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 3/5/21 at 11:45am UTC, wrote Hi John, Jonathan, Lorraine, John you seems to be right about the symbols...

John Cox: on 3/4/21 at 21:27pm UTC, wrote Jonathan, I see what you mean, though I personally would not call a...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/4/21 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote There is nothing of exeptional in extrapolating mathematical dimensions,...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/4/21 at 17:18pm UTC, wrote So I stand by what I said... Humans did NOT invent symbols, but we DID...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/4/21 at 17:02pm UTC, wrote At least in theory... There could be a naturally occurring camera obscura,...

John Cox: on 3/4/21 at 1:58am UTC, wrote Jonathan, I'd have to side with Lorraine, here, unless you could give some...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/3/21 at 19:41pm UTC, wrote Jonathan, the extradimenions are just human inventions like the 1D, 2D, 4D,...

Jonathan Dickau: on 3/3/21 at 18:02pm UTC, wrote I think it is essential... To distinguish between 3-d and 2-d is necessary...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Lorraine, in the case of the crashing twin-towers, the term “top-down..." in The Present State of...

Stefan Weckbach: "Hi Steve, take also care Steve, and may the force of the three spheres be..." in The Present State of...

Jim Snowdon: "Since evolving on our rapidly rotating planet, we have used it`s rotational..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Steve Dufourny: "a general universal clock of evolution irreversible correlated for me with..." in The Quantum Clock-Maker...

Georgina Woodward: "If considering existence rather than appearances, the time dimension..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Georgina Woodward: "That is about the 'anatomy"" of spacetime." 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 BLOGS
September 17, 2021

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Understanding consciousness within the known laws of physics by Carlo Rovelli [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Carlo Rovelli wrote on Nov. 16, 2020 @ 07:12 GMT
Abstract: I do not share the feeling that consciousness (whatever this means) cannot be understood in the context of the known physical laws. So far we do not understand it well, but neither do we fully understand thunderstorms, for that matter. I offer three small contributions in the direction of a direct naturalistic account of consciousness: (i) a purely physical account of agency and the openness of the future, which traces the source of information to past low entropy; (ii) a purely physical basis for a simple notion of "meaning"; and (iii) a suggestion that current understanding of quantum matter (without need of panpsychism) weakens the apparent hiatus between the mental and the physical.



Keywords: Mathematical Consciousness Science

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

This forum thread is open to the public.


Robert H McEachern wrote on Nov. 16, 2020 @ 15:35 GMT
I also "do not share the feeling that consciousness (whatever this means) cannot be understood in the context of the known physical laws." I wrote an entire book about this, thirty years ago, as a rebuttal to Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind."

(i) It is the nature and amount of information, rather than its source, that really matters in "a purely physical account of agency"

(ii) "Meaning" is extrinsically attached to intrinsic "information" derived from "observation." "Information" is about the nature of the "emission", not the nature (or entropy) of the "emitter" that produced the emission. The emission (signal) is the only thing that can actually be observed.

(iii) There is ultimately no difference between the "quantum" and "classical" realms. The perceived difference is entirely due to physicists unfamiliarity with the behavior of entities that manifest only one-single-bit-of-information (quantum realm), rather than more than one (classical realm).

Rob McEachern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Nov. 28, 2020 @ 00:56 GMT
Hi all,

I would like to add one more point here in different context:

In the disease of scizophrenia person feels bodyless which indicates that soul exists and whatever written in Hindu philosophy is correct !

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


jim hughes wrote on Nov. 30, 2020 @ 01:47 GMT
We can probably say a lot more about the content of consciousness. But we never get any closer to 'explaining' the actual awareness of that content.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Dec. 2, 2020 @ 23:40 GMT
Hi all,

I have a comment below!

You can travel faster than speed of light only when you go beyond space and time!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Dec. 10, 2020 @ 16:41 GMT
I really appreciate Rovelli's very objective approach to the nature of consciousness and he is a very smart person. However, instead of understanding consciousness, understanding free choice is a much better goal since people can agree about the meaning of free choice. People do not now and never will agree about the meaning of consciousness because at the core of consciousness lies belief that is...

view entire post


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

report post as inappropriate


Steve Agnew wrote on Dec. 10, 2020 @ 17:27 GMT
Here is the EEG spectrum...no...it does not like attachments right now...

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

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 14, 2020 @ 12:23 GMT
Hi Steve Agnew, It is indeed a good work of Roveli , I liked also the ideas of Penrose, the quantum coherences and decoherences are essential , the microtubules and tubulin seems an important piece of puzzle to reach the consciousness and understand this free will. In studying several papers , I have remarked that the paramecium is interesting to analyse about the fact that they have no synaps and neurons but microtubules yes, so the ideas of penrose becomes relevant about the protoconsciousness and so implying that all is conscious at its level. The complexity so becomes essential and so the numbers also for the complexification. The free choices so can be correlated in considering the main principles of the evolution of course and Lamark becomes interesting due to will for the encodings of adaptation, see that we have the locomotion, nutrition, reproduction mainly at the basis but in the complexifiction about the free choices we arrive at this psychology, educations, encodings of informations, genetic, environments, adaptation ..... so that becomes very complex about the free will and how to define it and how to create the correlated algorythms. The neural resonances and decoherences and coherences can be better understood in ranking the oscillations vibrations in function of informations, but how they are encoded and stable in the memory and others ? In my model, the densities and volumes of spheres become essential and if we have the DM cold encoded and this DE like main codes , so we can better understand the rankings and encodings of these informations. The objectivity and subjectivity also can be correlated with the desnsities and tiume lifes of these informations encoded , Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 21, 2020 @ 23:22 GMT
Re “a purely physical account of agency and the openness of the future” Blogger Carlo Rovelli wrote on Nov. 16, 2020 @ 07:12 GMT:

Living things, including human beings, are inherently free and creative; even particles, atoms and molecules are genuinely free and creative to a much lesser extent. What is created is new relationship; we have the freedom to create new relationship. This is what agency is.

If I move from point A to point B, I personally have freely created a genuinely new relationship between myself and the rest of the world. The laws of nature did not do it: the laws of nature, and the surrounding environment are the infrastructure that supports the new relationships I create when I think or act. Naturally, the laws of nature, and the surrounding environment also restrict the possibilities for any such new relationships I might create.

Unfortunately, some scientists and philosophers have claimed that people are 100% ruled by laws of nature, which have also 100% determined the government, society and the surrounding environment, and indeed the future, which is unknowable but not open. To these scientists and philosophers, freedom is just a superficial appearance, and genuine freedom to think and act is an illusion. These scientists and philosophers are no different to the religious fundamentalists who claim that their God is 100% determining every outcome.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 22, 2020 @ 23:55 GMT
Genuine agency is where an agent creates new relationships (representable as the agent assigning new numbers to categories of variable). There is a logical difference between this assignment of new numbers by an agent, and the numbers that are the normal outcomes of the laws of nature.

Pseudo-agency is where some outcomes might superficially look like agency, but when looked at closely, pseudo-agency is merely 100% the normal operation of the laws of nature in different environments. Nothing genuinely new happens with pseudo-agency: there is no logical difference between this pseudo-agency and what happens when a ball rolls down an incline.

I think Rovelli is talking about pseudo-agency: “nothing in agency conflicts with known laws of nature; but understanding how the actual behaviour that we denote agency can be accounted for in terms of these laws is something that requires a bit of thinking.” Agency in Physics, Carlo Rovelli, https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05300

With agency, what conflicts with the ideas of physics, is the idea that matter is not entirely numb and dumb.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Kevin Pryor replied on Dec. 29, 2020 @ 02:01 GMT
The question is – how does a brain send an image to consciousness? A materialist might deny it happens but we all know it does, the question is how? Perhaps it is done electromagnetically using microtubules as antennas, the brain sends the image using a wireless code to an homunculus, a very high mass particle. Radical panpsychism is the theory that particles are conscious but free will is evident only in very high mass particles and that the particles inherited their abilities from the conscious universe.

If particle homunculi are real and the electromagnetic homuncular code is decoded, it would be very easy to give sight to the blind in a very noninvasive way! All you need is a camera, a chip that converts the image to the homuncular code, and an electromagnetic emitter to send the code to the particle homunculus mounted on eyeglasses -- no brain surgery required! It would also make virtual reality easy too!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 29, 2020 @ 14:06 GMT
Hi Kevin, it is due to our memory stored in our brain , we have evolved and interacted with our environments and we have encoded memories about our adaptation, implying that we can imagine or dream about the things encoded , a blind person since he is bornt cannot in logic dream of these environments, they have encoded and developped other abilities about the senses, but a person blind after an accident can.It is simply a visual memory more an imagination able to create these pictures. The persons blind since the birth also can create images but differently I believe because the memory has encoded simply different informations. All is a question of electric pulses and light and optic nerves in fact. We experience our environments and we encode and so we have a memory. The consciousness that said seems complex to explain , these microtubules are foundamen tal for me and the complexity of interactions and the protoconsciousness also seems relevant, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 23, 2020 @ 22:15 GMT
I have debated this question a bit with physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, and she believes that the fate of the 5000 koalas, that burned to death in the bushfires a year ago, was sealed at the beginning of the universe. On the other hand, my fundamentalist Christian sister thought that the koala deaths were unfortunate, but that “God is in control”. The physicist and the religious fundamentalist: neither of them believes that human beings (let alone animals) can intervene in the world and change the course of events.

What Rovelli is really saying is that human beings possess pseudo-agency: the superficial appearance and sense of agency at a macro level, while micro-level processes continue as normal: “The microscopic account is a wholly different story, but is of little relevance for our experience and feelings, since, by definition, we do not access it.” Agency in Physics, Carlo Rovelli, https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05300 .

Carlo Rovelli is talking about pseudo-agency, a world where the fate of the 5000 koalas, that burned to death in the bushfires a year ago, was sealed at the beginning of the universe.

But genuine agency means that agents can intervene in the world, i.e. that agents can literally intervene and change the numbers at the microscopic level.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 24, 2020 @ 23:15 GMT
Physics hasn’t yet faced up to the issue of logical analysis and choice, something that physicists and other human beings and other animals utilise all day, every day. Logical analysis and choice e.g.:

IF (my eye detects) YELLOW AND BLACK AND IF (my brain analyses) STRIPES, THEN it’s a TIGER;

IF it’s a TIGER THEN choose to MOVE FROM POSITION A TO POSITION B, but not position C or D, (to hide from the tiger)

does not derive from, and can’t be derived from, law of nature mathematical relationships between categories of information like frequency of light and relative position.

Agency (logical analysis and associated choice of outcome relevant to a particular situation) doesn’t derive from law of nature mathematical relationships. And although some logical analysis has become inbuilt in the brain over the millennia, a great deal of logical analysis and choice is necessarily on the spot and in the moment. And clearly, laws of nature are utilised by the agent to gather information about situations, and to move from position A to position B.

When are physicists going to stop the woo-woo? When are physicists going to face the fact that you can’t derive agency (logical analysis and associated choice of outcome relevant to a particular situation) from law of nature mathematical relationships?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 25, 2020 @ 21:05 GMT
Laws of nature are representable as fixed mathematical relationships between categories of variable, but laws of nature do not respond to situations.

A situation is representable as:

variable1 = N1 AND variable2 = N2 AND variable3 = N3… and so on.

Responding to a situation can only be represented as something like:

IF variable1 = N1 AND variable2 = N2 AND variable3 = N3, THEN make variable4 = N4 AND variable2 = N5 .

In other words, in order to respond to a situation, you need agency/ free will/ creativity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Dec. 31, 2020 @ 21:18 GMT
“…nothing in agency conflicts with known laws of nature; but understanding how the actual behaviour that we denote agency can be accounted for in terms of these laws is something that requires a bit of thinking.” … “The microscopic account is a wholly different story, but is of little relevance for our experience and feelings, since, by definition, we do not access it.” Agency in Physics, Carlo Rovelli, https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05300 .

Why are physicists and philosophers so woefully unfit for the challenges of the Anthropocene? Physicists believe that human beings don’t genuinely have the power to cause or to fix climate change.

Physicists believe that all outcomes are caused by laws of nature and that human beings only have pseudo-agency, the mere feeling and superficial appearance of agency.

Genuine human agency in the world DOES conflict with the ideas of physics. Genuine human agency means that matter itself can cause outcomes, in addition to the laws of nature causing outcomes.

