular-level information in non-living things like robots. In a computer/ robot/ “AI”, it is actually lower-level information that is being processed, while at the same time representations of higher-level information are in effect being processed.
Advanced information can maybe be seen as advanced lawful constraints on possibilities via laws/rules embodied in molecules (that can only exist within an appropriate environment): it is not about the representation of these rules by physically separated components in a robot.
2. Subjective experience.
Subjectivity is information/knowledge/subjective experience that derives from lawful relationship, not from representations of relationship.
The similarity between law-of-nature rules and subjective experience is that they both consist of categories of information, and relationships between existing categories making new categories of information. Categories are merely transposed rules/relationships. Note that what are called “initial values” are also rules: simple rules involving information categories.
I’m saying that categories are concepts are subjective experience.
Re What I think are “key differences”:
1. Lawful relationship.
Subjectivity is information/knowledge/subjective experience that derives from lawful relationship, not from representations of relationship.
E.g. you can represent the lawful mass-energy equivalence relationship on paper, or in a computer, but the computer components that symbolise m and the separate computer components that symbolise E are not themselves related by the lawful mass-energy equivalence relationship: they only represent the lawful relationship. Obviously, the representation does not have the power of the law.
Similarly, the computer/ robot/ “AI” components that represent supposed brain processes are merely representations of inputs to brains, representations of physical brain components, representations of lawful causal relationship via representations of algorithms (e.g. logic gates represent an IF/THEN part-algorithm), representations of supposed connections linking brain components, and representations of outcomes.
The representation does not have the power of the living/lawful relationships embodied in advanced molecules. It is the co-opting of law-of-nature rules, and their further lawful constraining, within the structure of advanced molecules, cells and organs that distinguishes higher-level information in living things from the lower-level particular-, atomic- and molecular-level information in non-living things like robots. In a computer/ robot/ “AI”, it is actually lower-level information that is being processed, while at the same time representations of higher-level information are in effect being processed.
Advanced information can maybe be seen as advanced lawful constraints on possibilities via laws/rules embodied in molecules (that can only exist within an appropriate environment): it is not about the representation of these rules by physically separated components in a robot.
2. Subjective experience.
Subjectivity is information/knowledge/subjective experience that derives from lawful relationship, not from representations of relationship.
The similarity between law-of-nature rules and subjective experience is that they both consist of categories of information, and relationships between existing categories making new categories of information. Categories are merely transposed rules/relationships. Note that what are called “initial values” are also rules: simple rules involving information categories.
I’m saying that categories are concepts are subjective experience.
Lorraine,
Thanks for an enjoyable read. I am in complete agreement with you regarding constraints affecting behavior. That is the basis of catalysts and enzymes and probably all biological functions.
I am puzzled by what you mean regarding "one-off" rules. A rule is something applied repeatedly. How can a rule be "one-off"? This may simply be a question of semantics. Saying "one-off" event might have the same general meaning that you intend.
Can you provide an example of such a "one-off" rule or event as it pertains to physics or chemistry?
Is there a measureable difference between a random event and a "one-off" rule or event? How can you know the difference between the two conceptions?
Your motivation seems to be as a means of explaining some of the oddities from QM. Can an individual particle make a choice? Can an electron choose to be either up-spin or down-spin for example. Can a photon choose its path through the two-slit experiment?
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for an enjoyable read. I am in complete agreement with you regarding constraints affecting behavior. That is the basis of catalysts and enzymes and probably all biological functions.
I am puzzled by what you mean regarding "one-off" rules. A rule is something applied repeatedly. How can a rule be "one-off"? This may simply be a question of semantics. Saying "one-off" event might have the same general meaning that you intend.
Can you provide an example of such a "one-off" rule or event as it pertains to physics or chemistry?
Is there a measureable difference between a random event and a "one-off" rule or event? How can you know the difference between the two conceptions?
Your motivation seems to be as a means of explaining some of the oddities from QM. Can an individual particle make a choice? Can an electron choose to be either up-spin or down-spin for example. Can a photon choose its path through the two-slit experiment?
