Toward an Informational Mechanics by Karl Coryat

Karl, Paul,

"For a human and an alien to meet (under the scenario proposed in the essay), we're talking about two complex subsystems interacting which have no contextual history in common."

I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head fully around this concept/scenario. If there is no underlying "it," then we (as well as any hypothetical alien race) are both totally free to create, from whole cloth as it were, a concept of objective reality. Correct so far? But if there is no underlying "it," then any hypothesized alien race would be part of *our* creation from whole cloth. So then if this were the case, couldn't we take this creation in any direction we choose, so long as our reality remains internally consistent?

Even if there *were* an underlying "it," then we and any previously unencountered alien race still would be totally free to develop our own separate descriptions and explanations for the nature of that "it," perhaps dramatically different due to having developed different sensory capabilities (perhaps they see only gamma radiation or something).

So I'm wondering, should we ever have an encounter with an alien race, would there be any way this encounter could help us answer the question of whether there is or is not an underlying "it"? Why or why not?

My concern here, I guess, is that we're treading very close to solipsism, aren't we? If not, why not?

jcns

JCN and Paul, thank you for the challenging discussion. For head-wrapping purposes, the scenario in the essay can be thought of as a kind of "evolutionary collective solipsism." I hope I did not just step in it with that remark, as solipsism is something of a dirty word. However, the scenario differs from traditional solipsism in at least three respects: (1) Solipsism denies multiple minds and multiple observers, as there is no way to account for a single objective reality seen by many individuals. I try to close this gap on page 6 of my essay. (2) Solipsism denies an objective history of the biological world. A solipsist might say that dinosaurs did not live on Earth, the evidence for them being only when "I" dig up a fossil, which is just silly. In the essay's scenario, organisms and their minds evolve, in parallel with the physical world that they observe. (3) Solipsism/idealism seem to imply that we can create whatever reality we desire. This is falsified by observation (I realize it whenever I try to play the piano). Objective reality and one's imagination are clearly different.

As for discovering a true alien lineage with its own independent history, nothing would prevent that from happening -- provided their history is consistent with ours. But I think this would be terribly unlikely. It would be a bit like two authors showing up at the same publisher at the same time with identical manuscripts. If the aliens observe four spatial dimensions and three varieties of charge, and they have flotons instead of photons, and they have a map of smalaxies that's different from our map of galaxies, I don't believe any kind of interaction could occur. The gears just wouldn't mesh.

So, I believe that if we found a distant planet with signatures of complex metabolic activity and energetic local entropy-reduction, or any kind of complex informational signal (like in "Contact"), this would falsify the essay's scenario and point to a world underlain by "it."

Karl,

Thanks for the good reply. You've clearly done some thinking about this. You've encouraged me, by your essay and by your posts thereon, to do some additional thinking about it, too. It certainly is a fascinating topic. Moreover, your essay, unlike a few others I've read definitely is responsive to the theme of the competition.

Your observation about falsifiability is important, too, of course, being what keeps us within the realm of science.

No problem about the anonymous posting; it's happened to all of us at one time or another.

Keep up the good work!

jcns

JCN

For an alien and human to 'meet' means that one, or the other, or both, are able to sense the other through at least one of their sensory systems. There may be a million aliens in your room right now, but you have no ability to sense them. On the other hand, they may be able to 'hear' you, or whatever. The point is, so long as one validated (ie not some lone individual with a vision!) sensing is operational, then these two are of the same existence. They are only alien in so far as they are not human.

There must be an underlying 'it', because sensory systems have developed to take advantage of it. But we can only know of 'it' through these systems, ie we are trapped in a sensory closed loop. In this sense, one could say it has to be regarded as an abstraction. But that is all we have. And if you stand on a railway line you will most certainly appreciate the effects created by its existence, and have enough sense to move before interacting with it! The alien might have different sensing systems, and get squashed.

Paul

Paul, Karl,

"There must be an underlying "it", because sensory systems have developed to take advantage of it. But we can only know of "it" through these systems, ie we are trapped in a sensory closed loop."

At first glance, this appears to be a rather convincing point in favor of an underlying "it." Karl, I'd be interested in your take on this.

It's clear that not all sentient beings (even among our garden variety fellow earth-bound creatures) share exactly the same sensory systems. As a rule of thumb, it would appear that the more sensory systems to which we have access, the better able we are to understand and cope with our environment. One of our "known unknowns" is the number and nature of types of sensory data which may exist but which we are not able to access (or even imagine). Can people who are born blind imagine what it is like to be sighted? I don't know, but it's possible that we could be in an analogous position with regard to some types of sensory data thus far unknown to us.

jcns

JCN/Karl

(JCN) but all sentient organisms do share the same sensory processes, in that, generically, the functioning of any given type of sensory system is identical across all organisms. How that manifests between species type, and indeed between individuals of the same species, is another matter. Indeed, one can go further, in that all sensory systems are logically identical (independent physical effect, detected, processed). This is just a function of evolution.