Only if human beings have the genuine power to intervene in the world by changing the numbers for the variables at the micro-level can it truly be said that human beings genuinely have an impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 3, 2021 @ 09:55 GMT
I generally like Carlo Rovelli's humble attitude and personality.

Nonetheless I think that his ideas presented in the above video and in the referring papers are really to “meager” to ever determine what role consciousness and agency play in reality.

For example the idea that biological relevance does lead one to the “meaning of meaning” in my opinion is only consistent when...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 3, 2021 @ 12:12 GMT
Hi Stefan, it is a beautiful critic, Rovelli like the others try to generalise this hard problem of consciousness and it is not easy , we have many limitations but we can try to explain our points of vue. The big question philosophical for me is what is the origin of this consciousness and how to consider the philosophy of this origin. We know that we have brains like results of evolution , we know that we have synaps, neurons and electric puslses, the microtubules also seems important and so we can explain the different functions of our brains like the memory or different mechanisms. But we cannot really explain the body mind soul problem and if we have a continuity and how the informations are sorted, superimposed, synchronised and why they have a life time or a strong encoding if the continuity exists after the death, We have also a problem about what is this origin of our physicality, must we consider the fields and the geonetrical algebras like main cause like in the strings or the geometrodynamics with points or have we coded 3D spheres like in my model like foundamental mathematical and physical objects, we don t know in fact, we are limited. You speak about the Big Bang, it is an assumption even with the CMB, I consider personally a deeper logic than this BB , I consider also that this GR and the photons are not the only one piece of puzzle, we need to explain these deep unknowns in fact like this DE and DM, this consciousness or the quantum gravitation, I have my models but not easy to formalise them correctly even if I have reached this quantum gravitation in thinking beyond the box. The philosphy for me is essential to undertand this universe, I know that the sciences community is divided but it seems that we need a cause for our primordial informations but of course all this is beyond our understanding.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 4, 2021 @ 09:59 GMT
Hi Steve,

I agree with many of the points you made.

One point I consider as crucial here is that we are deeply immersed within causal, mechanical thinking that could lead us astray in many ways. Macroscopically, we do not know anything other than such causal, mechanical influences, we grew up with them. But we also grew up with the experience of intentional causes, means causes that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 03:27 GMT
Stefan,

and Steve, Lorraine and all, best wishes for the New Year.

I have a bit different take on the survival instinct, admittedly due to narrowly doing so at critical junctures in my life. So I must maintain a general agreement with both Darwin, and Napoleon whom once when asked what qualities he looked for in his field commanders replied, "Just one. That they have luck." And in keeping with Darwin, it would not be a very successful specie which had a survival instinct which in any form accepted an expressible notion of the Self ceasing to Be. The Void is an intellectual artifact, and nothingness something we humanly reject. Like a bird in the mouth of a cat, we freeze in expectation of a moment of escape. Yet every successful species alters the environment on which its existence depends, and the more successful a species is, the more destructive it is of its environment. So much of instinct is only generic, and most is subconscious like when you don't notice that you have cocked your foot in mid-stride narrowly missing striking your ankle bone on the spread leg of a bar stool. Rationally we can be alarmed, and should be, at the accelerating destruction of our only accessible environment. So we can count our species as being an extraordinarily successful one, but not ordained to be perfectly so. Natural selection tends to breed in a degree of failure as well as success.

Socially distantly yours, jrc

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 3, 2021 @ 23:18 GMT
Physicists and philosophers have been telling us for years and years, Y E A R S and Y E A R S, that we only have the superficial appearance of agency/ free will, we don’t have genuine agency. Carlo Rovelli, like other physicists and philosophers, doesn’t believe that genuine agency exists.

In terms of the physics, genuine agency means that human beings can determine some of the numbers for the micro-level variables, in addition to the laws of nature determining the numbers for the variables. Genuine agency means that living things (i.e. physical matter as opposed to law of nature relationships) can genuinely intervene in the world and create new outcomes.

Now the beliefs of physicists and philosophers have come back to bite them on the bum: if human beings can’t genuinely intervene in the world, if laws of nature are the only things controlling all the outcomes, then laws of nature caused climate change, and human beings can’t have made any contribution to climate change at all.

Let’s be unequivocal and clear about agency: genuine agency means that living things can somehow intervene in the world and create new outcomes; anything less than that is NOT agency.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 4, 2021 @ 21:00 GMT
The law of nature relationships do not constitute a causally closed system, because there is nothing in the laws of nature that moves the numbers for the variables forward.

The equations representing the law of nature relationships symbolise this number movement with delta symbols, but these equations are only relevant if one or more number changes have already occurred.

It is the agency of matter, on large and small scales, which changes some of the numbers for the variables, thereby moving the world forward.

The agency of matter, together with the law of nature relationships, constitute a causally closed system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 05:52 GMT
Well actually...

Strictly speaking; the statement "there is nothing in the laws of nature that moves the numbers for the variables forward" is false. Evidence of this first appeared in the work of Takesaki later explained by Tomita but more recently expounded and greatly expanded on in the work of Alain Connes.

In another FQXi thread; Tejinder Singh talks about "Connes time" being the driver of quantum mechanical evolution in the early universe, and what he is talking about is the intrinsic time evolution in non-commutative spaces (higher-dimensional reality) such as the octonions, which I am also fond of.

To expand a little on this; only the real numbers just sit there, while the complex and hyper-complex types exhibit increasing levels of dynamism. So there is indeed an evolutive property moving the numbers in variables forward, as a canonical progression. This is something Rovelli should know, having worked with Connes.

I asked Gerard 't Hooft almost the exact question you raise at FFP10 in 2009, in reference to his calculational quantum gravity "what does the calculating?" and he replied "We don't need atoms of space or whatever because the laws of nature do the calculating for us." So there is some variance on the issue of whether natural law creates the seeds of its own evolution.

I think it's actually the fact of evolutive properties preexisting in Maths that allows free will to arise or exist in living beings.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 06:17 GMT
I will briefly explain...

It is a common feature of various physical theories and the teachings of numerous mystical schools that a higher-dimensional reality exists which intersects with the physical. In cascading gravity theory; spacetime is 5 and then 6-dimensional at extreme distances, and 4-d only locally. In String theory; higher-dimensions are found in the realm of the extremely small, so in effect they are locked up in everything that is.

The thing is; there is an almost magical property where, in these higher-d spaces, numbers don't just sit there - they evolve on their own. Connes talks in glowing terms about a "god-given one parameter group of automorphisms," but the significance of this statement is obscure to most people. His famous quote is "non-commutative measure spaces evolve with time!" This is still a bit cryptic. So I'll say it straight.

This means explicitly that - if higher dimensions exist - there is something in the laws of nature that moves the numbers for the variables forward.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 10:37 GMT
Hi Lorraine and Jonathan, best wishes for this new year,

Dear Jonathan, It seems that the universe is a pure 3D at all scales, it seems the choice of the universe, like the 3D spheres in fact for me and of course it is just my opinion. Don t forget that the strings and geometrodynamics are just tools and assumptions considering the foundamental objects, I like the beauty of octonions like...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 11:58 GMT
Well actually Jonathan...

there is nothing in the laws of nature that moves the numbers for the variables forward. Period. The laws of nature are merely relationships that physicists have found, that can be represented mathematically: they are not active entities, except perhaps in your over-vivid imagination. The mystical nonsense you spout is pure bullshit.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 12:25 GMT
Hi Lorraine, why it is bullshit? Jonathan has good ideas and he is free to have his own philosophy. The sciences community is divided about the origin of our universe, we cannot affirm in fact, nobody has the answer but we can have our philosophical interpretations, I am curious, what is the origin of our universe for you ? tell us.Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 14:16 GMT
What I have proposed does not require a physical basis...

Instead I am saying that both Free Will and Physics have a common basis in pure Mathematics. There is no mysticism involved with this. And yet; when people assert that life is constituted in a soul that is the living being equipped with the freedom of choice there are only two possibilities.

One possibility is that there is a basis in Physics that allows this property to be emergent, as Carlo suggests. The other is that what makes living beings different is something non-corporeal or extra-dimensional that is real but lies beyond physical detection or explanation purely in terms of Physics.

That is the 'hard problem' everyone doing consciousness research is grappling with "what is it that makes a living being different and gives us agency?" So I have bypassed the need for a physical basis and found there is a common origin to both Physics and Consciousness in pure Math.

My Best to All,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 14:34 GMT
What the Math says is like Poetry!

This is the pattern by which free will emerges that arises from the octonions because they embody the postulates of projective geometry - the essence of perspective which rules all possible object-observer relations.

One, open, as multiplicity and formless nothingness, finds peace in true relation, and knows all as self.

One can construct an almost endless variety of similar aphorisms that describe the grand arc of learning for living beings, by charting the involutive and evolutive phrases in octonion geometry. It can be put in the language of Religion too.

One being, Goddess and God, begat manyness and complexity beyond reason, to find the missing pieces of themselves, and become as one again.

As it turns out though; I did have a fair amount of training in the mystic arts before I decided to devote myself to Physics. I find that it is very helpful to allow understanding in subjects like quantum gravity that would otherwise be impossible to grasp. But I know most folks don't care about that stuff anyway.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 17:13 GMT
I remember the works of Lamarck and Darwin and others when I ranked the animals, vegetals, minerals, maths, physics, chenistry, biology, ...it is like this that I found my theory in seeing the evolution of hominid brains since the lemurian, I have a page of biology where we see them and we see a relative spherisation , but returning about this evolution , Lamarck considered the will like foundamental, for example, why the giraf has a long neck, he beleived that it is due to a will from the ancestors wanting to reach the higher leaves during problem of food, all this to tell that we continue to evolve and that this free will becomes essential for the encodings in our adn and when this universalism is a truth in our mind and the logic, so it becomes relevant. This can be taken into account at our step of evolution and with all the humans on earth and animals and vegetals, we evolve and the will is foundamental , we have created a specific environment and technologies , the adaptations to our environments are a key with this will, we have in 100 years evolved a lot and we can predict even the future considering all these parameters but it is not easy but that can be ranked also .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 17:14 GMT
oops sorry it was to continue with Jonathan and Stefan,I have writen on the bad thread

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 5, 2021 @ 21:50 GMT
There is nothing in the laws of nature that moves the numbers for the variables forward. The laws of nature are merely relationships that physicists have found, that can be represented mathematically: they are not active entities.

If Jonathan and Steve want believe in mystical and illogical crap, then that's their problem.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 00:33 GMT
Please be aware Lorraine...

While the alternative I present may not be your ideological cup of tea; I was correct in calling you out and your statement above is still false, if you allow the expanded definition of the word 'number' that mathematicians use. Your statement is mostly accurate in how the terms 'number' and 'laws of nature' are used by the vast majority of people in Physics, however.

It is true instead that only a handful of experts in the field of theoretical Physics or higher Mathematics know that the textbook versions are a white lie or an oversimplification to avoid overloading the minds of young people with a side of the story most of them will never put to use. However; since my topics of interest range to quantum gravity and early universe cosmology, I actively seek that specific insight.

In fact; most of what passes for Physics is too boring to take up much of my time, and only the leading edge stuff captures my imagination. So if you would prefer to hang with the people who have smaller minds or more modest aspirations for Physics; that's fine. I don't think Carlo Rovelli is small minded, though I do think some of his colleagues are much smarter. But what he has presented here is a plausible way by which many of the salient attributes of being conscious can arise from only Physics laws. That's pretty cool!

It doesn't mean it's the only option worth exploring.

Best,

Jonathan

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

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 00:54 GMT
For the record...

I have met Carlo Rovelli and attended one of his lectures, but we never talked about consciousness or evolutive Maths. I'd recommend his book "Reality is not what it seems" as a thoughtful layman's introduction to quantum gravity starting with the philosophers of ancient Greece. But I also know Rovelli worked with Connes on a mathematical and thermodynamical basis for time, which dealt with some of the same concepts I raise. So at least he knows about these things.

But a lot of the confirmation for the ideas I have laid out comes from conversations at FFP10 back in 2009 with Gerard 't Hooft and with Tevian Dray at GR21 in 2016. If my story was just 'mystical and illogical crap' I would have gotten different answers from these people. I'm talking about a Nobel laureate and one of the world's foremost experts on the octonions - and insights which supply the context for the current theory by Tejinder Singh and colleagues, as well as forming my proposed basis for consciousness.

