CATEGORY:
FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017
[back]
TOPIC:
Mind before matter: reversing the arrow of fundamentality by Markus P Mueller
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Markus P Mueller wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 21:34 GMT
Essay AbstractWe often hold strong intuitions about what is fundamental (“A is obviously more fundamental than B”), but sometimes, on second thought, a reversal of that judgement suggests itself (“ah, it’s after all possible that B is more fundamental than A!”). Such a change of perspective can yield fruitful new insights, as the example of noncommutative geometry demonstrates. Here I propose that we should consider a similar reversal in our understanding of the relation between the “mind” and the “world”, and take the idea seriously that some notion of the former is more fundamental than the latter. I argue that such a view, if properly analyzed, leads to a surprising kind of “strange loop”: even though it is ultimately more fundamental, the mind can still consistently be regarded as causally supervening on the world. This novel perspective might help to clarify some conceptual problems in the foundations of physics.
Author BioMarkus Mueller is a Junior Research Group Leader at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna, and a Visiting Fellow (former Associate Faculty member) at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo. He has held postdoctoral positions in Potsdam and Waterloo before starting his first research group at Heidelberg University. He has subsequently spent two years as an Assistant Professor and Canada Research Chair in the Foundations of Physics at the University of Western Ontario before moving to his current position in Vienna.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 04:18 GMT
Dear Markus Mueller,
You observe that orthodoxy is largely based on '
the lesson of Copernicus'. I address a specific instance of this in my essay which reviews the historical basis of special relativity.
You further note that "
the orthodox view is incomplete", which is almost the basis upon which FQXi contests are held. I, and many participants in these contests, believe as you appear to that mind does not 'emerge' from matter. My previous essays have proposed that consciousness is the essential nature of a field, indivisibly merging awareness and matter. I have found it valuable to investigate the self-interaction that arises in such case, and I give you an example here.
As is quite popular today, you suggest a 'brain scan' that results in a "perfect copy" of one's brain in the form of a computer simulation. Since computers are logical machines, this has the effect of building
a logical model of the mind. Many, if not most approaches to modeling the mind call on such simulations.
But if consciousness is truly associated with the self-interactive field, then it is not just the logic of synaptic firings, but it is the dynamical 3D field interactions that accompany the flows in axons and neurons, and that simply cannot be captured in a software simulation. Thus I hold out no hope for this approach.
This is presented as an aside; I do not interpret your essay as depending on the ability to simulate the mind. Certainly clever logical simulations exist and will continue to be built. But if the fundamental reality you suggest actually exists, it won't be copied.
I invite you to read my essay and comment.
Best regards, and good luck in the contest,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Edwin Eugene,
thanks very much for reading and for your comments! I'm going to read your essay once I'll be back from vacation.
To respond to what you wrote above, I think it's interesting to thjnk of consciousness as some kind of "self-interaction". Still I don't see why this would have anything to say about simulatability. As soon as you talk about axons and neurons, you talk about physical systems that, as far as we know, are subject to computable laws of nature.
But I'll look at your essay to see the arguments in more detail.
Kind regards, and good luck to you too!
Markus
Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 13:03 GMT
quote
In other words, since that emergent world corresponds to a simple algorithm which represents an excellent
compression of the observer’s probabilistic state changes, we can regard its functioning as the causal
background structure that gives rise to what the observer sees. Thus, we can use it to obtain algorithmic
or “mechanistic” explanations for the observer’s states (including evolutionary explanations), but we may
want to keep in mind that this causal background algorithm is ultimately itself not fundamental.
end of quote
My nit with this is simple. You are assuming that the process of measurement is inheriently dependent upon the algorithm of investigation is not fundamental.
Why I find this hard to believe. It is in the matter of the independence of physical law from a given reference frame
I.e. the algorithmic search protocol is fundamental if it is INDEPENDENT of the reference frame used, in order to investigate foundational physics laws.
Aside from that I enjoyed your essay and invite you to look at mine and remark on it, as given in December 21st
Andrew
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:25 GMT
Dear Andrew,
thanks very much for your interest and for the comment.
Unfortunately, I have some trouble understanding your argument. Especially, when you write: "You are assuming that the process of measurement is inheriently dependent upon the algorithm of investigation is not fundamental."
It's not clear to me what you mean. Maybe you can clarify?
