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.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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 5/22/20 at 23:41pm UTC, wrote Hi Lockie, There are plenty of simple-minded people out there who think...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/22/20 at 11:20am UTC, wrote I think that a lot of the to-ings and fro-ings about 'information' in this...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/22/20 at 10:59am UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine, You stated:"The essential difference between living things...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/19/20 at 2:50am UTC, wrote Hi Lockie, Re earthworms and amoebas: I think the clue is in categories...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/19/20 at 1:00am UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine, In a previous essay comp I wrote:". With some luck some...

Peter Jackson: on 5/18/20 at 14:13pm UTC, wrote Lorraine, It'll likely be the flood next! (after the fire & pestilence) -...

Lachlan Cresswell: on 5/18/20 at 14:13pm UTC, wrote Hi Lorraine, I am always amazed that the beauty that I see around me is...

Lorraine Ford: on 5/17/20 at 14:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Rajiv, Re “these numbers become universal, not particular to the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "So what exactly is WRONG with physics, apart from the fact that physics..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "The perception generated of time difference relates to the potential..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Jim, yes indeed in a sense we have these motions and we have invented..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Jim Snowdon: "Hi Steve, Clearly we have motion in our Universe. It is not..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "You are welcome, thanks too for your words. I have never lost the faith..." in The Present State of...

Georgina Woodward: "For completeness: Concerning The curved spacetime of GR. Alteration of the..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "Thank you. Good luck." in The Nature of Time

Lorraine Ford: "Rob, As you have not replied, I take it that you now concede that the..." in 16th Marcel Grossmann...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

Can Choices Curve Spacetime?
Two teams are developing ways to detect quantum-gravitational effects in the lab.

The Quantum Engine That Simultaneously Heats and Cools
Tiny device could help boost quantum electronics.

The Quantum Refrigerator
A tiny cooling device could help rewrite the thermodynamic rule book for quantum machines.


FQXi FORUM
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest (2019-2020) [back]
TOPIC: The Outcomes of Logical Analysis Are Unpredictable by Lorraine Ford [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 8, 2020 @ 01:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

Logical analysis, and the response to this logical analysis, are fundamentally different aspects of the world to the aspect of the world that is represented by law of nature relationships between variables.

Author Bio

Lorraine is a former computer analyst and programmer. She lives with her husband, some wacky ducks, and a wild and colourful flowering garden that is alive with birds and the occasional possum, and buzzing with bees and other insects.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share


David Brown wrote on Mar. 9, 2020 @ 11:20 GMT
“The problem for physics is that logical analysis (of the numbers), and the response to this logical analysis, is a fundamentally different aspect of the world to the aspect of the world that is represented by law of nature relationships (between the variables). The problem for physics is that analysis of the numbers is separate and distinct from relationships between the variables.”

What are numbers? What are variables? Do the answers to the 2 preceding questions involve concepts about infinity? If we think of a variable as a physical quantity that is alterable, changeable, or mutable, then we must consider the basics concepts of time, space, energy, and quantum information.

Stephen Hawking wrote, “Although there have been suggestions that spacetime may have a discrete structure, I see no reason to abandon the continuum theories that have been so successful.”

”The Nature of Space and Time” by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking, 2000, pbk edition, Chapter 1, page 4

Is Milgrom the Kepler of contemporary cosmology? Please google “kroupa milgrom”, “mcgaugh milgrom”, “sanders milgrom”, and “scarpa milgrom”. Do the empirical successes of MIlgrom’s MOND require a new concept of time? I have conjectured that there are 3 basic concepts of time: Newtonian time, Einsteinian time, and Wolframian time. Fredkin has conjectured that nature is finite and digital. Wolfram has conjectured that there are 4 or 5 simple rules that yield empirically satisfactory approximations to quantum field theory and general relativity theory. I have conjectured that the 4 ultra-precise gyroscopes of Gravity Probe B worked to within design specifications — am I wrong? I conjecture that the 2 greatest scientific predictions of the 21st century are: (1) The Riofrio-Sanejouand cosmological model is (approximately) empirically valid. (2) dark-matter-compensation-constant = (3.9±.5) * 10^–5 . Are the 2 preceding predictions wrong?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 9, 2020 @ 15:17 GMT
David,

One can think of numbers and variables as symbols, written on a piece of paper, that we use to represent aspects of the real world (e.g. aspects like relative mass, pressure, wavelength and position).

These variables seem to represent natural categories of information that exist in the world. These categories have no stand-alone existence; the categories only exist in lawful relationship with other such categories; when transposed, the categories are the lawful relationships. Unlike their symbolic representations on a piece of paper, the lawful relationships/ categories have genuine power over outcomes in the world.

Somewhat similarly, a number applied to a category represents a genuine aspect of the world. Superficially, numbers are not like categories; but maybe numbers ultimately derive from relationships where the categories just cancel out. Most certainly, numbers in the real world can have nothing to do with set theory, because set theory involves something or someone performing a series of algorithmic steps.