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Gary,
Thanks for taking a look at my essay.
Re “one-off” local rules:
One way of looking at the situation in the universe might be in terms of possibilities and constraints: existing “law-of-nature” rules have constrained almost all possibility, but there are still gaps which require local fixing with one-off local rules to constrain “quantum randomness”. We would represent such a one-off local rule with an equation that resets the value of one of the “uncertain” system variables to a new numeric value. Up-spin/down-spin outcomes and photon path outcomes in the two-slit experiment are examples of possibility having been locally constrained.
Atoms and molecules and living structure are also further local constraints on possibility, but it is these constraints on possibility that allows the development of the structure. As structure progresses, all further constraints on possibility seemingly require existing rules plus new rules.
But where are the rules and knowledge of the rules coming from? I’m saying that it is the structure itself that knows and creates new rules, while the structure itself embodies existing rules. The structure “knows” because rules are in effect categories, i.e. categories of knowledge, i.e. concepts, subjective experience.
Lorraine
Thanks for taking a look at my essay.
Re “one-off” local rules:
One way of looking at the situation in the universe might be in terms of possibilities and constraints: existing “law-of-nature” rules have constrained almost all possibility, but there are still gaps which require local fixing with one-off local rules to constrain “quantum randomness”. We would represent such a one-off local rule with an equation that resets the value of one of the “uncertain” system variables to a new numeric value. Up-spin/down-spin outcomes and photon path outcomes in the two-slit experiment are examples of possibility having been locally constrained.
Atoms and molecules and living structure are also further local constraints on possibility, but it is these constraints on possibility that allows the development of the structure. As structure progresses, all further constraints on possibility seemingly require existing rules plus new rules.
But where are the rules and knowledge of the rules coming from? I’m saying that it is the structure itself that knows and creates new rules, while the structure itself embodies existing rules. The structure “knows” because rules are in effect categories, i.e. categories of knowledge, i.e. concepts, subjective experience.
Lorraine
Lorraine,
If you have not done so, you should take a look at the essay by Peter Punin. He presents the question of the first occurrence of a new event. The nomenclature is very formal.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
If you have not done so, you should take a look at the essay by Peter Punin. He presents the question of the first occurrence of a new event. The nomenclature is very formal.
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
Gary,
I'll have a look at Peter Punin's essay.
But why the belief that what drives reality lies in greener pastures far away in a Platonic realm? Why the belief that our universe has no inherent capability? Why the belief that it's all happening somewhere else? What does that mean about your attitude to our here and now situation? I fear that you are intellectually and emotionally attached to the wrong (hypothetical) place.
See my above post entitled Numbers in a universe without a Platonic realm where I say: "Physics can be seen as the discovery of actual relationships that exist in the universe; but mathematics can be seen as the discovery of the properties and nature of all possible types of relationships that can be represented symbolically, where the vast majority of these potential relationships don’t actually exist in the universe." Mathematics merely symbolically represents possible relationships; but the actual universe has generated "living" relationships, not symbols of relationships.
Lorraine
I'll have a look at Peter Punin's essay.
But why the belief that what drives reality lies in greener pastures far away in a Platonic realm? Why the belief that our universe has no inherent capability? Why the belief that it's all happening somewhere else? What does that mean about your attitude to our here and now situation? I fear that you are intellectually and emotionally attached to the wrong (hypothetical) place.
See my above post entitled Numbers in a universe without a Platonic realm where I say: "Physics can be seen as the discovery of actual relationships that exist in the universe; but mathematics can be seen as the discovery of the properties and nature of all possible types of relationships that can be represented symbolically, where the vast majority of these potential relationships don’t actually exist in the universe." Mathematics merely symbolically represents possible relationships; but the actual universe has generated "living" relationships, not symbols of relationships.
Lorraine
Dear Lorraine,
I read with great interest your essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists, lyricists, poets and musicians filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
I completely agree with you:
«The universe as an isolated system has necessarily generated, and continues to generate, all its own lower-level rules, both long-term law-of-nature rules, and simple one-off local rules to resolve quantum possibilities.»