Thank you,
Markus
Francesco D'Isa wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 13:30 GMT
Dear Markus,
congratulations for your essay, which I found one of the best here, it conveys very interesting ideas and it's very well-written (and touching, as well).
You write that:
> Postulate 1 tells us that algorithmic probability determines what happens to an observer, and the right-hand side can be seen as a consequence of this: the properties of algorithmic probability imply that some notion of external world emerges. But, by the very definition of what this means, this emergent external world gives an excellent description of what happens to the observer, since its configuration evolves under the same probabilities as the observer’s state.
I completely agree – in my essay there's the same idea (§2) applied to causality, as a consequence of Nagarjuna's philosophy.
In the end you state that:
> If the ideas above contain a grain of truth, then the mind may ultimately be more fundamental than the world.
But following your ideas, should't world and mind be, so to say, at par?
All the best,
Francesco D'Isa
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 13:50 GMT
Dear Francesco,
thanks very much for your kind words.
I'm on vacation now, but I'll surely look at your essay once I'm back.
Regarding your final question/comment, in a way I agree -- both are "on par", which is what I also write in the last section. I would say, both viewpoints (world being more fundamental than mind, or vice versa) are suitable for different kinds of questions that we may ask. For the question implicitly raised in prequel/sequel, I'd say that the latter (not the former) is the more relevant viewpoint.
Thanks again,
Markus
Francesco D'Isa replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 10:10 GMT
Dear Markus,
thank you for your answer. Yes, that's the “strange loop” you quoted in the 5th paragraph, I agree – also with what you say about the prequel/sequel question.
All the best!
Francesco
report post as inappropriate
Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Professor Mueller,
Your essay is profound, and deeply intriguing.
I would like to understand better the analogy of the mind-matter arrow with the nice example of non-commutative geometry that you give.
When one maps from an ordinary geometry to the algebra of functions; and generalises this to a non-commutative algebra and maps back, one gets a non-commutative space, a non-commutative geometry. The properties of this geometry are entirely different from the geometry one started with. I suppose we can say the two geometries are inequivalent? One could perhaps think of thought experiments / actual experiments which would distinguish the two geometries.
When you talk of Wheeler's mind-matter loop, do you also suggest that the mind to matter arrow is experimentally distinguishable, in principle, from the matter to mind arrow? That would be fascinating, if it were to be so. I am not quite clear if the mind to matter arrow is equivalent to the matter to mind arrow, or inequivalent?
My thanks, and best wishes to you in this essay contest, and warmest wishes for Nadine, in whichever world she is ...
Tejinder
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:00 GMT
Dear Tejinder,
thanks very much for your kind comment!
Regarding the question that you raised, I'd argue as follows. First, in the example of non-commutative geometry, the non-commutative version of spacetime that we get (in particular if it correctly describes physics) will still look pretty much like an "ordinary" spacetime, in some regime (where we don't see any quantum gravity effects) resp. after some coarsegraining.
The idea is that the mind->matter arrow will give us something that still, in most "ordinary" regimes, looks like the physical world we are used to. Only in some extreme cases will we see differences. I don't know how experimentally accessible these would be; instead, they might manifest themselves in more subtle ways. An example in the essay is the "Boltzmann brain" issue, where the usual physics argumentation (intuitively, cosmologists simply "counting brains") would be replaced by a different argumentation based on algorithmic probability. Another example might be Wigner's friend-like scenarios, which are obviously extremely difficult to address experimentally.
I've just seen you have submitted an essay too. I'll have a look as soon as I have time.
Best wishes,
Markus
Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 15:17 GMT
Markus,
Physics studies our experience of the universe, but the universe is not made of experience. It is made of real stuff. This is a reversal of the objective - subjective points of view. All that we think is objective we make up ourselves as experience. The object of this experience (underlying reality) is in fact what is real (objective = object).
So, much of physics is about ourselves ... not the universe. The 3D is just the definition of a punctual observer ...
Best of luck,
Marcel,
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear Marcel,
thanks for reading and for your comment! Good luck to you too!
Markus
Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Professor Markus P Mueller,
FQXI is clearly seeking to find out if there is a fundamental REALITY.
Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.
All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Only the truth can set you free.