It's not just a pipe dream Lorraine. Numbers can evolve on their own, if we include the higher order number types. End of story.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 10:32 GMT
Lorraine, you beleive that you understand better the laws of this universe ? no it is not the case, and if you forget the philosophy , it is also your choice, for me , you cannot understand the generality if you don t insert this general philosophy and don t compete to show who know better the sciences, you don t know more tham, if you cannot discuss about this philosophy , it is not our fault , your illogism shows us limitations simply, regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 11:53 GMT
There is nothing in the laws of nature that moves the numbers for the variables forward. The laws of nature are merely relationships that physicists have found, that can be represented mathematically: they are not active entities.

Jonathan and Steve believe in mystical, illogical crap, but that's their problem.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 12:03 GMT
you can repeat your post, that will not change that you don t answer to my question, what is the origin of our universe and what are the foundamental objects, develop please, there you repeat things , we know what are the numbers and the partitions, the physicists try to know more and respect the rationslims, but we have many limitations and things to add, and Jonathan or Stefan or me , we are not illogical, we don t affirm our assumptions, we just discuss, if you have a philosophy, shere it with us, if you don t have, try to critic correctly, thanks

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 12:04 GMT
Get lost you lunatic

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 12:06 GMT
don t try to compete , it is not the aim, if you cannot answer and have no idea, tell us, it is only simple than this, and we know that all we have an ego, I can show you mine, it is not a problem, but I am not here to make this, we discuss and the aim is not to have the last words or satisfy our vanity, answer to my questions, after we shall see better ypour general philosophy, if you have no idea, be frank simply

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 21:05 GMT
It's a little flattering actually...

So thank you Lorraine for pressing your point. You illustrate the profound importance of the work I am now doing by asserting that the island you are living on is the only part of reality that is real. So it's like the story of Plato's cave or the trials of Copernicus to move people from their settled view. But the real numbers are like an island and people don't know it. The complex and hyper-complex number types are much more fun.

But I am observing a slow revolution in Maths that will one day overturn some of what we know to be true in Physics. Advances in Math take about 30 years to find their way into our understanding of natural law according to Ashley Zauderer, who was with Templeton at the time. So we still have 10 years before Connes work propagates. And in the meanwhile; I'll be 10 years ahead of my time.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 22:39 GMT
Jonathan loves to preen and big-note himself. He feels no sense of embarrassment about this.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 19:39 GMT
I've been timid actually...

I didn't believe it at first, when I discovered certain relations between pure Math and Physics, but that was ~33 years ago. I was extremely circumspect for about 20 years and then I started to resent seeing other scientists get credit for something I could have predicted from my mathematical discoveries. I almost stayed home from CCC-2 in Port Angeles, and ended up taking a later flight, in part because I was lacking the nerve to present my work to serious scientists.

But getting invited repeatedly to present my work at conferences has turned into more and more prestigious presentations and publications over time. The invites come from all over the world. And I've even received applications from several scholars hoping to secure a post-doc position in my lab, though I have none to offer and never posted an RfP. I am flattered but not qualified to serve as their advisor. After spending years being embarrassed because it was too silly to be true; I came to understand that my work has more profound implications.

I think I AM rather pompous sometimes. But if I'm the only one standing up for the truth; so be it. I think instead I've been pretty giddy because I have seen a side of things that others don't know about, but will inevitably affect their lives. So I am the Cheshire Cat in the Catbird Seat. Others will learn at their own pace while I press forward from where I am.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 19:46 GMT
Jonathan, with all my respect, I am going to be still frank, I am also invited to many conferences to present my theory wich is for many innovative. But the problem is not there, we are not here to satisfy our ego if I can say. I repeat my critic about your works that I respect, are you conscious that all can generally false if the fields are not the primoridal essence of this universe and that the GR is not the only one piece of puzzle, what are you going to do if the particles are the truth and thay explain the fields when the 3 series that I explained merge ??? we need all to be understood the problem is not there, what I tell is that all the philosophy of strings and octonions is probably false and the lobbies and universities working on this are not the problem, the problem is to think beyond the box instead to turn in round like a fashion. These fields come from witten and einstein and all your are in this prison now philosophical. Are you conscious of this and that the octonions are not exceptional you know.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 6, 2021 @ 21:11 GMT
The delta symbols in the equations, that represent the laws of nature, merely represent the fact that WHEN some numbers are changed, the relationships are maintained.

The equations that represent the laws of nature do not say anything about who or what initiates this number change, i.e. who or what is moving the system forward.

Clearly it is not the laws of nature that initiates the number change, because the laws of nature are nothing but relationships between categories of information, where mass and relative position are examples of such categories.

The only other candidate for initiating the number change is matter. The view that matter initially creates some of the new numbers for the variables is consistent with genuine agency, where living things genuinely intervene in the world and create new outcomes. This view is consistent with human beings having the power to have contributed to, and to fix, climate change.

But it’s clear that physics has been caught with its pants down on the issue of climate change: physics does not have the theoretical backup for the view that human beings genuinely have the power to have contributed to, or to fix, climate change.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 19:58 GMT
I have addressed this elsewhere...

I'm not looking to spar with you Lorraine. I only want you to acknowledge that it is real and not a fantasy that certain evolutive properties CAN arise from pure Maths without a push from matter or beings comprised thereof.

I think that there are ways for consciousness and free will to arise both from the material world's influence and from extra-dimensional sources. This tends to support a belief in the possibility for a non-corporeal consciousness and life after death, but in a context that is more scientifically supportable.

That certainly does not constitute proof that consciousness arose before or apart from material reality, but it makes it more plausible. My view is that free will and consciousness can arise from pure Maths, which bypasses the need for physical causes entirely. I know this is a radically strange view. But that is where I am coming from.

Kind Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 20:14 GMT
As regards Climate Change...

One of the topics I've lectured on is that people in Physics are responsible to speak up about issues like this, where the average physicist knows the rules by which nature plays and the average citizen does not. I try to 'walk the talk' as much as possible, in terms of my lifestyle. You can't hang out with someone like Pete Seeger for very long before you start to get embarrassed about what you have not been doing to help.

However; it is confusing matters to state that society's lack of resolve to deal with Climate issues is because our individual free will is somehow compromised or called into question. The evidence from Neuroscience has long been on the table that decisions are made deeper in the brain and our awareness of a choice only comes afterward. But there is also clear evidence that a kind of herd mentality takes over sometimes, inciting behavior no individual would undertake.

Since scientists face derision from the public for speaking out about issues, even those of public safety, it is a challenge. Curiously; one is mistrusted unless the area of ones expertise is precisely what one is commenting from. But it is ironic that if one is an expert in that field; the institutions to which one belongs will compel you to keep quiet lest your opinion be seen as the official stand of the university, corporation, or agency.

So who is left to speak up and exercise choice better Lorraine? I have attached slides from my 2017 lecture in Orihuela.

Kind Regards,

Jonathan

attachments: 1_Responsibility_in_Physics.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 20:17 GMT
If you want to act and change this planet, put your ideas on my project of global collaboration, because in speaking only we don t change nothing, and if you can make it with jumility and a pure universal altruism, it is wonderful, let s fight all our egos for a better world , with concrete rational solutions, the climate change also if you want. This vanity and bad habits destroy all dear friends.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 22:02 GMT
Construction steps must be fully accounted for. In the real world, outcomes don’t just miraculously “happen”. Jonathan tries to sweep construction steps under the carpet and pretend that they don’t exist.

Mathematical equations only represent relationships, they do not represent construction steps. Construction steps can only be represented algorithmically i.e. as IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT etc. Put symbols representing a mathematical equation into a computer, and it will get you nowhere: it’s the behind the scenes symbolic IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT that does the work. Physics does not account for IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT: these are the real life algorithmic steps that cannot be derived from law of nature mathematical relationships.

The IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT are the symbols that, after the fact, can be used to represent agency. Unlike law of nature relationships, they are not prescriptive, they are after the fact.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 10, 2021 @ 22:52 GMT
In the real world...

Tasks like painting a room or baking a cake require a certain order and sequence to successfully complete. One can't mix the ingredients after the cake is baked. One can't wait to move the furniture away from the wall until after the wall is painted. The desired outcome is obtained ONLY if the steps are taken in turn, as well as doing all the correct actions.

I've learned this is very much like the complication we encounter in doing arithmetic in non-associative algebras. So it is built into how things must be done, or dictated by the algebra itself.

I attach a preprint of a published article on this topic.

Regards,

Jonathan

attachments: JonathanDickau-PaintingBakingnon.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 01:15 GMT
"The equations that represent the laws of nature do not say anything about who or what initiates this number change, i.e. who or what is moving the system forward." Lorraine ford

Perhaps you will agree that both matter and energy are part of the material universe and its development. Energy implies change or potential for change ( if potential energy). Changing values of measurables are reflecting the changes they represent. Having energy sequential change can happen.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 19:25 GMT
Sage words Georgina!

Variability of itself struggles to get out of its crib, but with a modicum of energy it is capable to engender a long sequence of events. With sufficient energy; evolutive properties MUST give rise to form. Without that push, it's iffy.

Warm Regards,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 11, 2021 @ 20:45 GMT
Why are physicists and philosophers so woefully unfit for the challenges of the Anthropocene? Physicists believe that human beings don’t genuinely have the power to cause or to fix climate change.

Physicists believe that all outcomes are caused by laws of nature and that human beings only have pseudo-agency, the mere feeling and superficial appearance of agency.

Genuine human agency in the world DOES conflict with the ideas of physics. Genuine human agency means that MATTER ITSELF can cause outcomes, in addition to the laws of nature causing outcomes.

Only if human beings have the genuine power to intervene in the world by changing the numbers for the variables at the micro-level can it truly be said that human beings genuinely have an impact on Earth's geology and ecosystems.

……………

IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT are the symbols that, after the fact, can be used to represent agency. Unlike law of nature relationships, they are not prescriptive, they are after the fact.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 10:32 GMT
Hi, I beleive that we cannot generalise and that the adaptation is essential, and if the adaptation and the universal logic are truths, so we can solve the problems, and the harmonisation of interactions on earth can be made and so we can fiond the solutions for our ecosystems and the effects, and so the climate. It is not that the philosophers and physicists conclude, it is that we don t take our responsabilities globally and that the majority of leaders and authorities follow a system like it was normal and logic, so they just make their lifes like all in tryying to be well. That proves that a few number are real universal altruists conscious and aware of the truths of this universe, and when you add this vanity and ego, so you understand why we have this global reality on earth. We are a little bit like tools of optimisation due to our consciousness evolving in fact , the intelligence and this consciousness can permit to solve ,steps by steps. But the big question is why it is not made ? are we governed at this UN by just persons speaking where their vanity is the only one thing important, they travel, they eat well, this and that but nothing of really revolutionary for the well of all lifes is made? so are they skilling generally to govern and solve the major problems ? We can change the variables Lorraine and we can create a better world for all lifes, animals and vegetals but nothing is really made generally like a revolution respecting these universal laws. I am worried in fact about this global state and for the future generations. What is this circus knowing that the rational solutions exist ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 10:44 GMT
In fact Lorraine, we can rank all this , the humans and the spheres of activity, the problem is there , we must harmonise these spheres of activity in insierting better variables like this consciousness of course but also rational solutions of optimisation for better interactions. We have the political spheres, the economical ones and this and that and we have leaders, workers ....the army, the technology, the social securities, the marketing, the enterprises, the lobbies----all can be ranked with volumes and with variables , and all this is in a bigger global volumic sphere of activity where the psychology and the human comportments are importantr to take into account. How can we optimise this ? are they ready to change the humans, are they sufficiently conscious to change for a common well ? Or must we reasure them and optimise their qualities of lifes and the education to reach this universalism ? It is so complex but so simple also, the global system is not perfect , we evolve of course but it lacks several foundamentals, that is why I beleive strongly that the high spheres of power at this UN must create a better global system to reasure them and decrease the sufferings and so the hate and rage against the inequalities. It is maybe the only one road to evitate a catastrophic future. Harmony or chaos simply, the choices are in our hands .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 21:12 GMT
The only issue of relevance to the FQXi website is that genuine human agency in the world DOES conflict with the ideas of physics. The issue of relevance is that physics is wrong about the nature of the world: human beings and other living things DO have genuine agency i.e. the genuine power to intervene in the world by changing the numbers for the variables at the micro-level.

Steve, no doubt our disrespect for the natural world has its conceptual origins in physics' insistence that the world is an automaton.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Jan. 12, 2021 @ 14:40 GMT
Dear all,

I have a question for all in different context:

If energy can neither be created nor be destroyed then how does energy exists?