«…the actual universe has generated "living" relationships, not symbols of relationships.»
Hence, the problem of the ontological basification (foundation / justification ) of mathematics (knowledge) today is the problem №1 for fundamental knowledge and philosophy, taking into account all the "troubles with physics"(Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") and "loss of certainty" (Morris Kline in "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty"). . I give my highest rating.
I believe, that only extremely constructive metaphysics, and the global "brain storm" will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation.
I invite you to read my ontological ideas .
Best regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
I read with great interest your essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists, lyricists, poets and musicians filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
I completely agree with you:
«The universe as an isolated system has necessarily generated, and continues to generate, all its own lower-level rules, both long-term law-of-nature rules, and simple one-off local rules to resolve quantum possibilities.»
«…the actual universe has generated "living" relationships, not symbols of relationships.»
Hence, the problem of the ontological basification (foundation / justification ) of mathematics (knowledge) today is the problem №1 for fundamental knowledge and philosophy, taking into account all the "troubles with physics"(Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") and "loss of certainty" (Morris Kline in "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty"). . I give my highest rating.
I believe, that only extremely constructive metaphysics, and the global "brain storm" will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation.
I invite you to read my ontological ideas .
Best regards,
Vladimir
Dear Vladimir,
Thanks. Good to see you back in this contest.
I think that what you say is correct: "...only extremely constructive metaphysics, and the global "brain storm" will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation."
Hope to read your essay as soon as possible.
Regards,
Lorraine
Thanks. Good to see you back in this contest.
I think that what you say is correct: "...only extremely constructive metaphysics, and the global "brain storm" will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation."
Hope to read your essay as soon as possible.
Regards,
Lorraine
Dear Lorraine,
Many thanks for your encouraging comment in support of my ideas.
Best regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Many thanks for your encouraging comment in support of my ideas.
Best regards,
Vladimir
Bravissimo Ms. Eord! I give a standing ovation to you. Excellent work. Only so it is necessary to write an essay. Of course i'll give high score.
Best regards and good luck,
Vladimir A. Rodin
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2752
report post as inappropriate
Best regards and good luck,
Vladimir A. Rodin
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2752
Thanks very much Vladimir.
I am looking at your essay now.
Cheers,
Lorraine
I am looking at your essay now.
Cheers,
Lorraine
Dear Lorraine,
Our essay suggests some criticism on panpsychism and anti-platonism. I rated your composition high for its seriousness and your will to truth, so I am curious to see your reflection on our objections. In case you did not yet rate our essay, I would appreciate you will do it.
Cheers,
Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
Our essay suggests some criticism on panpsychism and anti-platonism. I rated your composition high for its seriousness and your will to truth, so I am curious to see your reflection on our objections. In case you did not yet rate our essay, I would appreciate you will do it.
Cheers,
Alexey Burov.
Dear Lorraine,
Many thanks for your post on our page! I just answered you there.
All the best,
Alexey Burov.
report post as inappropriate
Many thanks for your post on our page! I just answered you there.
All the best,
Alexey Burov.
Lorraine,
I have commented on your essay above. But I need to let you know that you got it right when you commented on Brendan's blog.
It is so spot on that I repeat it here:
*******************************************************
**********************************
Re ethics:
My impression is that the only thing that ever shook human complacency, self-centredness and hubris is various forms of disaster: personal, financial, ecological, war etc. I’m probably talking about you and me, not just everyone else. Mere words, logic, or ethics rarely ever pricked the bubble of complacency, self-centredness and human hubris.
To ever look beyond one’s own little life, logic, ethics, knowledge and experience is required to evaluate the situation, and to find solutions for problems identified. Then various vested interests in the status quo battle to stop solutions being implemented. Not that the situation is really quite that simple.
Another problem is deluded over-confident illogical men (it’s mainly men): you’ll see plenty of them in this essay contest. They will try to tell you that the machines are going to take over the world, or that the universe itself is in effect a machine, or that the universe is a mathematical space, or that reality is a computer simulation. The latest manifestation is the brave new emergenteers who miraculously make consciousness and free will emerge out of complexity. These are the brave new illogical religions and the new illogical “miracles”.