Joe Fisher, Realist
post approved
Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 17:34 GMT
Your essay is an interesting reading. It segues in part with physics because of quantum mechanics that, as you illustrate with contextuality, does not conform to a purely objective perspective on the universe. We are then in a funny situation with respect to the measurement or phenomenology of quantum mechanics an inability to completely divorce the observer from the subject of observation....
view entire post
Your essay is an interesting reading. It segues in part with physics because of quantum mechanics that, as you illustrate with contextuality, does not conform to a purely objective perspective on the universe. We are then in a funny situation with respect to the measurement or phenomenology of quantum mechanics an inability to completely divorce the observer from the subject of observation. Various quantum interpretations are set up to work around this problem, from "shut up and calculate," which amounts to don't worry about this, to ψ-epistemic interpretations that render the wave function unreal to ψ-ontoc interpretations that confer reality to the wave function by in effect fragmenting the observer. The Copenhagen interpretation is ψ-epistemic and the many world or Everettian interpretation is ψ-ontic. Personally I think quantum mechanics is not any of these.
The Wheeler cycle or strange loop is in effect a form of Godel's theorem applied to physics. We could think of a quantum measurement as a case where quantum states encode some quantum states. This loop can never be complete which is one reason maybe that quantum measurement is not understood by any physics. By corollary we have no clear understanding of how the classical world emerges from the quantum world. We can say it does emerge, which would be more ψ-epsitemic, or that it is a complete illusion and manifested in an observer, which would be more ψ-ontic. The apparent self-referential nature of this would lead to an inability to know which type of interpretation holds, and far less which interpretation holds.
Since this is physical we may think more according to Turing machines, which may be thought of as computing existing symbol strings. In this way was have a physical system prior to the computational incompleteness of any putative universal Turing machine. With pure mathematics what is prior or subsequent to what is not important. With physics we have more of this sense with respect to time. Of course this now takes us into deep questions on what we mean by the nature of time. My essay in part touches on this with issues of quantum state entanglements building up spacetime.
It is then my sense that whether matter or mind is primary is not fundamentally decidable. I remember years ago reading Isaac Asimov quip about this:
Matter over mind doesn't matter
Mind over matter, never mind.
This question leads us into a contact region between physics and metaphysics. Metaphysics is something we usually prefer to have a minimum of in physics. However, we seem unable to completely eliminate metaphysics.
Cheers LC
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Lawrence,
thanks for your comment! I agree with your skepticism of whether any of the interpretations of QM, or any of the viewpoints on the fundamentality of mind or world, is the "true" one. I think I'd just personally go one step further, and say that it's not only undecidable for us, but that there is simply no "matter of fact" to any of the alternatives over the other ones.
Best,
Markus
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT
In the beginning was the word, and the word ...
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 08:01 GMT
Dear Markus Mueller,
instead of endlessly theoretizing about "what is fundamental?" you encapsulate your quest about what eventually could *not* be fundamental into a prequel and a sequel, both being very emotional. I hope that you haven't invented Nadine's story, for if it would be true, there would be a kind of hapiness within a rather abstract analysis of the orthodox worldview of hard science.
"If the ideas above contain a grain of truth, then the mind may ultimately be more fundamental than the world. And more than that: the mind may ultimately not be a prisoner of the body, or of the world, since the latter is only a convenient fiction. But then there may be hope of a kind that we have almost given up, and freedom of a kind that we have never imagined."
I think your attempt would have profited much more (not on the basis of scores, but on the basis of arguments) if you had mentioned that there are strong hints to support what you would wish to be true in the citation above. These hints are called 'near-death experiences' and are trivialized by 'hard science', despite the fact that they are able to show that conscious awareness isn't necessarily bound to the human brain / organism.
Since these are valid phenomena, i wonder why nobody in this contest takes them into account, but rather circumvent them by loosely using wordings like 'consciousness field' and other abstract things like that. At least you were brave enough to question all these abstract musings at the beginning and the end of your essay.
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Stefan,
thanks for reading and your comment!
No, the story of Nadine is not invented. It is true -- I've worked for a year at a day care place for blind and multiply disabled children.
You are raising an interesting point. I still think that there is a good reason that nobody mentions the experiences that you talked about. Namely, they correspond to subjective experience. Everybody should feel free to use their subjective experience (or that of other people they trust) as a guidance to this world. But scientific knowledge is still of a different kind: it is either empirically testable in a way that makes it more reliable in a specific sense, or it is based on mathematics and thus logics (if A and B are true, then C cannot be true etc.). The experiences you mentioned do not seem to be of that kind.
Otherwise, who distinguishes claims of near-death experience from simple illusions that we also sometimes encounter?