Thanks,

Prasad Divate

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 13, 2021 @ 01:22 GMT
To explain it conceptually...

We can see matter as bound packets of energy, a congealed or condensed form of energy - and so on. Einstein's famous equation says that with a certain quantity of energy, we can create a particular amount of mass, or vice versa. So energy is not created or destroyed, in this instance, but it gets transformed.

But energy as it is most familiar is seen to be a fractionation of the unified force, if we go all the way back to the Cosmos' inception. So at the very beginning of time (at the Planck scale), a lot of what later becomes energy is invested in the creation of space through geometrogenesis from the quantum gravity through inflationary epochs.

So the existence of common forms of energy can be seen as the growing momentum of space creation moving across the face of intrinsic variability that exists because of quantum mechanical uncertainty. Thus the quantum mechanical fluctuations of spacetime get amplified into a photonic pressure in the radiation dominated era, that is later quenched by baryogenesis in the hadronic era.

However it is not until decoupling, which is falsely referred to as recombination, that matter and energy become entirely separate entities. So more briefly; the fabric of space moving through time evolves energy. One could also say that electric or magnetic charge arises from fluxual changes in spin. You can find a mathematical analysis of this in O'Rahilly's book on Electrodynamics ~pg. 800.

Best,

Jonathan

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

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 13, 2021 @ 22:57 GMT
Re the extremely stupid claim, made by many people, that agency can “emerge”:

1. Laws of nature are relationships that apply TO matter, they are not agency: GENUINE agency is new numerical relationships created BY matter that apply to it’s own matter. There are no topological gymnastics that can convert law of nature mathematical relationships that apply TO matter into new mathematical relationships created BY matter.

2. Agency can only be represented via algorithmic symbols like IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT. The IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT symbols that represent agency can’t be derived from the mathematical relationships that represent the laws of nature. In any case, derivation is itself an algorithmic process.

3. Agency is all about the logical (or illogical) response to a unique situation, but laws of nature are merely mathematical relationships between variables, irrespective of the overall situation.

IF (yellow AND black AND striped) OR big sharp fangs (all this information about an approaching tiger comes from analysing photons that interact with the eyes), THEN hide behind a tree (agency creates a new number relationship for the relative position variable).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 14, 2021 @ 22:16 GMT
Whereas laws of nature deal with relationships between variables, agency deals with NUMERIC SITUATIONS, something that laws of nature can’t do.

Agency deals with subjective numeric situations like: IF (variable1 = number1) AND (variable2 = number2) AND …

Agency is algorithmic. Agency says: IF (variable1 = number1) AND (variable2 = number2) AND … THEN make variable3 = number3...

Clearly, agency is necessary to deal with any type of situation: climate change is a situation, but so is just walking down the street.

Just as clearly, the ability to deal with situations cannot emerge from law of nature mathematical relationships: agency is algorithmic, a fundamentally different aspect of the world to mathematical relationships.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Kevin Pryor wrote on Jan. 14, 2021 @ 22:33 GMT
Descartes was very pro-science, not anti-science. Galileo and Descartes were the architects of modern physics and they would get together and excitedly foresee what physics would become and how important it would be.

In order to make the case for mathematical physics, mental causation had to be put in a box in order to get modern physics started. Descartes did not believe the box was empty like many today. Philip Goff writes about Galileo and his thoughts on the mind, but Descartes famously took it to the logical conclusions.

If you take Descartes seriously like I do, the Cartesian Theater would need to be updated to a Cartesian Holodeck. The only reason I could imagine a high mass particle would have this capability is if the particle inherited its capabilities from the conscious universe making universes and particles not only conscious but living organisms capable of reproduction and subject to the theory of evolution.

If there is a high mass particle in the brain that is a Cartesian Holodeck, I deduced it would probably communicate with the brain by electromagnetic code probably using something like the microtubules of neurons as antennas.

Cartesian Holodeck Theory is a scientific theory that can be tested experimentally by looking for electromagnetic codes sending sensory information and receiving voluntary free will commands. The code could be verified simply by pointing a maser with an encoding of an image using the homuncular code at a homuncular particle and asking the person what image they see. If high mass Cartesian Holodecks Particles are found it would be the greatest discovery in science ever leading to the artificial body industry and mostly the end of death and pain!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 15, 2021 @ 11:58 GMT
Hi Kevin, I liked the ideas of Descartes , I have read several books and I loved Discourse about the method from him. The cartesian philosophy is a little bit the same than this pure rational determinism after all. Galilei was famous also. You speak about the mind and the free will, all this is very complex to define correctly considering the deep logic beyond the known things, like the consciousness they are difficult to really rationally explain them. Of course we have results of evolution, our brains and their synaps, neurons, microtubules,electric pulses, memory, and this and that, but how can we explain this evolution correctly giving these resulsts and why all this diversity also. The codes , main codes for me are not electromagnetic, this electromagnetism seems emergent and we have a deeper logic probably considering the space vacuum , the photons encoded giving these electromagnetism and bosonic fields seem emergent due to these photons encoded in these deeper codes that we cannot reach at this moment. I didn t know these particles , the cartesian Holodecks particles, could you elaborate a little bit please , best regards.

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

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 16, 2021 @ 17:42 GMT
In some models...

They are called pseudo-Goldstone bosons... Since bosons are gregarious they can undergo condensation - linking their wavefunctions together. This could be how a connection is forged.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 16, 2021 @ 15:34 GMT
Hi all, a thing important about the consciousness is this one. We try to explain this hard problem of consciousness, and it is always interesting to have the ideas of different thinkers of course, but it seems that this consciousness like result of evolution is a tool, so it is maybe better to utilise this consciousness and its optimisation to improve this universe, we are creations able to utilise these tools around. So I repeat ,I see this consciousness like a tool for this universe, we try to explain it but maybe it is better to utilise it to optimize and improve this universe, we are creations thinking and able to utilise the tools around us, maybe we are just this, tools of optimisation, imagine the potential of this consciousness inside this universe, we are there to utilise the tools around us correctly, the earth can be harmonised but the solar system also and between the cosmological spheres we have the possibility to create wonderfull things, imagine the future of this universe and its more than 10000 billions of galaxies, we can create a paradise in fact , the space disponible and the cosmological spheres are there for this for me , they are tools , and our intelligence and consciousness increasing can permit these harmonisations. We are still very youngs at this universal scale, we evolve and this is a reality everywhere probably, this DE and DM disponible can permit to extrapolate this future , you imagine what we create in fact, it is a wonderful project of this universe. Our actual global state on earth lacks of this consciousness, we make many errors I beleive in all humility, we could make so incredible things.But the system is like it is and the humans are like they are unfortunally, but the hope exists due to this consciousness evolving fortunally.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Scott Patrick Ryan wrote on Jan. 16, 2021 @ 22:40 GMT
I created consciousness and it's a form of uplode compared to wavelength signal uplode from frontal lobes.

Have a read of this

HhhScintifict exprement double slit shot test proves we live in an Computer universe and top Scientist know this and are covering it up.

Double Slit shot test proves it because two electrons never hit the same spot twice so probibilty is gone meaning...

view entire post


attachments: Screenshot_20210102-161751.png, Screenshot_20201011-0409062.png

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 18, 2021 @ 02:52 GMT
Hi Scott. Our brain uses sensory input to generate an experience of the World around us. Usually it has enough similarity to the external source of the sensory inputs that we can function well in the environment , without distress. When stressed, sleep deprived or vitamin deficient, or influenced by drugs, the brain does not do such a good job with all of the input it is receiving. It forms what I call alternative Image realities. These can include hallucinations, delusions, loosely associated information can be mistaken for strongly associated information and so on. Because the alterative Image reality is formed by the brain similarly to the usual perception of external reality, it can be difficult to identify alone ."Reality" checking with someone else, who may perceive matters differently can be helpful. Vitamin D and fish oil may help.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 17, 2021 @ 22:35 GMT
No matter what the variables are, e.g. the energy or position variables, the laws of nature determine that the relationships between the numbers that apply to the variables always hold. But the lawful relationships don’t actually move the system forward.

The system of lawful relationships is static, the system of lawful relationships is not a perpetual motion machine. One number change “causes” other numbers to change due to fixed relationships, but that’s the finish of it: the numbers for the variables are now all in correct lawful relationship, and the world has ground to a halt.

What saves the system is free will/ agency which continually inputs new numbers to the variables, thereby driving the system forward.

IF, AND, OR, and THEN are some of the symbols that, after the fact, can be used to represent agency. Unlike law of nature relationships, these symbols are not prescriptive, they are after the fact. There’s a lot of bloody nonsense talked about computers, so I hasten to add that the IF, AND, OR, THEN, FOR…NEXT symbols used in computer programs are prescriptive, NOT after the fact.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 18, 2021 @ 02:16 GMT
What about when period is one of the parameters of the relationship. As in Kepler's second and third law. Agency is not required to maintain that parameter.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 18, 2021 @ 23:40 GMT
Despite the views of some physicists, it's clear that time is NOT a foundational aspect of the world: time is merely another category of information, like mass and position, that can be represented as a variable in equations.

However, it is also clear that time is not an ordinary category of information that can be envisaged as nothing but a mathematical relationship between other categories.

When people say "time is change", what they mean is that time is an algorithmically derived category of information: IF the numbers change for another variable, THEN add 1 (say) to the numbers for the time variable. In other words, the numbers for the time variable don’t change unless the numbers for other variables change.

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

report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 19, 2021 @ 01:25 GMT
Time is not a foundational aspect of the material world. Change/happening/ energy is. From the changes happening that make one configuration of Object reality (a time) into another configuration(another time),sequential passage of time can be used to describe the occurrence. The world we know via our senses, the sequence of presents, does have foundational lime. The present is amalgamated from the information obtained from sensory inputs, that have taken different amounts of time to arrive. Sequential passage of time is different from time as a dimension of observation products. The time dimension is a consequence of sequential change in position of potential stimuli, of senses or devices able to detect tthem.t input into equations is also different. It is a duration obtained by counting a certain kind of event for comparison with what's measured.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 19, 2021 @ 21:45 GMT
The symbols +, -, ÷, x and = are used in equations to represent RELATIONSHIPS between categories of variable.

But algorithmic statements represent KNOWLEDGE. For example, the algorithmic statement “IF variable1 = number1…” represents knowledge of numbers and categories of information.

The delta symbol, which is used to represent “number change” in the equations that represent law of nature relationships, represents algorithmically derived knowledge.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 15:37 GMT
Your comment misses the point of this forum...

Carlo Rovelli has shown that using only the known laws of Physics; we see that nature has a framework whereby there is sufficient constancy, and at the same time a flexibility of responsiveness to allow consciousness and agency to arise. This is not identically the same as showing that is how nature DID do things, which remains a hard problem.

Roger Penrose got in trouble largely because he DID supply a specific mechanism which others picked apart and tried to disprove. Using reductionist reasoning and experiments; some DID prove it to their own satisfaction. But they did so by EXCLUDING quantum mechanical effects that exist because of the shape of structures in situ, or by falling back on warm body decoherence.

It is better or safer in some ways to show what is possible that to speak to questions of an exact physical mechanism - except in terms friendly to biologists and physiologists (i.e. - using only Classical Physics as a basis). But your comment above seems irreverent of the efforts of Physics people to inform the Life Sciences folks that Physics is NOT devoid of life.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 16:02 GMT
To elaborate...

Matter does possess a built-in capacity to sense changes in its environment and to change in response. But there must be considerable flexibility both in how outside stimuli are assimilated and in how a response is mustered, before we come close to what can be verified as consciousness or agency of any kind. And in my view; this involves what could be called a process of abstraction.

Being coupled to the environment too closely results in only an automatic response. So for a system to exhibit the properties we identify with life requires that the matter be able to distinguish itself from its environment and to exercise some choice in its responses. In my mind; this requires an entity that has a little more energy than its surroundings to work with - matter with energy - but not too much.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 16:15 GMT
Jonathan, you tell, Matter does possess a built-in capacity to sense changes in its environment and to change in response. But there must be considerable flexibility both in how outside stimuli are assimilated and in how a response is mustered, before we come close to what can be verified as consciousness or agency of any kind. And in my view; this involves what could be called a process of abstraction.