Which brings us to the next point. That which is received by sensory systems is physically existent. It is only 'information' in the sense that those systems, should they be in the line of travel and therefore receive (ie interact with) that physically existent effect, can process it. Put another way, a brick, or an ear, cannot process light, an eye can. But this acquired functional role has no effect on their physical existence. They are not altered by it, and neither are they developing in reaction to it. Sensory systems evolved, and continue to do so, to make use of pre-existent physical phenomena. But they can only sense that which is there, independently of them. Or to be precise, we can infer that from what is received. On top of that, in order to progress, hypothecation is allowable, to overcome certain practical problems in the sensory process, or we can use technology to enhance it, but not to second guess an alternative existence.

Paul

Karl

What any given ancestors sensed, is a function of the capabilities of their sensory system at that point in time. What they received, ie what collided with them, was exactly the same in terms of generic physical constitution, as it is today.

Paul

Karl

OK, so if that is the case, then photons do not constitute what we mean by the label elementary particle (see my post over in JCN's blog). The definition of that being a 'substance' (and there may be various types) which physically, in generic terms, persists in the same physically existent state over time. In other words, some innate properties which comprise the 'substance' are always existent. Their value, or what they manifest as, at any given point in time may well vary from circumstance to circumstance.

But another point here is that, in simple terms (and I really wish-like everybody else-that we knew what was actually happening), any given light can be characterised as a physical effect in a physical photon (or definitive number thereof). It is the physical result of a physical reaction with a physically existent state (ie the reality which can now be ultimately seen if that light, and others that follow, come into contact with an eye when travelling). Precisely how it works....but that is sufficient to reveal a key point, ie light, more or less, is able to retain its existent state over time (ie as it travels). Meanwhile, the reality which it 'represents' (ie from the perspective of the sensory system) has ceased to exist.

Paul

Karl,

How about "evolutionary collective tautology?" Then you avoid the implications of a solipistic creature contemplating only itself. Wheeler's famous drawing of the "eye" includes an interval, suggesting the underlying objectivity of a world made of information.

Great reading! I hope you get around to reading my own essay which is also based on Wheeler's it from bit philosophy. Good luck in the contest.

Tom

Tom

Yep, what we can know is what we can know.

Paul

Karl H Coryat,

Could you please explain what is information in the context that you are applying the word? Does it have a physical explanation or representation in your context or is it pre-existing understanding without origin? By understanding, I mean does the information have meaning? If so, is it information that understands information? If it does have an origin and that origin is not physical, then is it its own cause? If it is its own cause, did it begin from something before the first bit. Was there a first bit that gave existence to other bits? Is there a state where information does not have meaning? If not, then what is the origin of meaning? Do you assume that information arrives with meaning intact. When it does arrive what receives it? Is it received by information? Would you use the words arrive and receive? If so, what do they mean in your context? If not, then what is the information doing?

James

Thank you Karl,

I enjoyed reading your essay. It is just that in the transition to information, it appears that the theory borrows the attributes of a physical world while denying it. By the way, I do think that information is primary. It is what we use. Everything else we think exists or does results from our interpretation of information. However, so far as I understand it, empirical evidence consists of information about changes of distance and time. So, I accept distance and time as the two fundamental indefinable properties. Anyway, that is just what I think. I do have a question?

"The very reason why we can even have a concept such as "meaning" is that we are sitting atop a mountain of information and have this rich contextual history to draw from. The spirit of my essay is that it may be difficult or impossible to understand ultimate reality if one assumes that objects or physical laws (or meaning for that matter) necessarily appear in the world intact and absolute, irrespective of anything else."

What are we that we can assign meaning to information? Thats pretty much what I was getting at, by questioning where or when meaning comes into existence or use. Where does the intelligence reside?

James

Thank you Karl,

I feel that I have gained some understanding of your reasons for the ideas you present in your essay. Like I said, I enjoyed your essay. Thank you for your responses to my questions.

James

Karl

Information is not physically existent. Some physically existent phenomena are only potentially 'information' in the context of sensory systems which have evolved to utilise them. So, if and when, any such given physical phenomenon interacts with (ie their lines of travel coalesce) the receiving organ of a sensory system which can process it, then it becomes information in respect of that functional role in that sensory system, and indeed ceases to exist. Its physically existent state is unaffected by the subsequent activity.

In other words, if light hits a brick wall, it is not utilised because brick walls are not the front end of a sensory system. However, if that light had hit an eye, then.....The physical existence is the same in both cases. What the mouse or the flatworm can then do is irrelevant. That is just a discussion about physiology, biology, sociology, etc. This all wraps in with my point about 'aliens' above.

Paul