Best,
Markus
Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 20:45 GMT
Dear Markus,
thanks for your reply. I would not say that near-death experiences correspond to subjective experience. If you take a couple of people that had similar experiences, they can communicate their experiences, as well as we can communicate our subjective experiences of, say, sadness, happiness, fear, anger etc.
What distinguishes such experiences from ‘simple’ illusions...
view entire post
Dear Markus,
thanks for your reply. I would not say that near-death experiences correspond to subjective experience. If you take a couple of people that had similar experiences, they can communicate their experiences, as well as we can communicate our subjective experiences of, say, sadness, happiness, fear, anger etc.
What distinguishes such experiences from ‘simple’ illusions is that they have some key features that repeat – but more important, that what was experienced and seen / heard etc. could it many cases be verified, although the experiencer’s brain / senses / heart were at this time not functioning at all. These are objectiviable circumstances, checked for correctness by scientists, indepdendent of whether I was a direct witness or not. I surely wasn’t neither a direct witness when Einstein’s GR or SR was tested, but I trust the reports and results.
The key point here is that people don’t trust those experiences because they simply don’t like them, they don’t fit into their conception of the world. There are things in the world that aren’t reproducible, but they are nonetheless true. For example a geniously idea (like Einstein had some). But even Einstein couldn’t reproduce such a revelation of an idea to come to grips with QM or with what a photon is.
I cannot accept your arguments for another reason. What does science when single events are not reproducable? It takes statistics into account. Exactly this has been done in the case of near-death experiences. Only one case is enough to falsify a pure materialistic and reductionistic worldview. That’s the real reason why a majority does not mention such experiences too much. For relying on simple illusions, one had to disprove every case where verifiable information was brought back from the experience (for example about a person who died in the same minutes and was meet in some transcendental realm, or tons of other such facts). To statistically disprove them, one had to find experiences, where such information could be falsified – but there are none (except for one or two cases). This is an obviously statistical misbalance that has something to say, I think. And i think one cannot say that all those researchers have tweaked their cases to come to a certain conclusion. The same argument could be made for other scientific theories as well.
I really do not understand after having read your essay, how and in what sense the mind should be more fundamental than 'the world' - other than that this is simply a tautology, since all we have are our senses and our consciousness (until we die). When we are dead, what is left of such a fundamentality of the mind over the world?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 09:04 GMT
Dear Peter,
I strongly disagree.
Of course I believe that these people *have the experience* of something that is common to many people in similar near-death circumstances. But all that this tells us is that there are similar processes in their brains that produce these experiences. It doesn't tell us in itself that our most naive interpretation of it ("looking beyond death" or something like that) is true.
In fact, people under drugs have similar experiences, and reliably so.
When you write "checked for correctness by scientists", then this is deeply misleading. No scientist can check that these experiences are a correct view into some afterlife-world. What they can check is, again statistically, that many people under similar circumstances report similar experiences.
All it tells us is that similar things are going on in their brains. It certainly does not "falsify a pure materialistic and reductionistic worldview". It shows us exactly nothing.
If you give a large number of people alcohol, many of them will report that they experience that the world is spinning around them (when they had too much and feel drowsy). This doesn't mean that the world is really spinning around them in any sense, it just means that their brains produce these experiences for biochemical reasons.
Certainly none of my arguments rely on any of those reported experiences that you mention.
Best,
Markus
Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 4, 2018 @ 09:43 GMT
Dear Markus,
i am not Peter...
Well, people had their experiences while brain-death for more than just a few minutes (yes!).
You do not want to engage in the arguments i gave, but finally this is no problem, since i do not intend to convince anybody, but only want to present arguments.
Best,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 20:35 GMT
Dear Stefan,
sorry, the Peter thing was a typo.
It is perfectly fine if you draw the conclusions from the existence of these experiences as you said, but I would say it's anybody's personal decision what to make of it.
Best,
Markus
Stefan Weckbach replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Markus,
well, many skeptics as well as believers take the opposite view by claiming these phenomena can be objectivized sufficiently to explain them. Indeed there is much literature of investigations from both sides of the fence.
Therefore I would not consider exchanges of arguments and viewpoints from both sides of the fence as being beyond any scientific discourse. In fact, the whole essay contest is an example of scientific discourse about ideas that mutually exclude each other and moreover – as this contest shows – is the whole lot the quest of “anybody's personal decision what to make of it”.