I would think that the time category is not like the mass or position categories. Mass and position are both representable as lawful mathematical relationships. I think that time on the other hand can only be represented as an algorithmic step (taken when a number that applies to another category changes).

Bookmark and Share


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 10, 2020 @ 02:53 GMT
Cool words Lorraine Ford,

………………………….. However, physics does not have any theoretical backing for the idea that an outcome could be a response to the logical analysis of a set of incoming numbers. This logical analysis and its associated outcome can only be represented (often only after the fact) as IF…THEN… statements.

Laws of nature are represented by fixed relationships between the variables, so that given the incoming numbers for the variables, the numeric outcomes should be predictable. But if an IF…THEN… logical analysis of the incoming numbers for the variables has taken place, not all the numeric outcomes for the variables representing the outcomes for the living thing will be predictable……………………….

You are a NATURE lover!!!!

Your logical analysis is very good, you told the concept in very few words!!!!

I request you to please see Dynamic Universe model for some of such NATURE representing questions and many of the fundamental and foundational questions about this model are explained in my essay, in addition….

Ofcourse additionally I just elaborated what should be the freedom available to an author when the “real open thinking” is supported. How I got this Dynamic Universe Model………….

“A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory’s Philosophy”

Please write a word on my essay.......

=snp.gupta

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 10, 2020 @ 20:54 GMT
SNP Gupta,

Thanks for reading my essay, and for your favourable comments about it.

Bookmark and Share

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 11:34 GMT
Hope you will see my essay also

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 10, 2020 @ 10:07 GMT
Dear Lorraine;

The birds aren’t singing right now here in France because it rains., but spring is coming so there will be a lot of rumour in our gardens.

I read your compact essay, and conclude that the end conclusions are the same as in the part of my essay where I am treating “Artificial Intelligence versus Artificial Consciousness”. Algorithms will stay only algorithms (I try to explain why). Artificial Consciousness is not yet created, but maybe…and then this entity will also be aware of the beauty and the madness of our reality.

I hope this will give you enough reasons to read my essay (click here) and maybe leave a comment.

Good day to you and your husband.

Wilhelmus de Wilde

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 10, 2020 @ 20:42 GMT
Wilhelmus,

Thanks for reading my essay.

My essay is not about computers/ AIs or consciousness. I never mention consciousness in my essay. I only mention computers/ AIs because many people (including many physicists) have ignorant and irrational beliefs about computers/ AIs, and haven’t a clue about how they work.

My essay is more about the analytic abilities that characterise people and other living things, which can only be represented as IF…THEN… algorithms: equations can’t do the job. I only mention computers/ AIs because many people wrongly equate the analytic abilities and behaviour of living things with the symbolic algorithmic “behaviour” that is happening inside computers/ AIs.

You yourself don’t understand how computers work, judging by your comment: “Artificial Consciousness is not yet created, but maybe…and then this entity will also be aware of the beauty and the madness of our reality”. I have tried to explain in my essay why what you say in your comment is not possible.

Bookmark and Share

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 14:23 GMT
Lorraine,

You are quite right, I am not a computer technician (nerd). I use them.

I also think that "not possible" is a time-related expression. There are so many things that were analysed as impossible in the past (on example: entanglement) and now are common sense. We just don't know the future.

That is my perception, so everybody has his own awareness just as you are, the only way to get progress is respect.

best regards

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 11, 2020 @ 21:43 GMT
Wilhelmus,

When it comes to computers/ AIs we do know the types of things that are possible, and it is not possible for computers/ AIs to become conscious. I have tried to explain what is happening inside computers in my essay, even though computers/ AIs are not the actual topic of my essay.

I think it is wrong and dangerous for prominent people to mislead the people of the world about the nature of computers/ AIs. Physicist Max Tegmark has misled people, but so have many others including associate professor Roman Yampolskiy (department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Louisville) in this essay contest. E.g. Yampolskiy includes the following nonsense quote in his essay: “Hibbard points out safety impact from incomprehensibility of AI: “Given the incomprehensibility of their thoughts, we will not be able to sort out the effect of any conflicts they have between their own interests and ours.”” and spouts complete drivel about the supposed existence or possible existence of “superintelligences”.

How can one respect these idiotic prominent people who should know better, and who mislead the public about an important item we use every day: computers/ AIs?

Regards,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share

Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 10:03 GMT
Lorraine

I agree with you that is a lot of nonsense-interpretations in the science world. As for AI you have the same opinion as mine, I think, it is overestimated. Everything that is beginning with "deep" has got a special aura, that it doesn't deserve.

I didn't read the essay of Yampolski (I don't even know his name) but indeed his interpretations are far away from the reality as it is now. Until now the programming is purely deterministic and can be fully understood by (some) humans. He is creating Ghosts...

What I am referring to as "respect" is only the fact that people are using their minds to try to explain their reality. Yampolski is doing that, I may not agree (at all), so I will start a discussion, if he doesn' listen, so be it, but I won't be irritated, better just laugh.