It is in fact why we need particles coded in an environment to really understand the actions, works , adaptations and interactions of exchanges, that proves that the origin of our universe is not from the fields and waves. We need codes inside these particles and we need actions and interactions with the environments. This simple reasoning proves that the fields are not the origin even with a beautiful mathematical tool like this E8. I can understand that several thinkers are fascinated and that they are persuaded of their philosophies, but it is true what I tell, we need a superfluid for the contacts and actions, and the coded particles in a environment made also of particles permit the waves and fields wich are emergent, they are not the foundamental essence, the particles yes.

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

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 20, 2021 @ 21:03 GMT
Strings of symbols, like +, -, ÷, x and =, are used in the equations that represent laws of nature, to represent relationships between categories of information (like mass and position), where the categories/ variables are represented as characters of the Latin or Greek alphabet.

Similarly, IF, AND, OR, and THEN are some of the symbols that can be used to represent: 1) situations; 2) knowledge/consciousness of situations; and 3) agency/ free will in response to situations.

So the algorithmic statement “IF (variable1 = number1 AND variable2 = number2) OR (variable3 = number3) THEN make variable4 = number4” can represent:

1) the situation, i.e. “(variable1 = number1 AND variable2 = number2) OR (variable3 = number3)”;

2) knowledge/ consciousness of the situation, i.e. “IF (variable1 = number1 AND variable2 = number2) OR (variable3 = number3)”; and

3) agency/ free will in response to the situation, i.e “THEN make variable4 = number4”.

The strings of symbols which represent laws of nature, and the strings of symbols which can represent knowledge/ consciousness and agency, are not the real thing: they are only symbolic representations of the real thing. Whether these strings of symbols are written on paper, displayed on a computer screen, or re-represented as binary digits within a computer program, they are only symbolic representations of the real thing, NOT the real thing. The strings of symbols are not the actual laws of nature; the strings of symbols are not actual knowledge/ consciousness or actual agency.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 10:15 GMT
Hi Lorraine, I must say that I agree totally with you, the strings are just a tool utilised in maths and for the fields and vibrations, oscillations , frequences. They cannot be taken like the foundamental objects because we don t know what are these foundamental objects and the philosophical origin of our physicality simply. The symbols are interesting but we cannot generalise and conclude.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Jan. 21, 2021 @ 23:03 GMT
Thanks Steve.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


PRASAD RAMESH DIVATE wrote on Jan. 24, 2021 @ 04:48 GMT
dear all,

i have written article on properties of consciousness, three states of mind,their properties,relation between free will and destiny,physical approach of consciousness ,and other things!i am uploading this article !,please give me feedback regarding that!

thanks to all,

prasad divate

attachments: 1_in_search_of_reality.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 01:50 GMT
The start seems to be your own opinions, without any evidence, even for the stats. given. Your description of the subconscious is at odds with known biology. You say in the sub conscious state they feel bodyless, energyless and helpless (paraphrasing). But feeling has to be conscious. The article as a whole is a strange mixture of your very brief thoughts on various topics. Given as mostly unsupported statements. You have points and paragraphs to do with religion and others on ideas in science and maths. Towards the end I thought your religious purpose was becoming clear with a longer segment on Brahman. But then you end with a thought about Schrodinger's cat and end with a single line thought about time. Both I disagree with. They are topics I have spent a lot of time on. It seems to me you are trying to address too much, without structure or research.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Jan. 25, 2021 @ 19:45 GMT
When are physicists going to stop lying? They CLAIM they believe in anthropogenic climate change, yet their quasi-religious beliefs about how the world works would make genuine anthropogenic climate change completely impossible.

Physicists believe that living things don’t have genuine agency, i.e. physicists believe that living things CAN’T change the numbers for the variables at the micro-level; physicists believe that laws of nature are THE ONLY cause of number change for the variables at the micro-level.

I.e. physicists ACTUALLY believe that genuine anthropogenic climate change is completely and utterly impossible because the laws of nature are THE ONLY cause of outcomes. Yet physicists continue to lie about the true implications of their beliefs.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 2, 2021 @ 22:49 GMT
I think physicists are more conscientious about this than others...

But everyone in the sciences is somewhat constrained by adverse political environments in modern society. People don't want to be threatened with losing their jobs in order to be better citizens, but it is especially common for folks in Physics to be taken to task for taking a stand on something like the Climate - unless they are specifically Climate scientists or meteorologists.

So my take is that people feel constrained by their workplace superiors and those further up the hierarchy to maintain decorum - lest the University, Agency, or Corporation appears to be besmirched by the statements of someone they employ. In other words; it is mainly the social and financial pressure to stay in line, and avoid making any comments that might be seen as an official statement, which keeps more Physics folks from being Climate activists.

You may imagine there is a tangible contribution to the motivations of Physics researchers or instructors, because of a built-in bias on the basis of their knowing or imagining Physics does not support genuine freedom of choice and aptly explain the existence of consciousness. However; one should not conflate the evidence of absence with the absence of evidence in that subset of Physics you admit or allow to be seen as causative.

That filter leaves out a fair amount I see as a genuine part of Physics Lorraine.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 3, 2021 @ 01:42 GMT
Jonathan,

The equations and concepts of physics DO NOT support the idea that human beings can change the numbers for the variables at the micro-level; the equations and concepts of physics give laws of nature as THE ONLY cause of number change for the variables at the micro-level.

I.e. physicists ACTUALLY believe that genuine anthropogenic climate change is completely and utterly impossible because the laws of nature are THE ONLY cause of outcomes.

You can’t make this stuff up: laws of nature causing number change can’t be transmogrified into human beings causing number change for the variables.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 3, 2021 @ 14:07 GMT
Please Lorraine...

You can't just make stuff up either, claiming that the beliefs of Physics folks leaves them powerless to combat Climate Change without substantial proof. So far; I have seen no comeback from you that offers evidence that Physics people DO see things in a way that EXCLUDES their freedom of choice. Of course; you are free to assert that their beliefs lead to a contradiction. However; you have chosen to ignore or conveniently discard evidence that conflicts with your view on this subject, or would indicate either agency or sincere efforts.

It is in some sense reasonable to state that since we did not get the job done, by reining the excesses of other humans in; so we are culpable. This is the exact argument used to draft potential terrorists into the global Jihad. They believe that we are to blame, because we allowed our leaders to despoil the planet and to spread our hypocrisy. In effect; WE are all responsible when people like Donald Trump elect to take apart regulatory agencies that would curtail some of the worst offenses against the environment.

So yes; scientists are GUILTY because we failed to object more vigorously when we saw our efforts to combat Climate change, and our authority to object to the actions of the despoilers were taken apart systematically, and to claim our power in order to halt the LIES. But it is EXTREMELY TENUOUS to assert that any component of their failure or mine comes from being disempowered due to a false belief that if the Laws of Physics apply 100%; they disallow agency.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 3, 2021 @ 03:41 GMT
In case nobody noticed, THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM:

We have a planet where climate change and environmental devastation is being caused by human agency.

And yet we have a primitive, backward physics that claims that climate change and environmental damage is being caused by the laws of nature, and nothing but the laws of nature.

You can’t make this stuff up: laws of nature causing number change for the variables can’t be transmogrified into human beings causing number change for the variables.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 3, 2021 @ 14:25 GMT
You could be right...

But it is unhelpful to tag the problem by pointing to a minor cause, when there are far more compelling reasons why people have made the choices they did, and when the prevailing beliefs of Physics folks DO NOT exclude genuine agency. It would be better to point out alternatives than deficiencies.

You may have a valid point regarding the notion that Physics of itself is lame, and remains incapable of explaining even some basic features of the real world. That is sane and reasonable. But trying to pin the blame for our failure to act to combat Climate Change on that deficiency is bogus.

It would be more helpful if you advocated for action to help heal the planet, and to rally support for a view that we CAN make a difference. By falsely pinning the problems on the fact that Physics is vapid, you illustrate how people distance themselves from the problems of the world by explaining their power away.

Pete Seeger turned this line of reasoning inside out, explaining "When people say somebody has to do something, I think 'well I'm somebody, maybe they are talking about me.' That brings the real answer home much more effectively than saying we've brokered away our power, and wasting time trying to prove it.

Can you do better Lorraine? Can you help turn things around? Because it is beginning to sound like a child whining that the adults aren't doing a better job of caring for things - so they must have bogus beliefs. Tell us what we should believe instead, and please explain how that would help people heal the Climate.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 3, 2021 @ 23:36 GMT
Jonathan, Lorraine, Steve and all,

Climate change denial is a calculated political risk. The science largely owes its scope of research to the vast funding in search of potential areas where exploratory drilling stands the best chance. It is a common 'known' in the Oil Patch that petroleum deposits are a result of mass extinction of marine animal life in eons past, and that those extinction...

view entire post


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

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 4, 2021 @ 17:48 GMT
Climate change denial is all about politics and risk...

But it should be noted that even where better answers exist; it is VERY hard to bring more advanced technologies to bear, without causing more harm than good. What if you had a way to easily separate out the pollution from the water? But if it could also be used to separate out nuclear isotopes; you had better hope it never sees the light of day, until saner heads prevail.

In a political climate such as we have had, where there is a marginally insane and power-hungry person at the helm; it is totally unsafe to even talk about how some innovative ideas might eliminate pollution or get us to the stars (the same tech in this case) without unleashing the possibility that one's actions could yield weapons of mass destruction instead of solutions to climate change.

So having superior technology is not the right answer to all of the questions and difficulties we face, because the political climate and the insidious motive of evildoers all over the world force some people with answers to keep quiet until their light goes dim entirely. I have seen it happen to people who were my friends John; so I can't claim ignorance.

I watched my Physics mentor's home go up in flames. The fire was started shortly after I received a request to secure his home, and that's why I was there. I'm pretty sure it was political. It has kept me wary and a little bit timid.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 4, 2021 @ 22:36 GMT
POST EDITED BY ADMINISTRATOR: PLEASE KEEP FORUM POSTS CIVIL.

Human beings causing number change for the variables can only be represented algorithmically. See below (this is a repeat of what I have posted elsewhere):

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

post approved
Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 4, 2021 @ 22:37 GMT
The equations of physics that represent the laws of nature, including the equations with delta symbols, represent relationships between categories of variable. The equations do not represent movement or change.

The equations represent the fact that IF numbers for some of the variables change, the consequence is that the numbers for the other variables will change instantaneously i.e. the relationships always hold. This consequential change is merely due to relationship: there are no mini-computers or mini-people down there at the micro-level doing calculations. However, physicists doing experiments need to move and change in order to take measurements and do mathematical calculations representing (e.g.) predicted outcomes; these mathematical calculations represent what people do, they don’t represent the laws of nature.

The equations of physics that represent law of nature relationships represent a dead world: once the numbers for some of the variables change, the lawful relationships mean that the numbers for other variables change instantaneously, and the system comes to a halt.

The equations do not represent a cause for those original numbers changing. Equations that represent relationships can’t ever represent cause: only algorithmic statements can represent cause. This is what algorithmic statements look like: “IF variable1 = number1 OR variable2 = number2 THEN assign number3 to variable3” or even “assign number3 to variable3”.

The equations of physics that represent the law of nature relationships can’t represent our dynamic world. As well as the laws of nature, it is necessary to add something that can only be represented algorithmically, in order to represent a dynamic world.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 4, 2021 @ 22:57 GMT
The issue of “healing the climate” has got ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with physics. The issue of whether physics can symbolically represent people taking action to heal the climate IS the issue that is relevant to physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John R. Cox replied on Feb. 5, 2021 @ 01:54 GMT
So you input your algorithm (as per above example) in a program language of bit sequences, and that input enters a micro processor and the output is that 'number three got assigned to variable 3.

So How does any one of a growing great number of distinctly different chip architectures with distinct machine codes, process the same output from instructions in one of numerous program languages of distinctly differing bit sequencing?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 5, 2021 @ 14:11 GMT
I would love to heal the rift...

But it is a pretty deep chasm, a gulf between the two viewpoints in play here, so it is difficult to even delineate what the issues are. My nephew Liam was an exceptional child, who was I think subjected to dogma, rather than being guided to explore his 'next step of evolution' insights. He had difficulty understanding why numbers should just sit there. It didn't quite make sense to him.

But he was fed with 'shut up and calculate' or 'this is how it's done' by his teachers, and despite my saying that there is a whole 'nother world out there; the Education establishment took hold, and indoctrinated that boy (with the full cooperation of his parents), who is now a young man looking for a purpose. The cycle of human ignorance will continue until a few brave souls are able to rise above.

According to some experts; the reason why we have a problem with hackers is that we don't trust the young minds with challenging problems in Physics and Math, which are needing of their superior intellect. But there is almost no reward for their effort, and considerable resistance, to taking on the lofty problems just because they still need solving and will distinguish you forever.