The example with the current contest should merely illustrate that questions like “what is ‘fundamental’?” can reasonably be considered as being suitable for a scientific discourse. Since science is also about null-results, we should not wonder that the very essay question hasn’t been answered yet by any essay in a manner that could be unequivocally accepted by the whole scientific community. But what would science be without exchange of arguments? The latter is the sole purpose of every publication (usually).
I would therefore distinguish between the goals of convincing someone and exchanging arguments for the purpose of seeing whether or not there are inconsistencies in one or the other’s explanatory framework.
Anyways, thank you for your reply.
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 19:29 GMT
Markus,
An ambitious undertaking, very well executed and quite uniquely interesting. Whether I'm convinced or not is another matter, not relevant or falsifiable! I certainly agree your comments on the cosmological issues.
My own essay does comment on some key matters, partly in agreement as an SR friendly QM emerges, yet both mind and matter also emerge from the simplest underlying mechanism. I hope you'll read and comment.
So yes, I think physics IS all about what's really going on in the world (universe) as John Bell did! You seemed uncertain so perhaps say if you agree after reading mine.
Nice job.
Very best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 3, 2018 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear Peter,
thanks for reading and commenting!
I'll make sure to read your essay when I'm back from vacation. We will see if I agree that "physics as all about what's really going on in the world". :-) I guess my answer will depend very much on the details of what this statement is supposed to mean. But I'm curious and will have a look.
Cheers,
Markus
Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 19, 2018 @ 15:31 GMT
Markus, Thanks, (as posted in reply to your comment on mine)
The main finding, yes is an "astonishing"! classical QM. Despite beliefs John Bell did NOT show "a local realist model of a singlet state" is impossible! He showed some
assumption was wrong, which I identify as
JUST 'up/down spin'. Let's listen more carefully to him;
"..in my opinion...
view entire post
Markus, Thanks, (as posted in reply to your comment on mine)
The main finding, yes is an "astonishing"! classical QM. Despite
beliefs John Bell did NOT show
"a local realist model of a singlet state" is impossible! He showed some
assumption was wrong, which I identify as
JUST 'up/down spin'. Let's listen more carefully to him;
"..in my opinion the founding fathers were in fact wrong.. ..quantum phenomena do not exclude a uniform description of micro and macro worlds" p171.
"We would have to devise a new way of specifying a joint probability distribution. We fall back then on a second choice – fermion number density.” P.175.
"..a real synthesis of quantum and relativity theories requires not just technical developments but radical conceptual renewal.” p.172.
"...the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative leap that will astonish us. In any case it seems that the quantum mechanical description will be superseded.” p.27 (so first seeming 'idiosynchratic')
"..the solution, invisible from the front, may be seen from the back..” p.194."
quantum mechanics is at the best, incomplete.” p.26.
The axioms are all required for the mechanism. It'd take half a page each to fully explain but once the ontology is understood all is clear. Those 'two paragraphs' need very careful reading, maybe twice! to do so and overcome normal cognitive dissonance.
Declan Traill's short essay with code and plot, with my experiment, confirm the mechanism works (at CHSH >1) and the 'detection loophole' is (CHSH >1) closed.
This has vast implications (beyond the wide areas you refer to) so I'm quite aghast so many accredited physicists seem to dismiss it so readily. Bell did also say;
"..conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better.” p.173.
(Editors are the same). But I'd expected some could! I hope you might try that 2nd read of those 2 para's using logic not expectations?
Very best
Peter
PS I've just discovered the Poincare Sphere, ignored by consistent with Maxwell, quantum optics and my model!! For visuals also see my last yrs essay. You can anyway reproduce my table top experiment for a few Euro's.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 05:07 GMT
Dear
Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.
My essay is titled
“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.
Thank you & kind regards
Steven Andresen
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 6, 2018 @ 05:08 GMT
Dear Markus P Mueller
Just letting you know that I am making a start on reading of your essay, and hope that you might also take a glance over mine please? I look forward to the sharing of thoughtful opinion. Congratulations on your essay rating as it stands, and best of luck for the contest conclusion.
My essay is titled
“Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin”. It stands as a novel test for whether a natural organisational principle can serve a rationale, for emergence of complex systems of physics and cosmology. I will be interested to have my effort judged on both the basis of prospect and of novelty.