Wilhelmus

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Shawn Halayka wrote on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 00:49 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

I liked your essay. It was short, which is good.

Do we agree that am artificial neural network is a function approximator?

Are you Canadian? I'm from Saskatchewan.

- Shawn

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 12, 2020 @ 22:59 GMT
Shawn,

Thanks for reading my essay. I’m from Australia, land of the koalas, possums, kangaroos and hundreds of species of gum trees and other natural wonders.

Artificial neural networks are no different to other computers/ AIs because they all use symbolic representations of information. From the point of view of a human being something might be “a function approximator”. From the point of view of an artificial neural network, computer or AI, nothing more sophisticated than high and low voltages are happening.

To quote from my essay:

From the point of view of a computer/ AI (not that it actually has a genuine point of view), binary digits are an uncrackable code, several layers of an uncrackable code. Computers/ AIs can’t know that their high and low voltages are meant to represent zeroes and ones, and that these zeroes and ones are part of a binary digit system of representation. And computers/ AIs can’t crack this binary code: they can’t know that groupings of these high and low voltages are meant to represent letters, words and sentences in a language (like Indian, French, English or Chinese), and numbers. And the computer/ AI is not devoting resources to cracking this binary code; at all times the computer/ AI is doing nothing but following the path determined by the computer programmer’s program.

Bookmark and Share

Shawn Halayka replied on Mar. 13, 2020 @ 02:37 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

You're welcome.

We have bears here too, but these ones are bloodthirsty! :)

- Shawn

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 09:02 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

It is very important that you consider the language of Nature, its understanding and the so-called "artificial intelligence". But is that LOGICS we use to understand the language of Nature? To understand the desired (initial, generating) logic of Nature is to understand the «LOG-os”.

Why do we say “artificial intelligence” and not “artificial quasi-intelligence”? For a more successful commercial promotion of electronic machines? Will “artificial quasi-intelligence” ever be able to work on the basis of dialectic ontologics?

All the FQXi’s contests tell us one thing: Problem №1 is the problem of the ontological basification (justification+substantiation) of mathematics, “queen of sciences”, and therefore knowledge in general. Hence the problem of the philosophical basis of number theory.

Why do mathematicians «sweep under the carpet» the main problem of cognition - the problem of the ontological basification of Mathematics, which is more than a century old?

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 14, 2020 @ 22:45 GMT
Hello Vladimir :-) ,

Re “is that LOGICS we use to understand the language of Nature?”:

I would think that we subjective beings are what nature is; we are not separate from it, we are not above it. But to communicate with each other, and to represent our world, we need to use written and spoken symbols. Examples of these written and spoken symbols are:

1. Words and sentences;

2. Equations (e.g. to represent law of nature relationships between categories of information); and

3. IF…THEN… symbols (to represent logical analysis).

Equations can represent fixed law-of-nature relationships between categories of information, but they can’t represent logical analysis of the numbers that apply to these categories. Physics has completely failed to notice that you can’t run a world without something being able to do a logical analysis of the numbers that apply in a particular situation or event !!!!

The IF…THEN… symbols represent an imperfect logical analysis of a particular situation and its outcomes. For a particular situation:

A) The “IF” bit essentially represents an analysis of the current numbers for the categories; and

B) The “THEN” bit represents a response to this analysis (which is not a response to laws of nature – it is a free response)).

I would think that IF…THEN… is one way of representing consciousness and free will. You can’t do physics, mathematics or philosophy without IF…THEN… .

Re “artificial intelligence”:

There is no artificial intelligence: AIs are not intelligent – they might have a superficial appearance of intelligence from the point of view of observers of the AI. Inside AIs, there is nothing going on except high and low voltages that are determined by the computer program and the inputs to the computer program.

However, our construction and use of computers and AIs has illustrated the central importance of IF…THEN… if we want to represent the underlying elements that are driving the world.

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 15, 2020 @ 08:56 GMT
Hello Lorraine :-),

The question is only about "grasping" (understanding) the structure of "IF ..."

Physics gives us a scientific picture of the world: "If there is a "big bang", then born as a result of the WORDS, LANGUAGE and MIND ...

Thus, the main question for cognition: THE PRIMORDIAL ONTOLOGICAL STRUCTURE.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 16, 2020 @ 00:12 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Is IF…THEN… an appropriate way of symbolically representing what living things do? I think it is. This is how I would describe the structure:

The “IF” part represents the current or theoretical situation that a living thing is encountering. It may represent a person encountering a tiger or a butterfly, or a mathematician confronting a mathematical problem. The situation encountered by the person needs to be imagined as being representable by variables and numbers, so that “IF (variable1 = number1 AND variable2 = number2 AND variable3 = number3 …..) IS TRUE” is imagined as representing the true situation facing a person or other living thing.

However, these variables and numbers only represent the raw light and sound information that a living thing receives from the environment: the raw categories of information are analysed by the living thing in order to acquire higher-level information about the situation being encountered. “Tiger” and “butterfly” are higher-level categories of information about the situation being encountered. So the situation being encountered is (partly) representable as: “IF tiger IS TRUE” or “IF butterfly IS TRUE”.