************************************************************
****************************
I invite you to visit my essay (as you said you would). And remember that my goal is to win this contest :)
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
I have commented on your essay above. But I need to let you know that you got it right when you commented on Brendan's blog.
It is so spot on that I repeat it here:
*******************************************************
**********************************
Re ethics:
My impression is that the only thing that ever shook human complacency, self-centredness and hubris is various forms of disaster: personal, financial, ecological, war etc. I’m probably talking about you and me, not just everyone else. Mere words, logic, or ethics rarely ever pricked the bubble of complacency, self-centredness and human hubris.
To ever look beyond one’s own little life, logic, ethics, knowledge and experience is required to evaluate the situation, and to find solutions for problems identified. Then various vested interests in the status quo battle to stop solutions being implemented. Not that the situation is really quite that simple.
Another problem is deluded over-confident illogical men (it’s mainly men): you’ll see plenty of them in this essay contest. They will try to tell you that the machines are going to take over the world, or that the universe itself is in effect a machine, or that the universe is a mathematical space, or that reality is a computer simulation. The latest manifestation is the brave new emergenteers who miraculously make consciousness and free will emerge out of complexity. These are the brave new illogical religions and the new illogical “miracles”.
************************************************************
****************************
I invite you to visit my essay (as you said you would). And remember that my goal is to win this contest :)
Don Limuti
Lorraine,
Thanks for visiting my essay. And for providing some needed balance in this essay contest with your essay and your confronting the bozos.
Appreciate your contribution!
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Thanks for visiting my essay. And for providing some needed balance in this essay contest with your essay and your confronting the bozos.
Appreciate your contribution!
Don Limuti
Dear Lorraine,
With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating. Excellently written.
I share your aspiration to seek the truth
«Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.»
«But the issue is not “how does structure emerge?”. The issue is “how do rules (representable by mathematical equations) emerge?”. The answer is that rules that control the system in question don’t emerge: rules are ex nihilo introductions to the system.»
«the essay doesn’t give examples of simple emergence which might help to explain more complex emergence.»
I wish you success in the contest.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating. Excellently written.
I share your aspiration to seek the truth
«Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.»
«But the issue is not “how does structure emerge?”. The issue is “how do rules (representable by mathematical equations) emerge?”. The answer is that rules that control the system in question don’t emerge: rules are ex nihilo introductions to the system.»
«the essay doesn’t give examples of simple emergence which might help to explain more complex emergence.»
I wish you success in the contest.
Kind regards,
Vladimir
Thanks Vladimir
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
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
Dear Lorraine,
I very much enjoyed your essay. I read it before and felt that you perhaps over-stated your case. After reading again, I'm re-thinking this. I believe I got hung up on terminology, while your concept is good.
Either there is free will or not, and I do believe in free will; I'm not sure if there's a better example of the universe "generating its own rules". This must somehow begin with "fine-tuning" and proceed at the level of every living thing. It is my basic assumption, but the one I have the least explanation for.
As usual, your essay is chock full of things I agree with, from computers deterministically processing symbolic representation of higher-level subjectively experienced information, etc., and computer's inability to achieve self-awareness (which I've expanded on with Natesh Ganesh) to "no deep understanding of emergence", and the view of it as progressive restrictions on degrees of freedom.
As one who believes information comes into existence when an energy threshold triggers a structural change ('in'-forming the system) , I agree with you about "must derive from local physical structures".
I tend to depart some from your views of quantum mechanics, but that does not detract from your essential points; it only changes the way in which your points are achieved. It is hard (impossible?) to argue with your point that "the universe is all there is … that necessarily generates its own rules." If there is free will, this must, in some way, be an ongoing process.
I'm glad I re-read your essay! I will rate it tonite.
Also, I'm sure your living with and loving your local nature-life does not hurt your thinking about these things. The wildlife diversity on our ranch is soul-refreshing, making it easier to see into the nature of things.