Thank you & kind regards
Steven Andresen
report post as inappropriate
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 12:53 GMT
Respected Prof Markus P Mueller
Nice philosophical thinking sir...... Here I propose that we should consider a similar reversal in our understanding of the relation between the “mind” and the “world”, and take the idea seriously that some notion of the former is more fundamental than the latter. I argue that such a view, if properly analyzed, leads to a surprising kind of “strange...
view entire post
Respected Prof Markus P Mueller
Nice philosophical thinking sir...... Here I propose that we should consider a similar reversal in our understanding of the relation between the “mind” and the “world”, and take the idea seriously that some notion of the former is more fundamental than the latter. I argue that such a view, if properly analyzed, leads to a surprising kind of “strange loop”: even though it is ultimately more fundamental, the mind can still consistently be regarded as causally supervening on the world....... It will definitely a helping point sir....
Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed...……..….. yours is very nice essay best wishes …. I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ….You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance
Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :-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 GR on any condition
-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models
-No many mini Bigbangs
-No Missing Mass / Dark matter
-No Dark energy
-No Bigbang generated CMB detected
-No Multi-verses
Here:
-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies
-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way
-All bodies dynamically moving
-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium
-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe
-Single Universe no baby universes
-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only
-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..
-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass
-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step
-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering
-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet
-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy
-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.
- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml
I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..
Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.
In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”
I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you repliedBest
=snp
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Jochen Szangolies wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 19:35 GMT
Dear Markus,
thanks for a highly original perspective on the notion of what's fundamental. Your illustration using noncommutative geometry to show how the arrow of fundamentality can be reversed is very insightful, as is the rest of your essay. I will certainly check out the papers in which you develop the toy theory further.
You get a lot out of relatively few assumptions. I'll have to have a look at your further papers---I'm especially interested in the 'tests' you're using. I assume they're something like the Martin-Löf tests for effective randomness, and you're essentially just saying that any 'typical' sequence will pass almost all (?) of such tests? One might wonder if this isn't a bit strong---after all, very many regularities of experience don't actually persist. I'm asleep sometimes, awake at other times. I was a boy once, now I'm a grown man. There is a lot of change---albeit, of course, one may say that the 'fundamental' level stays the same. Gravity works today the same way it did in those halcyon days of my youth, even if I may feel its effects more severely now.
But what is 'fundamental' in experience? Does gravity really hold a special place over youth, there? In a sense, you're engaged in a phenomenological project, and an important technique in phenomenology (as per Husserl) is bracketing: leaving out assumptions about what the world is 'really like'. For instance, are you entitled to the Church-Turing thesis, which in this context (as you note) is essentially a physical stipulation, if you're putting experience first?
I found this one of the more stimulating works (of those I've read) in this contest. Wishing you the best of luck!
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 20:46 GMT
Dear Jochen,
thanks a lot for reading and for your insightful comment!
This one sentence of yours made my day: "Gravity works today the same way it did in those halcyon days of my youth, even if I may feel its effects more severely now." :-))
I agree that the question of what is fundamental in experience is a very difficult one. I'm not trying to answer it. Instead, I'm exploring a theory where algorithmic probability is fundamental, and then the analogous question becomes a technical one: what is the best possible compression of the totality of all previous experience (in a detailed sense explained in a longer paper)? And then the answer is: the laws of nature as we know them.
Regarding your example, if we replace "being young" more concretely by "being less than 25 years old" (for example), then your question, and what it implies, is an instance of "Goodman's new riddle of induction". In the long version of my paper, I show how this apparent riddle, or paradox, is resolved in the context of algorithmic probability (and this argument doesn't even rely on my theory). You might find that interesting, or even just Goodman's riddle itself.
Best of luck for you too!
Markus
Jochen Szangolies replied on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 18:20 GMT
Dear Markus,
I've just had a brief look at your treatment of Goodman's riddle---it's very intriguing stuff! I think one could fruitfully apply your apparatus to some related philosophical puzzles, all variously concerned with finding out what the 'true' structure of the world is. Most forms of structural realism bump up against the question of uniqueness and end up somewhat battered; in the end, one tends to find that any given structure (by which I mean something like 'set of relations') at all obtains of a given set of elements (sometimes called Newman's objection).