(But, living things can make mistakes in their analysis: a cat or a person can often think (for a fleeting moment) that a dry brown leaf blown around by the wind is a scurrying mouse. Re this essay contest: the results of analysis can be unpredictable.)

Laws of nature do not respond to higher-level categories of information like “tiger” and “butterfly”. So, the THEN… response to an IF… situation encountered, is not fully prescribed by laws of nature. Also, the THEN… response to an IF… situation encountered, is not fully prescribed by the IF… situation: the THEN… response is partly a free/ creative response to the IF… situation. Re this essay contest: the THEN… response is at least partly unpredictable.

Do you think this has similarities to your Primordial Ontological Structure?

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 16, 2020 @ 16:38 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Yes, your example pushes thinking to the next step, to the ultimate, deepest analysis ... I ask myself the main question: what kind of structure underlies not only the “life world”, any events in it, but also the Universe as a whole. Therefore, the “thinking creature” in me is an observer who is inside this structure (“inscribed” in it) and observes the ABSOLUTE (unconditional) FORMs of the existence of matter (absolute states), as a result of interaction (“coincidence of opposites”) of which LIFE is born and the very thinking and self-conscious being - we humans. IN-FORMA-TION is a phenomenon. NOUMEN, which gives rise to the phenomenon of "information" - is "ontological (cosmic, structural) memory." At the heart of the Universe, the "life world", the phenomenon of thinking and consciousness lies a primordial generating (ontological) structure. The concept of “structure” is the key, basic for science as a whole. Recall the "les structures mere" ("generating", "maternal") Bourbaki in the "Architecture of Mathematics". Those, this is a structural ontological approach. It is the unity of ultimate analysis and ultimate synthesis.

That is, the thought is constantly working on the question: what (which structure) generates “IF” and “THAT” ... that is, I try to simulate the process of generating more and more new structures and meanings.

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 18, 2020 @ 20:53 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

I think we are saying similar things or the same thing.

Re “I ask myself the main question: what kind of structure underlies not only the “life world”, any events in it, but also the Universe as a whole”:

I would think that the basic structure is what is symbolically representable as: 1) categories/ variables which only exist as part of lawful relationships; and 2) numbers assigned to the variables. In so called “quantum events”, new numbers are in effect assigned to some of the variables [1]. I.e. new structure has been generated/ created.

Exactly what is generating the new structure? I would think that what we describe as “matter” (particles, atoms, molecules and living things) is the only thing that can be generating new structure. This generation of new structure can be represented (only after the fact – it can’t be predicted) by IF…THEN… logical steps.

1. The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment shows that such micro events can have macro consequences.

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 19, 2020 @ 13:59 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

1. On the understanding of "matter". "Schrodinger’s cat" will not help here ... Quantum mechanics is a parametric (phenomenological, operationalist) theory without an ontological basification (justification) ...

To understand is to “grasp the structure” (G. Gutner “Ontology of mathematical discourse”). This is true for mathematics and physics. Today, physics has run into “dark matter”, “anti-matter”, “quarks”, “gluons”, and “singularity”. In order to “grasp” the basic structure, it is necessary that the holistic paradigm — the Universum as a whole — come to the aid of the atomistic paradigm (“sand grain paradigm”). Here we need a new deeper ONTOLOGY - the ontology of “coincidence of opposites”.

Scientists have such a metaphor: “Matter" = “Proteus of Nature”.

Let us recall the ancient Greek mythology of Proteus, his daughter Eidotheus, the “goddess of form” and Menelaus. Eidothea is the daughter of the sea deity Proteus and the goddess of sea sand Psamata. When the ship of Menelaus, returning from the Trojan War, was brought by storm into Egypt, where Proteus reigned, Eidotheus told Menelaus how to get his father to show him the way to return to Greece. And let's also remember that the “first entity” is FORM. (Aristotle). From “form” - one step to understanding the nature of INFORMATION, its ontological status.

Here we need a new (old) view of matter in the spirit of Plato: Matter is that from which all forms are born. But taking into account all the problems of physics and cosmology. What are the FORMS? Absolute (unconditional) forms of existence of matter, that is, absolute (unconditional) states. Here the deepest ontology should come - DIALECTIC ONTOLOGY.

2. About the logic. What logic should be taken to move together to the truth? And what language should we take as a basis in order to better understand each other? The language of Nature? The language of matter? What is its ontological structure?

Mathematician Alexander Zenkin writes in the article SCIENTIFIC COUNTER-REVOLUTION IN MATHEMATICS:

"About thirty years ago, for the sake of" sports interest "I began to collect various" logics "used in modern logical-mathematical treatises. When their amount exceeded the second hundred, it has become clear: if the logic can be selected "on a taste" (or even can be constructed "on a need"), such notion as "science" becomes here simply inappropriate. Perhaps, the situation somewhat reminds the famous "Babylon" epic: the sounds - symbols of abstract speeches are almost the same, but the sense, if that is present, of everyone is peculiar. What was the end of the First Babylon is described in The Holy Bible ... "

At the end of the article, A. Zenkin concludes: “the truth should be drawn ...”