Learning for its own sake is what is dead, in modern society. Mathematics and Physics still have plenty of life left in them, but it requires that we think for ourselves, to actually learn anything from that study.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 5, 2021 @ 14:29 GMT
So the issue remains...

It is an open question, whether Mathematics describes a dead world. My opinion is that a lot of evidence is on the table to the contrary. Some of the more exciting developments in Maths arose in a way that seems to confirm the view that they carry some evolutive properties as well. And as Georgina and John have pointed out; equations that carry terms like velocity or acceleration are not dead, because they imply motion or the increase of motion. Things in the real world aren't just sitting there on a stationary planet. It is naive and imprecise to think so.

Elsewhere on the Forum; I have explicated how re-working Einstein's famous equation illustrates the extreme motivity of the matter-free regime near the Planck scale. But Physics people already had the idea that something exciting happens there, but were only lacking a clear reason why it occurs. Perhaps the idea that Maths CAN contain evolutive properties needs to be indoctrinated for a while, before we will see a major change. But it is sad that someone like my nephew should have a crucial insight, and be forced to forget about it.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 5, 2021 @ 21:10 GMT
Despite the delta symbols, the equations of physics that represent the laws of nature do not represent a dynamic system. These equations represent relationships between categories of variable IF some of the numbers for the variables change: the equations don’t represent anything that initiates the number change.

Without an element that continually inputs at least a few new numbers into the system, you don’t have a dynamic system. This element can only be represented algorithmically: it can’t be represented with the equations that represent relationships.

Agency/ free will is the element that continually inputs new numbers into the system. Agency can only be represented algorithmically.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 5, 2021 @ 22:52 GMT
John,

I know the significance of this might mean absolutely nothing to you, but there are maybe 3 fundamental things to know about computers:

1) The way they work involves a symbolic representation of human analysis and agency (as well as symbolic representations of variables and numbers). Just like the symbols written on a piece of paper, this is a one-way thing: the symbols can’t transmogrify backwards into the piece of paper or the computer having thoughts or having agency.

2) Human beings have devised many ways of symbolically representing, organising and handling everything in computers. E.g. there are various possible ways of symbolically representing numbers and variables using strings of zeroes and ones.

3) There are no actual zeroes and ones, or trues and falses, in computers: there are only electrical voltages that human beings use to symbolically represent zeroes and ones, or trues and falses. The circuit designer can use high voltages to represent 0 and low voltages to represent 1, or alternatively the circuit designer can use low voltages to represent 0 and high voltages to represent 1. So the circuit designer might decide to use (e.g.) 3 volts to represent 0/FALSE and less than 3 volts to represent 1/TRUE; or the circuit designer might decide to use (e.g.) 4 volts to represent 1/TRUE and less than 4 volts to represent 0/FALSE.

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

report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 6, 2021 @ 01:17 GMT
Nothing new to me.

Algorithms are to a programmer what protocols are to an experimenter. Nothing new about that either.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 6, 2021 @ 22:00 GMT
Law of nature relationships and numbers are things that exist in the real world, but they don’t exist as symbols. Human beings represent them as written or spoken symbols.

Leaving aside the question of what exactly IS a real-world number and other issues about numbers, the word “three” represents a number, the numeral “3” represents the same number, and the binary digit “0011” represents the same number. Naturally, there are many different languages that represent the same number with different words and different symbols for the numeral, e.g. look at Arabic or Thai number symbols.

In a computer, the numeral 3 will be represented by a series or string of voltages. E.g.

…less than 4 volts, less than 4 volts, less than 4 volts, 4 volts, 4 volts

might represent the numeral 3. But if there is a different circuit design, then the series

…3 volts, 3 volts, 3 volts, less than 3 volts, less than 3 volts

might represent the numeral 3.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 7, 2021 @ 18:09 GMT
A wonderful explication Lorraine...

There are numerous ways to represent the same numerical quantity or mathematical relation, which which are entirely equivalent. Different threshold voltages in CMOS vs TTL logic circuitry yielded the same results, for some reason; so folks had to wonder. Is there a mathematical invariant behind all this variation?

This can be extended from objective to subjective reasoning, and the history of writing on this is extensive. Back in 1703; Gottfried Leibniz wrote in the journal of the Royal Society about the significance of Binary Numbers and how they related to the trigrams of the I Ching. See:

EXPLANATION OF BINARY ARITHMETIC, WHICH USES ONLY THE CHARACTERS 0 AND 1, WITH SOME REMARKS ON ITS USEFULNESS, AND ON THE LIGHT IT THROWS ON THE ANCIENT CHINESE FIGURES OF FUXI

The richness and depth of the articulation by this point leaves little to be desired, Lorraine, in terms of giving justification for the idea that numbers do more than just sit there unchanging. Evolutive properties have been with us from the start. You are free to believe otherwise. One has to wonder about Chinese scholars in ancient times, though. How much did they really know?

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 7, 2021 @ 22:51 GMT
Jonathan,

THE BITS IN BETWEEN the symbols that represent the numbers and equations can only be represented algorithmically. That is, the actions of the people (or their computers) that are manipulating the numbers and equations can only be represented with algorithmic symbols. You can’t sweep the actions of people under the carpet and pretend that they don’t exist. It’s the actions of people (or their computers) that make the symbolic representations of the world work. Therefore, you need to symbolically represent the actions of people as being part of the whole system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
John R. Cox replied on Feb. 8, 2021 @ 04:34 GMT
Lorraine,

"The BITS IN BETWEEN" is a problem in gravitation that Einstein briefly expounded upon in an article I read years ago. He was laying out the reasoning for why he had used a spherical geometry in GR, and described how no matter how narrowly you focused the angle between two radii that there was still that convergence in space, in which the Inverse Square Law could not account for. The ISL being an invariant relationship between mass A towards mass B, and vice-versa. and along a straight line of sight. So any Field Theory had no way of mathematically distributing equivalent force effect in that undefined space between convergent radii, in accord with inverse square law. (Tantalizing problem. Isn't it?!) jrc

It can also be addressed as "divergent space'... Einstein's theories of Relativity, as you know, are derivative of Maxwell's results and so quantifying energy quantity distribution in a field goes to both Divergence (div) and Convergence (curl) in Maxwellian theorizing.

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

report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 8, 2021 @ 21:20 GMT
Regarding what is missing...

The main result of Gödel is to show that any formal system leaves gaps in what we know, or can know, based solely on ratiocination. There will always be things possible to be, which are not possible to elucidate in bottom-up fashion. Nature defies precise representation. But I suspect that some of the barriers dissolve when a top-down approach is taken. So if we assume that all of the structure we find in higher dimensions, like the Monster group, E8, E7, E6, F4, and G2, ... is self-existing; it may be possible to realize the dream of Whitehead, Hilbert, and others - to unify Math. It's not yet proven possible though.

While it seems like a tautology, however, because we need to assume it is true to show it is relevant; there is a value in using the specific properties we have learned about these objects as a kind of roadmap to where specific areas of Maths are interconnected. I find it rather exciting myself. And that's what excites folks like Tejinder as well. But the idea is; this stuff is only relevant because nature appears to already be putting it to use. It is still an open question whether we need an expanded understanding and definition of natural law to admit consciousness and explain free will; or will ordinary Physics do the job?.

More later,

Jonathan

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

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 9, 2021 @ 10:23 GMT
Hi Lorraine,John, Jonathan,

Dear Jonathan,

I can understand that you have worked about these Lie Groups and that ypou consider so just this GR and photons like main essence of our reality and fiedls, but don t forget that the maths applied with these strings added are just an assumption like the general idea and the extradiemnsions also. You defend your ideas and it is respectable indeed , you know about what you think, the problem is not there, you can add godel or cantor or others to explain the consciousness or the free will, the problem is not there, but don t forget that if I am right about the main codes in these 3D finite series , so all the reasonings about the fields like origin of our geometries, topologies or a consciousness or free will appearing can be false generally. There is nothing for me of exceptional with these monster groups and Lie algebras. The problem is really tautological, ontological, philosophical for me, why these fields like origin of our reality and strings or points of geometrodynamics, is it due to Einstein, Wheeler, Lie and Witten ??? And all now they consder only this , can you explain this fashion lol you ?The maths and numbers of course are under an unversal partitions and the particles and fields are correlated like all in fact even this consciousness and free will, but the philosophy has a problem like I explained. And Hilbert is not the problem, the problem is the general philosophy and the fact to be in this photonic relativistic prison more the strings now. Why this fashion frankly , why the fields like origin of this reality and this GR like the only one piece, I d like that you develop a little bit your philosophy please about this main cause, you can explain me with God if you want.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stephen A. Brenner wrote on Feb. 9, 2021 @ 11:35 GMT
I emphatically believe that Quantum Physics can inform us directly regarding the nature of consciousness. In fact I would go further and say that for over a hundred years, very well known physics equations have held the secret to not only describing consciousness, but to describe the integral relations between the physical the mental and the spiritual. And this concept goes way beyond panpsychism because it holds that everything in the universe has both physical, mental and spiritual aspects and that the relations between all three describe reality.

I think we have to open our minds a bit to get to that kind of understanding. Even today you’ll find individuals who only believe that humans have a soul. With that kind of mindset, any concept of panpsychism is a non-starter. To understand how Quantum Physics can describe consciousness, we have to be ready for a Copernican kind of moment. We have to shed our preconceived notions and maybe disentangle ourselves a bit from our string theories and have some serious introspective moments.

It was interesting to hear Carlo’s mention of the term “Meaning” and how it relates to Evolution. This fits in perfectly with the metaphysical extrapolations that I have come up with that are based on a theory of “Synergy Physics” that I came up about 50 years ago. The summary of that theory is presented at the bottom of the site archetype.org. Get in tune with your inner caveman and have a look.

Stephen Brenner

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 9, 2021 @ 11:45 GMT
Hi Mr Brenner, we must recognise that unfortunally all this is beyond our understanding. I belive in a god of spinoza, in respecting the determinism of our nature and reality. I consider an infinite eternal consciousness creating this universe evolving, I also consider a kind of continuity for our souls but we cannot reach and prove , we can just have ideas and a personal intepretation. We know that the sciences community in theoretical physics is divided, but all this universe seems to need a kind of coder for the energy. What are we and why we are, maybe simply souls evolving , fractals of this thing that we cannot define. It is fascinating I must say , we are inside a wonderful project, I have thought a lot about all this, I have searched answers in many centers of interest, the sciences give us the best answers and a thing appears , like an evidence but we have too much limitations to prove and affirm also. Why this thing if it exists has created this universe, maybe simply this infinity was alone and we share a project, we are like the babies of this eternity and infinity. That is why seeing the evolution and the complexity os informations, I consider coded particles instead of fields like primordial essence because the evolution seems essential. In a simplistic analysis, maybe we create it this thing that us the humans we name the paradise, the potential is infinite and so the souls can have their kind of multivers in the future where this infinite eternal consciousness lives with us the reality. We cannot blame so this creator because we evolve and the future is better , all this is an assumption of course but I see like this.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 9, 2021 @ 11:59 GMT
Mr Brenner, if we consider that all is conscious at its level and that the complexification permits the increasing consciousness, so we can consider the dna and the brains, the brains for the consciousness and the dna for the souls , and farer the uniqueness of things. We encode, sort, superimpose informations and probably if the souls exist that we sort our biological lifes, like if we encode only foundamental universal informations and we delete others, that is why we don t remember our past lifes, we just evolve about the souls in encoding universal truths,we forget our biological lifes on the planets, in my model I consider and it is an assumption that I don t affirm, we just discuss because sometimes we can go deeper in philosophy, so I consider that after the death we are in the instant at this central cosmological sphere and resynchronised like all turn on an other planet in a correlated brain in a body , in a baby in an other species, that permits to nourrish our souls this diversity. We continue so a road, we are just transformed. The body mind soul problem is fascinating , the body and mind are linked with this soul but are different .Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 9, 2021 @ 12:13 GMT
All this to tell that we have so scales in 3D to discover, in our DNA and particles, we have these particles and complexity , having created these codes but why ? what is the main cause, we have particles farer having the answers , what is all this puzzle of sortings, synchros, superimposings and their time lifes also and stabilities.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 9, 2021 @ 22:11 GMT
In a dynamic system, its not the equations that change, it’s the numbers that apply to the variables that change.