Ted Siders has made use of the notion of predicates that 'carve at the joints' (as Plato put it) to try and attack this problem: if a plane that's half red and half blue is divided such that all blue is on one side, and all red on the other, this seems a better fit to what that 'world' is actually like than some slanted division, into 'bled' and 'rue' objects, although the latter is not obviously wrong, once one gets to think about it (this is very similar, of course, to Goodman's 'bleen' and 'grue'). But it's very difficult to actually make the case that the latter structure is 'wrong' in some objective way, and I don't think Siders quite succeeds, because in a way, he has to appeal to the red and blue itself, which is not analyzable in terms of structure.
But if your apparatus can be used to give a definite criterion of which structure is preferable out of all the possible ways of carving up the world---or, as I suspect you would view it, that the world appears to us carved up a certain way because there exists a uniquely preferred structure that orders our experience---then I think this could be a huge boon for the program of structural realism.
Anyway, I suppose I'll just have to go and think about this for a bit!
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 14, 2018 @ 09:06 GMT
Dear Jochen,
thanks a lot for pointing me to Ted Sider, I wasn't aware of him! I'll have a look at his argument.
The idea that (algorithmic) simplicity is relevant for analyzing Goodman's riddle has been mentioned a few times before, e.g. here: http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4122247000000001964.pdf
A
ll the best,
Markus
Jochen Szangolies replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 11:30 GMT
Dear Markus,
thanks for the link, I'll check it out!
BTW, I'm not good at this whole self-promotion thing, but I'd be very interested if you had some time to read/comment on my essay...
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Todd L Duncan wrote on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 23:13 GMT
Dear Dr. Mueller,
Thank you for a very insightful, poignant, and thought-provoking essay. I especially appreciate the clarity with which you articulate a balanced perspective: acknowledging the value and reasons for holding the "orthodox view" of a formal system description of the world as fundamental, while also acknowledging the many indications (the hard problem of consciousness being perhaps the most obvious) of its incompleteness. One might even argue that the orthodox view was intentionally incomplete from the start - as you point out, focusing on objective aspects of reality over the subjective opened the way to tremendous progress. We just need to remember that choosing to focus on one aspect of reality, even for good reasons, does not make the other aspects go away!
You've also nicely articulated a concrete way to explore a more balanced perspective on reality, without opening the door to an "anything goes" approach that might lose much of what we've gained with the orthodox view. Well done, and I look forward to reading more of your work and seeing how these ideas develop.
Best regards,
~ Todd
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 09:03 GMT
Dear Todd,
thank you so much for your kind comment!
Best regards,
Markus
John R. Cox wrote on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 15:18 GMT
Dr. Mueller,
I am reminded of George Fitzgerald's astute observation that the speed of light is "astonishingly slow". And it is compared to instantaneous. The Glider has a flight path. The orthodox view misses Fitzgerald's profound humor, it always seems that velocity is viewed as going from zero UP to light speed. Rather, the non-commutative approach would be that instantaneous in every direction would also be in opposite directions of any direction, and light velocity emerges as the averaged constant of a root exponential mean DOWN from instantaneous at infinity. The 'occluded middle' so to speak.
Analysis, it seems to me, always needs contain an instantaneous component as expressed in some correlation to be the benchmark necessary for our mind's comprehension of experience. And in common practice, that generally prevails as an assumption of physical absolute simultaneity, which is convenience. Even information of what the parameters are that physically differentiate a zero boundary of a quantum gravitational domain distinct amid equal valued parameters of a local spacetime field, would needs be time dependent in exchange and perhaps the only valid argument for instantaneous information exchange would be ON that zero boundary.
Pardon me, I'm an old guy, and its a struggle for me to get with the ideas of information being something real. I think you illustrate in your essay something that I have always sensed. That I am distinctly me. What I attempt, I may win, and the world responds to my footstep as if summer's dust but comes to my shin. Best Wishes, jrc
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 18:58 GMT
Marcus,
I posted a response above in the Feb 3 string.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 07:26 GMT
Dear Markus
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to...
view entire post
Dear Markus
If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don’t rate them at all. Infact I haven’t issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.
Beyond my essay’s introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity’s effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?
My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a “narrow range of sensitivity” that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn’t then gas accumulation wouldn’t be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.
Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn’t we consider this possibility?
For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we “life” are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.
My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.
By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.
To steal a phrase from my essay “A world product of evolved optimization”.
Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest
Kind regards
Steven Andresen
Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 04:04 GMT
Hello Markus,
Wow! Mind, physics, emotion. Excellent essay that would get young people interested in the "not boring" world of Physics.