What logic to apply? How many “categories” and “numbers” are necessary and sufficient to “draw the truth”? I believe that the only generating logic - “the mother of all logics” - DIALECTIC ONTOLOGIC. The logic of coincidence of ontological opposites.

Can you name another “logic of all logics” for “grasping” and “drawing” the base structure?

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 21, 2020 @ 22:42 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

1. I only mentioned “Schrödinger's cat” because many people try to claim that micro events are smoothed out at the macro level, and can’t have macro consequences. To me, the only significance of the “Schrödinger's cat” thought experiment is that micro events can have macro consequences. The commonly held idea that a cat could be in a “quantum” superposition of alive and dead states is a ridiculous science-fiction idea.

2. Re “Can you name another “logic of all logics” for “grasping” and “drawing” the base structure?”:

If you are asking what underlies the world, I would say that it has always been the same stuff, back then and right now. The world comprises things (i.e. matter) that know about information relationships, are structured by these information relationships, and have the ability to create new information relationships. This can seemingly only be done in the form of many semi-independent things (i.e. matter) – it can’t be done in the form of a single undivided monolithic lump of matter.

The things are different to the relationships; the relationships/ laws are the categories of information. What makes the world come alive is applying numbers to the categories (where numbers can seemingly only be derived from relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out), e.g. applying numbers to the mass category. However, I think that the things and the relationships and the numbers are all part of the one world: there is no separate external Platonic realm of fixed forms, laws and numbers that rules the world. The world structures itself with its rules; the world rules itself.

And I think there is no Platonic or separately existing logic that rules the world. Logic is not a rule. “Logic” is a word that describes the inherent abilities and inherently free behaviour of things: 1) analysing information about their situation; and 2) responding to this analysis of their situation. Logic is what the world does.

I believe in the world. I don’t believe in external entities or Platonic realms. We can perhaps identify the “base structure” of the world, but we can’t explain the “base structure” of the world.

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 22, 2020 @ 10:54 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

Thank you very much for your clarifications and answers. I invite you to look at my ideas and my understanding of Logic (“Logic of all logics”), on the basis of which Nature talks with us and my approach to the construction of the basic structure of Nature and cognition. I look forward to your critical comments and questions as this is very important to me.

You correctly wrote earlier in the FQXi Blog regarding the modern “the world being undecidable, uncomputable, and unpredictable”. The current situation in the world introduces maximum Uncertainty into the existence of Humanity. Obviously, this also depends on the crisis of understanding in the philosophical basis of Fundamental Science. We all live in the hope of overcoming this crisis by joint and individual efforts to create a more sustainable joint future on planet Earth in an era of ever-increasing existential threats and risks.

Respectfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear Vladimir,

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify my essay. Basically, I contend that we and other living things (and even particles) literally embody every aspect of the nature of the world; and that physicists and philosophers have taken for granted the necessary logical aspect of the world, failing to notice or appreciate that they themselves literally embody this logical aspect. Looking forward to reading your essay.

Thanks for the songs: “Here, on a unknown path, waiting for complex scenarios. Hope – my compass the earth…” and “My fine and distant future. Please don’t be so cruel” indeed!

Bookmark and Share

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 08:07 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

I look forward to your questions and critical comments on the ideas of my essay.

With best wishes, first of all health, in this difficult time for all Earthlings,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 25, 2020 @ 18:46 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

I hope your wombats, daffy ducks et al survived the fires ok. I spent much time with F&F around Aus recently. Great country in so many ways I was devastated watching the destruction.

I had to read your essay twice to really get what you were saying, lucky it was so short! But beautifully written as always. Fascinating and original way of looking at relationships, which of course I agree with. There's no direct link between the data analysis and the laws.

I found it particularly interesting as I addressed the very foundations of logical analysis and the Laws of Physics in my own essay, finding them flawed. I hope you find time to read and comment.

I don't find brevity an issue and think you talk more pertinent sense in 2 pages than many do in 9. Well done.

Very best wishes,

Peter

PS Whereabouts in Aus are you?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 26, 2020 @ 22:36 GMT
Hi Peter,

Yes, my ducks are OK thank you. Where I am in Victoria, we had a lot of smoke haze from the fires, but no fires. What a year for the country: heat and drought; devastating fires and loss of wildlife and forest and even the soil itself deeply burned; flooding rain; pandemic!

Thanks for reading my essay, and your positive comments. I’m glad you get the point about logical analysis of situations and events, which I’m claiming is a necessary elementary aspect of the world, a necessary complement to the elementary law of nature aspect of the world, which can’t do logical analysis.

I look forward to reading and commenting on your essay.

Bookmark and Share

Peter Jackson replied on May. 18, 2020 @ 14:13 GMT
Lorraine,

It'll likely be the flood next! (after the fire & pestilence) - or hopefully that was just Queensland last year. Thanks for your comments & questions on mine. I post my reply below to save you searching;

Lorraine,

Thanks. It's range leaves many 'holes' but filled by the references, and all should see there are no holes in the logic and rationale.