Despite the delta symbols, the symbolic equations of physics that represent the laws of nature can only represent fixed relationships between categories of variable. The equations can’t represent a cause of number change for the variables: the equations can only represent the consequence if a couple of the numbers have changed.

The cause of number change for the variables can only be represented with algorithmic symbols. The algorithmic symbols represent an evaluation of a numeric situation for some of the variables, and the response to this evaluation, which is represented as an assignment of numbers to some of the variables.

In other words, no set of equations can represent a dynamic world, where people and things move. At all levels of the world, from particles to people, it is necessary for them to evaluate situations, and for them to make numeric inputs: this makes the world move; equations can’t make the world move.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Stephen A. Brenner replied on Feb. 10, 2021 @ 00:20 GMT
I'm clearly not trying to create a sentient robot. It's a model from which we can potentially use to observe and understand our own states of change.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 10, 2021 @ 22:05 GMT
Many or most physicists seem to believe that law of nature relationships will eventually be found to have been underlying quantum mechanics all along.

Yet the set of equations that symbolise law of nature relationships between categories of variable (like mass or position), or indeed any set of equations at all, can never represent a dynamic system:

1) Equations symbolise relationships that do not exist inside their own categories: law of nature relationships do not exist inside time, mass or position. I.e. law of nature relationships are instantaneous.

2) Equations that include delta symbols symbolise instantaneous change in the numbers for some of the variables, ONLY IF the numbers for some of the other variables have already changed

3) Despite any delta symbols, equations can only symbolise relationships: equations can’t symbolise a mechanism for number change.

4) Leaving aside the question of what a number is, equations don’t need numbers assigned to their variables: equations just sit there, symbolising relationships between categories.

5) To assign a number to a category is to introduce a new element to the picture. The assignment of numbers can only be represented by introducing algorithmic symbols to the picture. Algorithmic symbols are needed to turn the law of nature equations into something that symbolises a dynamic system.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 15, 2021 @ 21:30 GMT
In all fairness...

Part of what you are talking about here is the disconnect between QM and GR, and the fact there is incompatible terminology, or the lack of a simple unifying description that adequately reproduces features of both. This is why folks have resorted to ideas for Quantum Gravity theories that are so far afield from the common reality we all know is real. But Quantum Gravity is NOT irrelevant to this topic.

You should really read, or listen to the book on tape, "Reality is Not What it Seems," by Carlo Rovelli - whose work is being discussed here. It is evident to this reader that only scientists who have some understanding of the reasoning leading up to Quantum Gravity theories should try to explicate the origins of consciousness, because some of the same factors become variables in that regime.

And in defense of that endeavor; I point out that your statement 1) explicitly reproduces what I have said repeatedly, that equations represent relations that exist apart from space, time, and matter, NOT inside it. However; what you have said means you are now a radical Platonist, so I don't think that could be genuine. You might be implying that IF 1) were true, it leads to a contradiction.

But I'm happy there is something we completely agree on.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 16, 2021 @ 14:50 GMT
And for the record...

I recall having used arguments similar to yours on the steps of the University of Western Australia Physics building, when conversing with Hew Price after his lecture on the 'Block Universe' interpretation of GR, where everything is fixed in its place in space and time, only we don't know it yet for future events. This view lacks something essential.

I find the idea of a lifeless interpretation of reality deplorable, but I don't think that's what Physics tells us at all. Quantum Mechanics gives us a very different outlook from Relativity. So I tend to think Physics is not as dead as some people imagine. On the other hand; I also see Math as being full of dynamism, which is where our agreement on things falls apart and our opinions totally diverge, Lorraine.

But on some level, it appears we have been on the same page, or have agreed at some point in our lives. It just happened at different times.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 16, 2021 @ 16:10 GMT
And perhaps...

What you say above might be more true to fact if instead of 'instantaneous' the word was 'ubiquitous' or the term 'universally applicable' or 'context-independent' was used instead. As it stands; you have depicted natural law and outcomes in reality as 'cause and effect' but they might better be seen as two sides of a single coin. In this way; the fact that natural events follow a pattern is thought to imply there is a 'law of nature' at work behind the scenes, but those events are the embodiment of that law, not an effect thereof.

So in a universe where real world concerns stipulate that nothing can happen instantaneously, and there are no truly straight lines; we can't just assume simultaneity. As I recall; Einstein and Ritz argued bitterly about this issue, and the scientific community remains somewhat divided on whether we can view separated events from being simultaneous. This makes the idea that any kind of natural law applies instantaneously subject to being picked apart. It is not just a matter of semantics.

To say something is instantaneous implies that it happens infinitely fast. But the real-world universe appears to have a speed limit - at least past the point in early-universe cosmology where massive particles first appeared. And we don't really know how different things were at the first instant or Planck scale.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 21, 2021 @ 01:20 GMT
“Like every other virus before it, SARS-CoV-2 has only one goal: to survive” (https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-02-21/coronavirus-c
ovid-19-variants-how-they-alter-pandemic-vaccines/13137136):


NO, a virus does not have a goal: there is no lawful goal-type thing creating outcomes in the world. If there WERE such a thing, then physicists would have to update their ideas and add a mysterious “goal to survive law” to the law of nature relationships between variables, and the other basic elements of the world like numbers and particles.

It’s easy to see that a “goal to survive” can be broken down into:

1) knowledge/ consciousness of situations (represented by the numbers corresponding to a set of variables, and the analysis of these numbers); and

2) the outcome of/ response to this analysis of the situation (represented by the numbers corresponding to a set of variables).

A “goal to survive” is an element of the world that can only be represented via algorithmic symbols, which in turn represent fundamental aspects of the world that CAN’T BE DERIVED FROM other aspects of the world: knowledge/ consciousness/ analysis of situations, and agency/ free will/ creativity in response to this analysis.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 22, 2021 @ 00:32 GMT
I agree that the virus does not have a goal. It has a form that enables particular functions. Those include infecting a suitable host if the opportunity happens and getting its genetic material replicated by the host's cellular 'machinery 'by getting its genetic material into the host's cells. What happens from there, making more viruses, is a consequence of the viral code.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 23, 2021 @ 09:38 GMT
Georgina,

I know it is a bit difficult for you to understand,

but you can’t represent any sort of dynamic system unless you use algorithmic symbols.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 24, 2021 @ 16:03 GMT
There is a story from Greek mythology...

Fearsome warriors who acquired magical powers including the ability to change form stormed the heavens to ask for immortality - and had their wish granted. But afterward; they found it was a curse because they were deathless but not ageless, so they became decay itself and were increasingly devoid of constant form over time. This sounds like the 'life' of a virus.

While it is debatable whether a virus microorganism is alive, or has any intelligence to speak of; it is demonstrable that they exhibit a kind of collective intellect. One might ask if our individual nerves have any IQ to speak of, or is it only because of the collective action they are intelligent? We in our hubris think we are inherently smarter than Covid, and it laughs while we die.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 24, 2021 @ 20:44 GMT
Georgina and Jonathan,

I know you love to discuss history and biology and mythology. But the only issue of relevance to the FQXi website is whether law of nature mathematical relationships alone could ever create a dynamic system where the numbers change. Obviously, they can’t. Lawful mathematical relationships between CATEGORIES (like mass, position) can’t explain the continual NUMBER change in the world. To explain number change, you need to add algorithmic elements to the system. Algorithmic elements are represented by symbols like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and ELSE.

(I’m assuming that you can understand that, in order to analyse the world, you need to represent the world as categories and numbers, and relationships. And go from there.)

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 24, 2021 @ 21:05 GMT
How about flow charts with arrows?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 25, 2021 @ 01:31 GMT
Georgina,

I suspect that you and Jonathan will never understand this type of thing. The issue of symbolic representation is pretty basic stuff, but most people have never needed to consider the issue. I.e. they have never considered something that they are doing all day, every day when they read, write, speak or listen. A computer programmer DOES need to consider the issue of symbolic representation.

You can represent a dog via the word “dog” or the word “chien”, or you can decide that “00010111101101010101” will represent a dog whenever you are talking or writing about dogs. You can represent IF, AND, OR, THEN, and ELSE via flowcharts, but it’s about as useful as using “00010111101101010101” in general conversation, when referring to a dog.

The ACTUAL issue I am talking about is that law of nature mathematical relationships are static relationships between CATEGORIES that can't explain NUMBER change in the world, or the production of patterns in the numbers, or the detection of patterns in the numbers.

Law of nature mathematical relationships are represented via a string of symbols (i.e. equations). But number change, and the production of patterns in the numbers, and the analysis of patterns in the numbers can only be represented via a string of symbols which would include some or all of the following symbols: IF, AND, OR, THEN, and ELSE.

These algorithmic symbols cannot be derived from mathematical relationships; indeed they are about different things: algorithmic symbols are all about particular numbers; mathematical relationships are all about particular categories.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 25, 2021 @ 23:25 GMT
Perhaps Art classes are needed...

In terms of qualia; the most fundamental relation is foreground to background. Shades of grey exist. But in treating matters of directionality; Georgina is right and arrows have a certain elegance. In terms of the underlying structure; it is absolutely true that a category-theoretic formulation subsumes other mathematical relations.

You only need to recast familiar concepts in category-theoretic terms to extract new information. That is not news. But I don't hear you talking about morphisms or functors. So it is partly artificial to object to things that ARE being treated properly in Maths, just because you have not attended those classes yet.

However; I reiterate earlier statements. While it may be true that symbols once created just sit there; they may also be viewed as steps in a program and so on.

Be Well,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 25, 2021 @ 20:55 GMT
Despite the delta symbols, the equations of physics that represent the laws of nature, represent static relationships between categories. These equations represent the consequence IF one or two of the numbers, that apply to the categories, happened to change. The equations do not represent a reason for why those one or two numbers happened to change. In other words, the equations do not explain why the world is a dynamic system. You need to use algorithmic symbols to represent a reason for why those one or two numbers happened to change.

You’ve only got 2 choices for why those one or two numbers happened to change, and both of them can only be algorithmically represented, where the symbols represent the input of new numbers to the system: 1) random number change that occurs without any logical reason, i.e. the number change is irrelevant to the situation; and 2) number change that occurs for a logical reason, i.e. the number change is relevant to the situation.

You need to use algorithmic symbols to represent: 1) the detection of, and the analysis of, numeric situations; and 2) the input of new numbers to the system in response to the analysis of the situation.

Agency is all about the input of new numbers to the system, where these new numbers are a response to the numeric situation. Consciousness is all about the detection of, and the analysis of, numeric situations.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 26, 2021 @ 13:06 GMT
I agree totally Lorraine, you are relevant , that is why I see like this following your resoning

The importance is to differenciate the static relationships between these categories so implying consequences for the equations and the numbers are correlated ,that does not imply a reason of change , that is why an equation needs algorythms for the change ,

all is a question of numeric situations and detections and analysis , like an agency being all about the input of new numbers to a system and we have responses to these situations, the number change so are essential and relevant. That implies relevances for the detedction of this consciousness in finding the good foundamental objects and this philosophy ,

that is why these assymetries and non commutativity for the subgroups are essential like the good equations, algorythms and numeric analysis towards this hard problem, the geometrical algebras are important but like I said we need the good foundamental objects and the good general philosophy, the problem is there.

That implies a real difficulty to find the good universal partition where the numbers, algorythms, equations, fields are in harmony

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

report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 26, 2021 @ 14:02 GMT
Thanks.

I am no mathematician, but This is how I have understood it.

1) the equations of physics that represent the laws of nature, represent static relationships between categories. These are symmetries and conservation Laws mostly. This is why they are static. You can say they lack energy. This is the problem with E8, it is too symmetric,in my mind. Maybe if you link many together...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 26, 2021 @ 14:04 GMT
I would like to see physics added to math, like time. space, density matrices, energy matrices etc.

In a way a computer use the 4D to check up with. Like finding the 'pearls' within... This gives the dynamicity.

I have earlier looked at gravitation as E8 groups, but the dynamicity is a problem, like it was also for Einstein, so he added some small tension in between as a fluctuation... This add also must follow some Law, or is it a 'Law of irreversibility' like Prigogine talked of? Note time is not the one here. Prigogine talked of a lambda operator...

Ulla.

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

report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 27, 2021 @ 20:21 GMT
If you want to represent a dynamic world you need:

1) Something to handle the categories (equations, which represent law of nature relationships between categories); and

2) Something to handle the numbers (algorithmic statements, which represent knowledge of numeric situations, and the numeric response to this knowledge).