A quote from Wheeler: “We are no longer satisfied with insights into particles, or fields of force, or geometry, or even space and time,” he wrote in 1981, “Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself.” [Reference: “The Voice of Genius: Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries”]
Thanks for an essay that pushes the limits,
Don Limuti
(there may still be time to take a look at my entry. I do not think you will sleep through it :)
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 11:18 GMT
Thanks for your kind words! I'll try to look at your essay later today.
Best,
Markus
Juan Ramón González Álvarez wrote on Mar. 11, 2018 @ 21:19 GMT
"Philosophers have long been arguing about how to best define the scientific method", how if they had some idea about it. ;-)
"The question of consciousness is deliberately ignored". Consciousness has been matter of scientific study since decades.
"the idea that "consciousness collapses the wave function" or the proliferation of the anthropic principle" aren't simply...
view entire post
"Philosophers have long been arguing about how to best define the scientific method", how if they had some idea about it. ;-)
"The question of consciousness is deliberately ignored". Consciousness has been matter of scientific study since decades.
"the idea that "consciousness collapses the wave function" or the proliferation of the anthropic principle" aren't simply "pseudo-scientific" or at least "highly questionable", but the first is plain wrong and the second is fully unscientific.
Noncommutative space cannot represent "the sort of "quantum spacetime" that one expects to find in physics in the realm of quantum gravity." Space and time are different in quantum theory, so they cannot be unified on a "quantum spacetime". Moreover the geometrical model of gravity introduced by GR is only approximate; so the idea that quantum gravity requires a "quantum spacetime" is also incorrect. It is understandable that decades of work on this kind of ideas have proven to be useless.
Eternal inflation is like epicycles or the flying spaghetti monster. And Boltzman apparently never understood statistical mechanics or the second law of thermodynamics.
What is so special about the scientist running different simulations of brains in different computers? One could replace brains by molecules and one could still be asking probabilistic questions about the simulations. There is nothing of relevance here. Nothing questioning the "essence of physics".
Quantum mechanics is an ensemble theory, and the idea that it refutes a realistic picture of the world has been debunked since the very beginning of quantum theory. Stuff as Bell's theorem is often invoked as prohibiting realism; However, not only the theorem doesn't say what some pretend, but Bell himself was supporter of realism. Only people adhering to the old Copenhagen interpretation that still pretends that QM is about "what we see" instead about "what there is".
Bricmont reproduces some of the comedy behind the so-called "ortodox view" of quantum mechanics and the historical distortions
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00294.pdf
So the subsequence reasoning about inverting the arrow and placing "first-person perspective" as fundamental and the physical world as "emergent" isn't valid. Not only this kind reasoning is based in incorrect quantum epistemologies/ontologies, but it is also ridiculous to believe that physical world "emerges" only when there are persons acting as observers. It is so ridiculous like when creationists insist that the fossil evidence was planted by Satan to deceive us. Wheeler's ideas about reality being created by observers are pure nonsense.
Postulate 1 seems to fail when x is a stationary state.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Markus P Mueller replied on Mar. 13, 2018 @ 09:41 GMT
You are posting extremely strong opinions about some topics without a clear idea what you are talking about, or what the people that you are criticizing are actually claiming.
Neither Wheeler nor I would endorse an "everything goes" view -- the observer can NOT WILLINGLY create "whatever she likes". If you had read Wheeler you would understand this. That in some interpretations of quantum theory, some variables don't have a value before they are measured is not in the slightest comparable to, as you wrote, "creationists insist[ing] that the fossil evidence was planted by Satan to deceive us". This view has clear explanatory power for concrete situations in the laboratory, like the security of quantum cryptography (if some variables don't have a value then they cannot be held by an eavesdropper. Clearly this has to -- and can -- be made much more rigorous).
I am a strong opponent of pseudoscience and modern relativism, and I in fact have here, on my table in front of me, a book by the very Bricmont that you are citing ("Fashionable nonsense"), and I agree strongly with almost everything he says. You are conflating several things that have nothing to do with each other: namely, scientific rejections of certain aspects of naive realism on the one hand (WITHOUT IN ANY WAY rejecting other aspects of realism or the scientific method), and total relativism on the other.
You also write:
"Postulate 1 seems to fail when x is a stationary state."
x is simply a bit string; a bit string cannot be a "stationary state" (this notion is completely undefined in that context). Had you read the reference with the mathematical definition before shouting our your anger, you would have understood that.
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.