"Does this movement in the ether dampen and dissipate, continually requiring new movements..?"

It doesn't 'require' more motions as much as 'provide' them! The original "instability" gives the first vortex pair. Their motions then each propagate TWO more, so the Reproduction (R) number is 2, and thus the universe develops, grows AND recycles! Old cosmology, which we now know has big inconsistencies, will suggest that's 'wrong', BECAUSE it's consistent!

What is the "law of nature relationships?". There truly isn't one! Just mathematical approximations, i.e. QM. I show that QM can be RATIONAL!! Again; quantum physicist will deny it's possible because nature is illogical! I show it isn't. Can YOU decide if the equator of a sphere is rotating clockwise(+) or anti..(-)? Or if the poles are moving up or down? No. Those TWO momenta types change inversely by Cos Theta Latitude, and invert past 90 degrees. Bohr missed that second momentum! (i.e. Maxwell's 'curl', shown on the Poincare sphere) as he focused just on maths, so invented 'quantum spin' to confound us, and logic. I gave that mechanism last year. NOBODY has found any holes, but the specialist just turn & run away screaming to hide from it!

And I haven't suggested maths is useless at all. It's an essential 'best approximation' tool for accounting, but needs keeping in it's place. Accountants are essential, but making them CEO's is usually a companies death knell!

Your 'number' for a 'colour' proves the point. The colour spectrum is made of smooth curves with 'names' assigned to certain areas. 'RED' is a wide part of that. IR Spectroscopy tells us there are as many different 'reds' as the instruments resolution allows, many thousand! Rephrasing the question to; "Am I blonde" allows a truth value assignment, but shows it's a bout 'degrees' so there's NO "excluded middle" except for the 'convenient generalisation' we're familiar with. I found only going beyond that starts to revel the nature of nature itself!

It is a quite new way of looking at the familiar.

Very best wishes. (hope it's not a drought coming!)

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Apr. 16, 2020 @ 20:05 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

In a comment you say that “what underlies the world” has always been the same stuff, back then and right now. I agree completely!

As for ‘logic’, I found Schultz’s discussion of algorithmic patterns vs non-algorithmic patterns very interesting. The limitations this contest focuses on are algorithmic. He suggests that the implied limitations on ‘knowability’ do not apply to non-algorithmic patterns.

Logical analysis occurs in the mind, and you say that “logical analysis is an aspect of the world that can’t be explained by physics...”

I agree. My understanding of consciousness is as the self-interacting field, with dynamic changes induced by flows in neurons, which in turn induce changes in neurons. In such a situation every point in the local field affects every other point, and the whole process is non-algorithmic. [Of course non-linear interactions include linear approximations where appropriate, enabling ‘logic’, but this is a tiny part of the mind.]

Not arguing with you, just presenting my picture which I think supports your views.

I invite you to read my essay and comment.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lorraine Ford replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 08:22 GMT
Thanks Edwin, for reading and thinking about my essay.

Perhaps you are saying that something deterministic/non-algorithmic underlies everything, but that when it comes to brains, the cause and effect aspect can sometimes only be represented algorithmically. Whereas I am saying that something non-deterministic/algorithmic, as well as something deterministic/non-algorithmic, underlies everything, and that the organised way that the brain derives categories of information (e.g. “tiger”) from the raw information coming from the eyes and ears indicates something definitely algorithmic, not something accidentally algorithmic. I will have to check out your essay to see!

Regards,

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share


Rajiv K Singh wrote on May. 6, 2020 @ 07:40 GMT
Dear Lorraine,

I understand that you may represent lights and sounds as numbers under certain system of representation. But when you say, "living things need to be able to respond differently to these different sets of numbers", these numbers become universal, not particular to the specific scheme of representation. How so?

You state, "This logical analysis and its associated outcome can only be represented (often only after the fact) as IF...THEN... statements." This statement does not leave a possibility for an associative processing. An associative processing results from direct activation of agents (neurons in the brain) as per the causal powers of incoming signals in hierarchy. And such processing may lead to actions, but without logically testing IF...THEN as we understand from computer codes. In fact, associative activation may also represent the relation of causal dependence of action on what the incoming signal represented, which will serve as semantics of functional or logical relation between the two and may further connect in processing where such a semantics of causal dependence statistically relates. One may ask, why do such connections form in the first place. The selection based evolution of neuronal organization can be the only basis to give rise to function of neurons that self-organize based on the statistical relevance as you correctly pointed out -- physical laws are blind to any purposeful action. As you said it yourself -- LOGICAL ANALYSIS AND ITS OUTCOMES CAN’T BE DERIVED FROM THE LAWS OF NATURE -- so selection based evolution is the only path left.