The necessity of using algorithmic statements if you want to represent a dynamic system is fairly common knowledge these days. Nevertheless, physicists and philosophers are still in the dark about it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 27, 2021 @ 23:01 GMT
Ulla,

I was a computer programmer and analyst for more than 20 years; I studied the subject at university (as well as physics and maths), and I know how computers work. Unfortunately, the majority of physicists and philosophers don’t understand the nitty gritty details about how computers work (e.g. physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, philosopher David Chalmers), and so they come to the wrong conclusions about computers/ AIs.

Computers/ AIs are “classical” i.e. deterministic, just like any human-made machine is deterministic. That is, computers don’t know about numeric situations and they don’t make decisions. Computers run programs written by human beings that symbolically represent human knowledge and analysis of numeric situations, and human decision making in response to this analysis[1].

Computers can symbolically represent dynamic systems like the world and its parts, where “its parts” are (e.g.) living things and viruses. Whereas computers are constrained by their computer programs, there is no computer program controlling living things and viruses; but there ARE lawful relationships constraining categories. There is no computer program controlling living things and viruses, but the only way to represent their knowledge of numeric situations, and their response to this knowledge, is with algorithmic symbols.

1. Despite all the checks and balances written into computer programs for AIs, some computer programs for AIs can run amok because of the unpredictable nature of the inputs and situations the computer programs need to handle. But most computer programs are designed for use in very restricted situations, so they don’t run amok unless there are errors/ bugs in them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 10:59 GMT
Lorraine, this was not an answer to my questions, pls read properly. I am interested in consciousness, how can numbers be 'conscious' and represent a 'symbol' esp. my last question. Thanks. Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Lorraine Ford replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 22:49 GMT
Ulla,

The answer to your questions requires background knowledge and understanding on your part, and the ability to logically analyse things: it’s not a matter of me imparting knowledge to you.

The creation and use of symbols by human beings is a key concept. Also, knowledge of physics, mathematics, and computers is required.

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

report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Mar. 1, 2021 @ 16:14 GMT
But the questions came from YOUR own comments, and you repeat them so often. And you cannot answer, yes or no, even? Maybe it is just gibberish talk from your side? And from when have you started to take notions of others levels of knowledge? Never mind, it is my problem, not yours.

I just took YOUR OWN statements and expanded on them, so something you should be able to tell, esp about how we recieve a number as an answer to an quiry or measurement, and how that number can be aware of its meaning. Thanks. Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 01:02 GMT
About not remembering the future. Material existence does not need to be 4D for non simultaneity of an observed event, and being uni-temporal dispels the temporal paradoxes. When existence is not spread over time , there is no material future or past.

An event materially happens, Potential sensory stimuli, pertaining to the event, are emitted, transmission occurs. An o0bserver may receive the sensory stimuli and use them to generate observation products that are experienced. Short and then long term memories form by alteration of the connections of neurons.

From source material event to memory formation is sequential change. It is a tiny part of the change of the configuration of all that is existing, that can be thought of as passage of time.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 01:09 GMT
There is no sequential, material change from non existent future to memory formation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 11:10 GMT
Explain how long term memories are made, thx. Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 20:14 GMT
That is something you can research online, to find recent developments in that area.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 05:09 GMT
Carlo Rovelli said, "Matter itself is contextual it exists only in interactions, hence in relation..." Towards the end of the video. Talking about the current view of physics. If that is the current view I don't think it is quite right Measurements that give us so called properties of matter, necessitate relations between measuring and measured entity or system. Even if a measurement is not extracted we can know that relations between entities or systems provide potential measurables; this relative to that. But to say that measurables, giving quantified properties and the enabling relations are all that exists is missing that for there to be such relations there must first be the existing stuff, the beable, noumenal, ontic, existential stuff. That there is both mater and 'subjective' contextual properties is still relevant to the hard problem.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 11:08 GMT
I have hard to follow here, can you pls explain better? Ulla. Rovellis staement looks ok to me,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 20:09 GMT
The problem I have is with the expression "it exists only in interactions" Rather than 'it exists and always in relation to other existence' The first expression implies the existence is foremost wholly dependent for its being upon its interactions. Ie. we can measure it therefore it exists.

We could in theory quantify Carlo Rovelli, with values for as many measurable 'properties' as we can think of; Height, weight, BMI, clothing ,shoe and hat size, lung capacity, aerobic endurance, electrolyte values, heart rate, blood pressure- I could go on. The aggregate of all of this quantifications tells a lot about Carlo but does not make the existent matter that is the fundamental being that is Carlo. so long as his environment is conducive for continued life, Carlo's material being endures despite his interactions not only because of them.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ulla Marianne Mattfolk replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 21:27 GMT
What comes first, interactions or properties, observables? It seems you talk of much but not about interactions, entanglement, fluxes... small things that hold it together, glues etc. It requires a 'gate' or a hinder of some kind to get the noncommutativity, and the 'blow-up' as interfererence. Lorraine talked about dynamicity here, as instance. I don't think this goes against Rovelli? Without this we would not have matter as we find it?

Just my op.

Ulla.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 06:29 GMT
Re Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 01:02 GMT,

Georgina Woodward replied on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 01:09 GMT, and

Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 05:09 GMT:

Georgina has provided us with 3 good examples of word salad: words and phrases linked together in an unintelligible manner.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 01:04 GMT
Lorraine, that is rude. Unintelligible to you does not mean generally unintelligible. You are blaming me for your lack of comprehension, I think the problem is your own.

I have looked at the comments in question. They are written clearly and pertain to a self consistent explanatory framework.

You could have instead asked me to explain what specifically you don't understand, rather than jumping to the conclusion I am writing unintelligible 'word salad'

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Feb. 28, 2021 @ 22:22 GMT
Ulla,

Re: How do computers work?

The properties/ physical characteristics of the solar system and the galaxy are a consequence of the laws of nature. One property is that, at the Earth’s equator, the amount of sunlight plus starlight varies from a minimum (midnight) to a maximum (midday). From the point of view of human beings, midnight could potentially be utilised to represent 0, and midday could potentially be utilised to represent 1.

Somewhat similarly, the properties/ physical characteristics of electrical circuits, voltages and transistors are a consequence of the laws of nature. When human beings correctly organise the parts of the system, and when human beings write a computer program to control the system, the physical characteristics of electrical circuits, voltages and transistors can be utilised by human beings to represent binary digits and Boolean algebra. This is only useful because human beings further organise the system so that the “binary digits” and “Boolean algebra” can represent letters/ words/ numbers/ and other symbols, mathematical operations, and logical analysis.

I.e. due to the laws of nature and human ingenuity, a system of electrical circuits, voltages and transistors can be utilised to symbolically represent letters/ words/ numbers/ and other symbols, mathematical operations, and logical analysis. The use of symbols by human beings the key reason that human beings were able to create computers: computers process symbols (of symbols of symbols). These symbols mean something from the point of view of human beings, but the symbols mean nothing from the point of view of the computer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 23:40 GMT
The above sentence should be: “The use of symbols by human beings IS the key reason that human beings were able to create computers: computers process symbols (of symbols of symbols).”

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lorraine Ford wrote on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 22:13 GMT
Symbols are important. EVERY symbol was created by human beings. The following are examples of symbols:

1) the letters of the alphabet, and the words and sentences formed out of these letters;

2) the symbols used in the equations of mathematics and physics, and the equations formed out of these symbols; and

3) the symbols used in musical notation like crotchets, minims, semiquavers, Treble clefs, Bass clefs, sharp and flat symbols, and the finished document representing the piece of music.

All these symbols are just SQUIGGLES THAT HAVE NO MEANING IN THEMSELVES. Human beings have given these symbols a meaning. This meaning is transmitted to other human beings via education. To human beings that have not been educated about the meaning of the symbols, the symbols have NO meaning.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Mar. 2, 2021 @ 22:16 GMT
The all day, every day use of written and spoken symbols by human beings demonstrates an important point: there is a fundamental aspect of the world that can only be represented algorithmically:

Whereas law of nature relationships are symbolically represented as mathematical equations, the detection and analysis of symbols can only be represented via the use of algorithmic symbols [1]. The equations can only represent RELATIONSHIPS between CATEGORIES [2]; the equations can never represent ANALYSIS of the NUMBERS that apply to the categories.

To detect symbols, you need to detect patterns in the frequency or wavelength of the light or sound waves that interact with the eyes or ears. This detection of patterns requires analysis of the numbers that apply to the frequency or wavelength.

The pre-existing ability to detect patterns in the numbers that apply to the categories is a necessary pre-requisite for life. In other words, there is a fundamental aspect of the world that can only be represented algorithmically.

1. IF, AND, OR, THEN, and ELSE are examples of algorithmic symbols

2. Mass, position, frequency, and voltage are examples of categories

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 16:44 GMT
Humans have created abstractions...

These are organizing principles by which both natural events and symbolic representations can be interpreted. To an extent; you must start where you are to make any observations whatsoever. This is why Rovelli puts his emphasis on the relational aspect of learning.

All knowledge is acquired with respect to a particular framework, and our own situation within the fabric of nature is the most natural starting place. But to rephrase Dieter Zeh; it is our being situated at a particular time and place that creates the illusion the universe is coalescing into the events we see now.

The initial formation of symbols is NOT a human creation (as I have shown elsewhere) because nature is creating symbolic representations all the time. But while we started by encapsulating the symbols that describe real events in nature; our process of abstraction proceeded into the meta-reality of symbols about symbols, abstractions of an abstraction, and so on.

So for some human-created symbols; one might need a human guide to correctly interpret them. Yet not all symbols are human-created, fail to be interpreted without a guide, and so on. Some things we could call symbols contain their own key or guide to interpretation. But it is true there is always a process of elaboration, where a key or guide must be employed by an intelligence of some sort in order to be decoded.

So if a symbol is a condensed representation of information about something, it must be unpacked or unraveled correctly in order to be meaningful.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 17:06 GMT
The same things can be depicted differently...

One can look at a waveform on an oscilloscope to see its shape. One can take that signal and pass it through a speaker, converting an electronic wave into a sound. If the shape is smooth it has one tone or timbre, and if the waveform has jagged edges it sounds quite different. The two waves could be playing the same note (at the same frequency) but they will sound different.

And of course; one could invert the setup, using different instruments through a microphone to compare how the wave forms look different - though the two are playing the exact same note. But which is the symbol for which here? Does there need to be a human involved at all, for there to be a translation from one form or representation to another? And is there a consistent answer for all interpreters?

If we send the same wave through the air as EM, in radio waves; it has a much longer wavelength because the speed of light is much greater than the speed of sound. Which one is the true wavelength in this case? There are plenty of open questions. But here, the relations stay the same while the form of expression changes. This is the kind of patterning humans tend to notice and remember.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 17:39 GMT
The above discussion is meant to show...

Human beings did NOT invent symbols or symbolic relations and representations. What humans did do was preserve symbolic representations of natural events, so the projected image of real occurrences could be shared at a later time. This was a momentous accomplishment, because it allowed knowledge to be passed on from one individual to another - without the original knower having to be present.

So it is the sharability of preserved symbols that gave those who could interpret them an evolutionary advantage, and this led to the early history of human culture in some measure. But the miracle is that symbols can preserve a relation or correspondence as well as a description of things as such. So in that way; symbols DO capture dynamism, or they must do so in some way to be realistic.

This emphasizes the point I made above, that relations can be preserved when the same information is projected upon a different medium. And it is this consistency or near-universality of some symbolic relations that makes them especially useful or helpful to understand consciousness. So in a very real sense; we find the brain contains maps of where we have been and so on.

Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate
Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 18:02 GMT
I think it is essential...

To distinguish between 3-d and 2-d is necessary for symbolic thinking, and the ability to correctly estimate dimensionality appears foundational to further acquisition of skills with learning through symbols. I was fortunate that, in 5th grade our teacher had us learning to triangulate as a class project in surveying. I wish everyone had some grounding in the subject, and also knew how to do distance and size estimations.

See the work of Judy DeLoache for some details. A web search for "Becoming Symbol Minded" reveals several links to an article and other items of interest to this discussion.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 3, 2021 @ 19:41 GMT
Jonathan, the extradimenions are just human inventions like the 1D, 2D, 4D, 8D, 10D,1D,26D, they are maths of strings, the universe seems a pure 3D at all scales, we cannot confound. The strings in D at this planck scale oscillating also , an assumption, the fields like origin of the reality, an assumption, the GR like the only one piece of puzzle, an assumption.We must recognise this I believe.

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.