Search FQXi


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.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger 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

Steve Dufourny: on 10/13/19 at 10:24am UTC, wrote lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have...

Steve Agnew: on 10/12/19 at 20:46pm UTC, wrote There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/12/19 at 17:59pm UTC, wrote Steve A, thanks still for developping, like I said I respect your general...

Steve Agnew: on 10/12/19 at 15:03pm UTC, wrote It is fun to comment on the fqxi blog and it is very interesting to see so...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/12/19 at 8:36am UTC, wrote an other thing that we can extrapolate like assumtion is that we cannot...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/12/19 at 8:01am UTC, wrote Steve A, I thank you for developing.The QED is not complicated to...

Steve Agnew: on 10/12/19 at 5:01am UTC, wrote The biphoton is a very simple concept. Each CMB creation hydrogen atom...

Steve Dufourny: on 10/11/19 at 19:23pm UTC, wrote I have well read your paper and equations,in fact you have simply invented...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Yes - of course! That is what the word "quantum" means! That is what I have..." in What Will Quantum...

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, Re my words e.g.: “I believe that physicists can take accurate..." in What Will Quantum...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly..." in First Things First: The...

Robert McEachern: "You are barking up the wrong tree. It is the role of "information" and..." in Intelligence in the...

David Sloan: "Fetzer Franklin Fund has partnered with FQXi to stimulate research on the..." in Intelligence in the...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar supposedly..." in First Things First: The...

Manish Sharma: "Professional, Experience Team Management and Affordable PPC Services for..." in FQXi'ers Debate the Deep...

Steve Dufourny: "Oh My God , I have calculated my reasoning about this quantum gravitation..." in Alternative Models of...


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 BLOGS
December 6, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Demon in the Machine — Paul Davies at the 6th FQXi Meeting [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 20, 2019 @ 18:42 GMT
Paul Davies
Earlier this month, astronomers announced the discovery of water in the atmosphere of a potentially habitable planet, some 111 light years or 650 million million miles from Earth. The planet, called K2-18b, is reported to be a plausible candidate for hosting alien life.

What will those searching for signs of life be looking for? The plan is usually to watch for gases in the atmosphere of planets and moons that could only have been produced by living organisms, although in this case, because K2-18b is so far away, it will take the next generation of space telescopes to pick out such evidence. That covers life that we are familiar with, but what if these distant worlds harbour ‘life, but not as we know it’? What will scientists look for then?

As Paul Davies, a physicist and FQXi member at Arizona State University noted at FQXi’s 6th International Meeting in Tuscany, in July, astrobiologists don’t have a “life-meter” that can detect life in any form it may take because scientists don’t yet have a clear definition of what constitutes life in the first place.

In his talk, which you can now watch on FQXi’s YouTube channel, Davies describes his quest for a definition of life in terms of information. Embryo development marks a “meticulous choreography of organised information, all the right bits end up in the right place at the right time,” says Davies. “A wonderful example of the power of information to sculpt physical forms, living forms.”

In particular, Davies is searching for a boundary that an entity crosses in its ability to process information — a “demonic cut” — enabling it to manipulate and exploit information in a controlled way. Does this ability mark the transition from being a non-living to a living thing? (The term ‘demonic’ here is a reference to Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell’s hypothetical demon, which can seemingly violate the laws of thermodynamics to produce useful work based on its knowledge about a system.)

An intriguing question that came up a few times at the meeting is whether big questions about the origin of life, consciousness, intelligence and agency, can be explained by known physics. A few weeks ago, I posted an edition of the podcast featuring Carlo Rovelli’s work to understand decision-making by better investigating aspects of psychology, physics, cosmology, biology and information theory. Rovelli acknowledges there are many open questions, but he believes they can eventually be answered with today’s science.

Davies, however, takes the opposite view. He’s not calling for a supernatural explanation for these features, but in recent years, as he describes in the video, he has started to think that we need a new kind of physics to get to the bottom of these deep issues about our origins — a new kind of physical law. With FQXi member Sara Walker, he is investigating so-called “state-dependent laws of information.” You can think of these shifting laws like the rules of chess changing mid-game depending on the configuration of the chess pieces at different points.