You say, "And clearly, life could not have evolved without the pre-existence of at least a small ability to logically analyse (what we would represent as) the numbers associated with the variables, and an ability to respond to this analysis." This statement goes against the understanding of selection based evolution of random modifications via mixing of chance variables. Selection and random modification are both natural physical process. Being a programmer, you may write a simple code -- think of any physical function of a set of elements with limited replenishment of resources that these elements consume. The function includes the abilities to join together in specific shapes with probabilities as atoms join to form molecules and molecules to much larger molecules and so on. Let the function also include differential need to consume resources and differential probability of replication of geometrical shapes or what ever you wish to base your probabilities on. Keep the probability differences as small as you may like. All of these functions that you coded are blind with no purpose, like laws of physics, yet, after passing of sufficient time, you will find only certain shapes are surviving, while others die out due to insufficiency of resources that different shapes needed to consume. If you observe this, then you will have to agree that any functional organization may arise, given enough time if it is better suited to survive under the blind laws of physics and enormous diversity of contexts. Even the neuronal network may emerge that represent the body conditions and their suitability limits, and neuronal function that self organize depending on the incoming signals from the environment and the the suitability of the body conditions (goals). And these neural organization may encode IF...THEN but at a huge cost of testing multitude of conditions at at each step, or simply reconnect the needful activations depending on the environmental conditions and body requirements based entirely on statistical occurrences of such relations. And such reconnections would gain stability with time requiring minimal modifications with changing context.

You say, "Computers/ AIs can’t know that their high and low voltages are meant to represent zeroes and ones, and that these zeroes and ones are part of a binary digit system of representation." Indeed, this is absolutely correct. But all states of matter bear intrinsic causal correlation with the information of precursor states and what they in turn represent that make the states a reality. Physics has entirely missed out on this, that is why physics does not deal with the semantics of information, only with the bits. Though my essay is also brief, but you may find how meaningful information arise in nature.

Rajiv

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Author Lorraine Ford replied on May. 17, 2020 @ 14:48 GMT
Dear Rajiv,

Re “these numbers become universal, not particular to the specific scheme of representation”: No, that is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Re “selection based evolution”: No. Something has to first exist before it is selected for by the environment in which it exists. Evolution is about physical features like long necks in giraffes: slightly longer necks have to first exist, and then they are selected for by the environment. This long-term evolution of physical features is quite different to the ability to survive day to day which requires the ability to discern (e.g.) food and danger in the environment and respond to food and danger, e.g. move towards the food, but move away from the danger. A thing is not living until it has at least a slight ability to discern and respond. IF THEN logical analysis is how you represent discerning and responding.

Re “neuronal function that self organize depending on the incoming signals from the environment…”: No. “Self-organise” into what? Light waves from the environment (e.g. an environment containing a tiger and a songbird) interact with the eyes, but the information coming from these interactions does not “self-organise” into tiger or tabby cat or songbird: the mind/brain organises the information. If the information just “self-organised” itself, you presumably wouldn’t need a brain at all.

Re “all states of matter bear intrinsic causal correlation with the information of precursor states”. I agree, and I would distinguish lower-level categories of information like wavelength, air pressure, relative mass and position from higher-level categories of information like “tiger”, “tabby cat” and “songbird”. These higher-level categories, which exist in the mind/brain, can only be derived from collation and analysis of the lower-level categories.

Lorraine

Bookmark and Share


Lachlan Cresswell wrote on May. 18, 2020 @ 14:13 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

I am always amazed that the beauty that I see around me is electromagnetic radiation generated by the motion of electrons. Our brains do all that amazing If....Then....Else.... processing and we comprehend a magnificent tiger or a songbird or...

I explore some ofthe issues that lead us to such abilities in my essay which I hope you will read and comment on , even though voting is probably finished.

I am going to do some voting now if the system lets me, as it is just past midnight in Melbourne.

Good Luck

Lockie Cresswell

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 19, 2020 @ 01:00 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

In a previous essay comp I wrote:". With some luck some “rocky” planets formed in the Goldilocks zone, at distances and temperatures where liquid water could exist. On one or more of these planets, which harboured carbon, nitrogen, and liquid water, complex organic chemicals formed primitive amino acids in a process known as abiogenesis. In some particular environments, such as are found in alkaline deep sea vents, some arrangements of these organic molecules were able to replicate themselves by a sort of autocatalysis reaction. The important idea here is that the required complexity was forced by the environment, a form of top down causation. Different environments selected different organic molecule arrangements, and it turned out that some of these were able to replicate themselves. Thus was formed the first molecular memory, a very special arrow of time. Forced through endless changes in its environment, this memory enabled greater complexity to arise until, at some stage, what we regard as biological life was formed. Then the various processes of evolution continued to drive greater complexity, when finally at some point consciousness arose. Maybe it was just some lucky recursive wiring of neural networks, or maybe it was just a critical mass of them, but what consciousness allowed was the formation of intent. It probably started off in simple modifications to the environment coupled with further genetic evolution, but what ultimately occurred was the arrival of intelligence. Intelligence coupled with the ability to learn, to record and manipulate memories allowed us to gain insight into our environment, and thus began the natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, and geology) and mathematics. When all this knowledge was fine-tuned by scientific method over many centuries, humans gained the ability to build a radio telescope, which, in my biased opinion, is the definition of intelligence as a process."