My very best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
I very much enjoyed your essay. I read it before and felt that you perhaps over-stated your case. After reading again, I'm re-thinking this. I believe I got hung up on terminology, while your concept is good.
Either there is free will or not, and I do believe in free will; I'm not sure if there's a better example of the universe "generating its own rules". This must somehow begin with "fine-tuning" and proceed at the level of every living thing. It is my basic assumption, but the one I have the least explanation for.
As usual, your essay is chock full of things I agree with, from computers deterministically processing symbolic representation of higher-level subjectively experienced information, etc., and computer's inability to achieve self-awareness (which I've expanded on with Natesh Ganesh) to "no deep understanding of emergence", and the view of it as progressive restrictions on degrees of freedom.
As one who believes information comes into existence when an energy threshold triggers a structural change ('in'-forming the system) , I agree with you about "must derive from local physical structures".
I tend to depart some from your views of quantum mechanics, but that does not detract from your essential points; it only changes the way in which your points are achieved. It is hard (impossible?) to argue with your point that "the universe is all there is … that necessarily generates its own rules." If there is free will, this must, in some way, be an ongoing process.
I'm glad I re-read your essay! I will rate it tonite.
Also, I'm sure your living with and loving your local nature-life does not hurt your thinking about these things. The wildlife diversity on our ranch is soul-refreshing, making it easier to see into the nature of things.
My very best wishes,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Thanks Edwin. Our views about the nature of reality have so much in common. And I think it is true that living amongst nature, letting nature speak to us, makes it “easier to see into the nature of things.”
Congratulations on coming first in the community ratings! I sincerely hope that this translates into winning a prize. I hope that this is not a “Foundational Questions” Institute in name only!
Regards,
Lorraine
Congratulations on coming first in the community ratings! I sincerely hope that this translates into winning a prize. I hope that this is not a “Foundational Questions” Institute in name only!
Regards,
Lorraine
Lorraine, I'm so sorry -- I didn't see that rating ended yesterday. I love your essay. Your clarity on several points that we both share is very refreshing.
I'm traveling right now, but will get back to you later (if they let me).
Jim
report post as inappropriate
I'm traveling right now, but will get back to you later (if they let me).
Jim
Dear Lorraine,
It is a pity that I could not see your email earlier, since post Apr 7, my reviews, and comments, do not elicit responses. Below, your statements are quoted in double quotes.
Your opening lines, "unlike a model system that we might set up, where we impose the system rules from the outside, there is nothing and no one outside the universe to generate rules", appeared...
view entire post
It is a pity that I could not see your email earlier, since post Apr 7, my reviews, and comments, do not elicit responses. Below, your statements are quoted in double quotes.
Your opening lines, "unlike a model system that we might set up, where we impose the system rules from the outside, there is nothing and no one outside the universe to generate rules", appeared...
view entire post
Dear Rajiv,
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
Re “There may be a small problem with, "But the single outcomes of quantum randomness also have the status of 'necessity'…”:
If you don’t mind, to save repeating what I have recently written, I refer you to my post “Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 24, 2017 @ 00:05 GMT” on http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2694 (you would have to click on the “show all replies” to find it).
There is a huge difference between algorithms and equations. Algorithms are things that control rules/equations. Therefore, they exist at a higher-level than rules/equations. To say that something representable as a deterministic algorithm, or that something representable as a non-deterministic algorithm, exists at the level of fundamental-level reality is a huge step.
Lorraine
Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.
Re “There may be a small problem with, "But the single outcomes of quantum randomness also have the status of 'necessity'…”:
If you don’t mind, to save repeating what I have recently written, I refer you to my post “Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 24, 2017 @ 00:05 GMT” on http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2694 (you would have to click on the “show all replies” to find it).
There is a huge difference between algorithms and equations. Algorithms are things that control rules/equations. Therefore, they exist at a higher-level than rules/equations. To say that something representable as a deterministic algorithm, or that something representable as a non-deterministic algorithm, exists at the level of fundamental-level reality is a huge step.
Lorraine
Login or create account to post reply or comment.