So, do you agree with Davies that these questions will need new physics? Or, like Rovelli, do you think that we simply need to better understand the science we already know? Or would you say that, perhaps, these puzzles lie beyond the scope of science?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Robert H McEachern wrote on Sep. 20, 2019 @ 20:24 GMT
"do you agree with Davies that these questions will need new physics?"

It all depends on what you mean by "new physics":

In Mischa Schwartz's Information Theory textbook "Information Transmission, Modulation, and Noise", 3rd edition, Mcgraw-Hill, 1980, on page 9, you will find this statement, about the nature of information: "The key phrase here is unpredictable change." The point being, that anything that is predictable, is non-information - by definition.

On the other hand, traditional physics, is the search for and study of phenomenon, that are predictable, and thus are necessarily, virtually devoid of "information". So until some "new physics" recognizes that "information acquisition" is not about enabling better predictions, but is instead, all about enabling complex systems to respond in real-time, to totally unpredictable situations (via behaviors driven by real-time observations, rather than predictions), there is little hope that it will contribute anything useful to the study of life, consciousness, free-will, or any other phenomenon which is not devoid of information.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Mark Wolfe replied on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 02:02 GMT
I cannot say that I am enthusiastic about where philosophy has led us. We would be better off, happier as a people, if we believed that God, ghosts, magic and the paranormal could enter our universe through the probabilities of quantum mechanics. We don't need another spider web covered, dusty, anti-free will/anti-God/anti-magic theory. But we do need people who are hopeful about future tech and aliens that might be hidden away at area 51. God bless you and may you ride safely down the highway without bumping into aliens. :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Robert H McEachern replied on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 13:45 GMT
Why avoid the alien? I am a Stranger in a Strange Land. Philosopher, heal thyself - simply cut the Gordian knot that is restraining you - if you wait for others to appear and unravel it for you, you may be waiting for a very long time - for they are too busy, avoiding the alien.

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 22, 2019 @ 22:24 GMT
Re “I think this can only be explained by … a new KIND of physical law; and what kind of physical law? Well, one idea that Sara Walker and I flirted with is STATE DEPENDENT laws of information. And if you take chess as an analogy, chess follows a set of fixed rules, and there is a stupendous number of different configurations of the pieces that you can have on the chessboard, but a much larger number of possible configurations which cannot be reached…but if you had a modified game of chess in which the rules of chess could be updated according to the state of play then this opens the way to new forms of complexity, new forms of configuration that would simply be impossible by any other means.” Physicist Paul Davies [1] :

Paul Davies has been talking about algorithms for quite a while now [2]. Algorithms are all about outcomes that depend on situations, as opposed to outcomes that are determined by law of nature equations.

E.g. with an equation like x + y = z, the outcome z depends on the mathematical relationship x + y ;

but with an algorithm like

IF x = n1 OR y = n2 THEN z = n3

the outcome z depends on a numerical situation [3]. Algorithms require knowledge of numbers, as opposed to knowledge of mathematical relationships.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 22, 2019 @ 22:26 GMT
(continued)

Seemingly algorithmic representations are not entirely “new physics” because 1) the delta symbol in the equations of physics represents an algorithmic procedure (i.e. one that looks at numbers); and 2) in quantum events, numeric outcomes depend on the situation e.g. whether or not one of the double-slit openings has a detector at the slit.

…………………………….

1. 14:20 of 19:25, “The Demon in the Machine” by Paul Davies at the 2019 6th International FQXi Conference, "Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World.", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SnJdp-hzrY

2. “The algorithmic origins of life”, Sara Imari Walker and Paul C. W. Davies, 6 February 2013, https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsif.201
2.0869

3. x y and z represent variables; n1, n2 and n3 represent numbers.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Sep. 23, 2019 @ 23:03 GMT
Clearly, life needs to be able to respond to situations, and not just follow rules.

Responding to situations is represented by algorithms, but following rules is represented by equations. The symbolic representations (algorithms and equations) show that responding to situations is an entirely different thing to following rules.