Here I am setting the scene for how conscious 'programming occurs in sentient animals.

You state: "It is important and necessary to point out that computers/ AIs don’t do logical analysis, and don’t decide on outcomes. Does an earthworm or an amoeba do logical analysis? I suspect they (as sentient animals) do some primitive analysis according to their DNA program as they apply some form of If....Then... analysis making a muscle contract in response to a saline gradient or light or ...

In my current essay I noted: "In the computer science field of artificial intelligence, an intelligent agent is any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximise its chance of successfully achieving its goals. In order to do this an intelligent agent needs some form of map of the past. So therefore we need to include intelligent agents along with living organisms in the ability to sense the passage of time. It may well be that a class of skuld robot (a mechanical agent/entity spawned of artificial intelligence, and endowed with free will, self-awareness, metacognition, and problem solving [luckily for all us organics not yet invented, and hopefully never to be!]) will also have an innate ability to sense the passage of time and thus project their problem solving into the future. So we can see that living organisms and intelligent agents have the mechanisms to store selected maps of the “now” so that appropriate future actions can be taken, all occurring in the “now”. Thus the passage of time, as we perceive it, does not exist as anything else other than an illusion that is necessary for living organisms to exist."

Regards

lockie

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Lorraine Ford replied on May. 19, 2020 @ 02:50 GMT
Hi Lockie,

Re earthworms and amoebas:

I think the clue is in categories of information: even an earthworm or an amoeba needs to categorise information into (something like) “food” and “danger”, and respond to these higher-level categories of information. This response is necessarily free because it is not determined by the laws of nature: you can only represent the response as (something like) IF danger THEN move away; IF food THEN move towards the food. This is just the bare bones of it, of course.

And how do you get these higher-level categories of information out of the lower-level information coming in from (e.g.) particle interactions in the eyes and ears? You can only get higher-level categories of information from collating and analysing quantities of lower-level information: this too is something that can only be represented algorithmically: you can’t do it with equations.

Re “artificial intelligence”:

The essential difference between living things and computers is that living things process information, but computers process symbolic representations of information. Symbolic representations of information (squiggles on paper, or high and low voltages in computers) are very different to the actual information the symbols represent.

Regards,

Lorraine

P.S. I have read and commented on your essay.

Bookmark and Share

Lachlan Cresswell replied on May. 22, 2020 @ 10:59 GMT
Hi Lorraine,

You stated:"The essential difference between living things and computers is that living things process information, but computers process symbolic representations of information."

I think the essential difference between skuld entities and computers is that computers don't think,saerehw skuld entities do. However I may be wrong on this as my computer typed 'wheras' backwards to inform me it was thinking. Truly it did this twice!

Regards

Lockie

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Lorraine Ford wrote on May. 22, 2020 @ 23:41 GMT
Hi Lockie,

There are plenty of simple-minded people out there who think that computers can, or potentially will be able to, think or be conscious [1]. So the question is: why will computers never think and never be conscious?

The answer is that the natural world, including the minds/brains of living things, processes information, but computers process symbols of information. Computers are the latest development in the long history of human beings using symbols, to communicate information about the world and their thoughts, which started with using written and spoken words, sentences, and mathematical symbols. Binary digits are another way of representing information; binary digits don’t actually exist: binary digits are just a concept which is implemented via high and low voltages in the circuits of computers. These high and low voltages represent information in exactly the same sense that an English word that a person has written on a piece of paper represents information from the point of view of people who can read the English language.

We symbolically represent the information that builds and drives the world as categories of number (e.g. mass, position, frequency, wavelength) which are lawfully related to other such categories of number. The world itself doesn’t run on symbols of information. Computers are useful to us because the binary digits symbolise information e.g. a computer can represent an atomic bomb explosion without the computer itself exploding.

So the important issues are:

1) Awareness that we are always using symbolic representations of something that isn’t itself a symbolic representation. Words and equations and binary digits are symbolic representations. There are layers of symbolic representation e.g. words and equations are re-represented in computers as binary digits.

2) What are we representing? Information. Unfortunately and confusingly, the word “information” is also used to represent symbols of information, and there are plenty people fighting tooth and nail for the idea that symbols ARE information, or the idea that there is an equation that defines information. Information is what underlies all the man-made symbolic representations.

Regards,

Lorraine

………………

1. E.g. Georgina Woodward in this essay contest, in a comment to essay author Grace M Lo Porto: “Hi Grace, you may find this video of Max Tegmark of interest… Can also be found in the blog "Will A.I. Take Over Physicists' Jobs?..." I think it is relevant to your writing, Concerning making AI trustworthy.A very important issue. The potential for cruelty to AI in the future,if they are programmed to have, or develop emotions of some kind is also worrisome.” Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 28, 2020 @ 06:26 GMT, https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3378

Bookmark and Share


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.