But what does this mean about the nature of the world?

1. Responding to situations requires knowledge/consciousness of particular aspects of the situation (represented by numbers that apply to variables): responding to situations requires (what can only be described as) a pre-existing subjective consciousness of the numbers and variables.

2. In many situations, the response (represented by algorithms) will be one-off: responding to situations often requires (what can only be described as) “free will”: an algorithm will often represent “free will”.

Physicist Paul Davies asks: “How do we join together the world of physics with the world of information or biology?” [1]. Clearly, the only logical way to join the 2 together is by saying that primitive matter has (a proto) subjective knowledge/consciousness and (a proto) free will.

………………

1. 8:30 of 19:25, “The Demon in the Machine” by Paul Davies at the 2019 6th International FQXi Conference, "Mind Matters: Intelligence and Agency in the Physical World.", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SnJdp-hzrY

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 24, 2019 @ 17:32 GMT
Lorraine,

All this can be resumed with these parameters,locomotion,reproduction,nutrition,consciousness,f
reewill,determinism,interactions,encodings,and too evolution.Evolution is an important parameter to take into account.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 24, 2019 @ 17:16 GMT
Hi all,

The astrobiology is fascinating. Of course life is an emergent property of our universe and its more than 10000 billions of galaxies. On Earth we know that H CNO are the building blocks of lifes. I remember the experiment of Oparine I think mimating the primordial soap on earth billions years ago.He has tried many combinations with HCN H2C2 H2O CH4 NH3 …...and in adding Energy like pression or electricity or others he has created amino acids,arginin if my memory is correct. This is fascinating. Now the big question is "have we Always HCNO like foundamentals for these emergent lifes or can we have others parameters than HCNO.I Don't know. But in all case we aren't alone,we are numerous Inside this universal sphere in evolution spherisation. Fascinating is a weak word.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 14:40 GMT
About this Planet and its lifes and interactions,here is an important point in all humility.

This planet needs to have real universal governances.Sadly it's not the case.Hormons,vanity,power,money govern this planet.It's sad because the solutions exist.

I try to convice UN with these solutions.Liberation of funds of this world-bank,industrialisation of our solar system and harmonisation of ecosystems on earth.That will catalyse,boost the governments and they shall be able to give water,food,energy,jobs,hopes to majority.All wins in this reasoning.I Don't understand what do the high sphères of power because they exist these solutions.

If people ,wise,smart,conscious don't understand this ,so they must retrurn at school ,or forget their vanity

For the climate,it's too late,it's the adaptation the most important

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 23:03 GMT
The imaginary “demon in the machine” (that Paul Davies refers to) can only be represented algorithmically:

IF (high speed particle is heading for the door) THEN (open door to let it through) ELSE (leave door closed).

But there are aspects of the real world that can only be represented via algorithms: equations and numbers can’t represent these aspects of the world. E.g. number change can only be represented algorithmically. But physics seems to be unaware of the necessary role of the aspects of the world that we would represent algorithmically.

Computer programming has made clear that any moving or evolving system (e.g. our world) requires not only equations and numbers to represent it: it requires algorithms to represent number change or any change at all.

Zeeya asks: “do you agree with Davies that these questions will need new physics?” I would say that physics needs to recognise what has been in front of their eyes all along: the aspect of the world that we would represent algorithmically.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 10:23 GMT
Hello,

We have many secrets to discover,mainly this dark matter ,this dark Energy and this quantum gravitation.Algorythms are important Indeed and we can superimpose these unknowns.

This conjecture ADS/CFT Correspondance if we Apply the sphères can be solved in inserting the good method,but not easy .Mtheory and yang mills works are of course relevant.This dark matter probably can permit to see clearer if we superimpose this matter non baryonic to our standard model and at this cosmological scale.The FRWL metrics can be better understood in considering probably this cold,this zero absolute.The quantum gravitation can appear even if we encircle our quantum and cosmological scales.The Maldacena duality and holographic principle can converge with the good compactification.But I agree it's difficult. :)

see too the relevance to consider the Poincarré conjecture

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 14:09 GMT
See now this fractal of spherical volumes,spheres in begining with the biggest central sphere the number 1 and now we Apply a serie in decreasing the volumes and increasing the number with primes,we see that space disappears.Now let's converge with our standard model and the fractalisation of forces.We have an interesting road for the gap mass and glueballs problem.The compactification can be better understood and the colors confinement too.See the relevance about the gravitational aether instead of this vacuum and the possible roadfs of explaination about our quarks.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 02:25 GMT
Yes indeed...we do need a new physics that includes quantum gravity. That will also permit our physics to describe the impulse/response pair of two neurons that are the basic quantum of brain aware matter, the EEG delta wave.

Once physics gets there, we will have lots of fun...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 16:41 GMT
Hi Steve ,

Have you ideas to explain this quantum gravitation?

I have a model but I am interested to know your points of vue about this quantum weakest force that we cannot quantize and renormalize.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 10, 2019 @ 02:54 GMT
Of course, I do have a quantum gravity. Quantum gravity is basically the 1e-39th residual force of the entanglement of hydrogen and other matter's emitted photon at creation with hydrogen's bonding photon. This quantum biphoton is what gravity is...

More details are and more technical here...

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 10, 2019 @ 07:58 GMT
Thanks for sharing Steve,it is a Beautiful general attempt.I see differently,this quantum gravitation for me cannot be an emergent electromagnetic force,it has nothing to do with the photons in logic.But of course all we are free to Think like we want about all this puzzle.We have at this momemt no concret proofs about its quantization and renormalization,nobody has proved it in fact,nor Connes,Nor Penrose,nor me ,nor you,nor Gareth Lisi,nor witten,nor Verlinde or others.It lacks something to this mechanism of our standard model,I beleive strongly that we must insert new parameters superimposed,that is why I thionk that this Dark matter is an important piece of puzzle in being encoded too in nuclei.But of course all what we have at this momemt are just assumptions for all thinkers.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 17:59 GMT
Steve A, thanks still for developping, like I said I respect your general works,ideaks,papers,technical and extrapolations.But like I explained there are many assumptions like in my theory of spherisation considering these quantun and cosmological spherical volumes ,spheres in an universal sphere in optimisation evolution.In fact we are all persuaded and it is logic because there are Always a lot of researchs and studies,works Before to ponder a general theory about matter and energy.You know between us,I like your skillings and I have even learnt sometimes due to your posts.But like I said,I repeat you have many assumptions and not real proofs,the same for my gravitational coded aether.We can tell all what we want we cannot be sure about what is this aether and its cause.The same for our planck scale,we don t know what is its pure essence and its secret,we cannot simply see it,the same for my central biggest sphere ,the central BH of our universal sphere sending these informations.About the dark matter the same,you like me or Verlinde modifying the newtonian mechanics,we cannot affirm,they are still just assumptions.You tell it yourself,we know so few about the real nature and correlated laws,axioms,equations,algorythms of this universe.I am curious Steve ,tell me more philosophically speaking about your main cause of this reality,do you cobnsider with determinism a kind of God creating this physicality? if yes or if no,please explain me because you are smart and I d like to know more simply.An other question,do you consider this time like irreversible or reversible? Friendly jedi of the Sphere :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Agnew replied on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 20:46 GMT
There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the aether particle action, and the Schrodinger quantum phase. The outcome of photon quantum charge, biphoton quantum gravity, space, time, dark matter, black holes, the size of the universe, and its shape all emerge from these three assumptions.

Mainstream science has 20-30 assumptions without any proofs since assumptions by definition are beliefs where there is no sense to a proof...and yet no observation yet falsifies mattertime.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 13, 2019 @ 10:24 GMT
lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have just explained how I saw all this puzzle and I can recognize too I have many assumptions and that I must prove them and make experiments.Not easy all Days,I learn a lot of maths at this moment to be credible and objective in my future publications.Don t stop to Think Steve ,you are relevant,take care Jedi of the Sphere :)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.