• [deleted]

  • Post #8

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #9

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

  • [deleted]

  • Post #10

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 and Paul, I think that's missing the main argument of the essay. The idea is that (informational) sensory systems evolve in parallel with the environment being sensed, all of the above becoming increasingly complex in the process. If our earliest ancestor(s) had sensed magnetic monopoles and six spatial dimensions, perhaps today we'd be saying that "magnons" must be fundamental features of our highly complex six-dimensional universe. After all, we would only know these features through our biological (and technological) magnon-sensors and intuitively knowing what it's like to move through six dimensions of space.

There's nothing that would prevent us from discovering novel properties of the world that manifest as new kinds sensory data, provided they are not inconsistent with our other discoveries. We might for instance discover, as we probe at higher energies, that quarks decompose into "even more fundamental" entities, and we might find compactified extra dimensions as proposed by string theory. However it's unlikely we'd uncover a third variety of charge or a fourth large spatial dimension -- again, the gears wouldn't mesh. As an analogy (you can see I like analogies), we can always discover more decimal places for pi as we calculate with greater and greater precision, these merely providing better approximations of pi. But we are unlikely to find a second version of pi that's 3.24 or 4.0. Not in this universe, anyway!

  • [deleted]

  • Post #12

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

I'd like to clarify something I wrote in the previous thread. I mentioned that our earliest living ancestors sensed photons rather than, say, magnetic monopoles. It is more precise to say that they sensed something *which we humans would describe as photons*. The most you can say is that the behavior is consistent with what we'd call photon behavior. In relation to the rich contextual history which we complex self-aware substructures have accumulated, photons are seen to obey strict boundary conditions; but in relation to the crude contextual history of our earliest ancestors, the boundary conditions are looser. I think this is what Paul Davies means when he says (on page 7 of my essay) "the laws start out unfocused and fuzzy" but that observations "help sharpen those laws."

    • [deleted]

    • Post #14

    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

    Paul -- For photons to have an invariant "generic physical constitution," one must assume that they are objects with absolute properties. My essay questions that assumption.

    • [deleted]

    • Post #16

    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

      • [deleted]

      • Post #18

      Tom

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

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      • Post #19

      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

        Hi James, thank you for taking the time to read my essay. I'm afraid I can't answer all of your questions; no one can. It seems as if we are only now figuring out what information is. I refer you to "Information and the Nature of Reality," co-edited by Paul Davies, for the state of the art as to our understanding of what information is, from various perspectives. The book was largely the inspiration for my essay.

        Does information have meaning? Only in relation to other information. Information accumulates, to use a crude analogy, somewhat like compound interest in the bank: as money accumulates in the presence of other money, so does information in the context of other information. (We don't really have the equivalent of a bank or a customer here.) Information is clearly physical in some sense -- but if by "physical" you seek an underlying object or objects from which this information derives, then my essay would suggest instead adjusting what is meant by the word "physical." It refers merely to the automorphism invariance of systems, not necessarily to objects obeying absolute laws.

        "Interact" is perhaps a more general word than arrive or receive, which carry unnecessary connotations. Information has no meaning as a closed system, and therefore information does not appear with meaning intact. 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.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #21

        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

        I would say that meaning is evolutionary. A mouse or a flatworm do not contemplate meaning per se, but they are spectacular at processing information, and this is always done in the context of other information (which is laid out in detail in the Davies book I mentioned). For humans, a species that has fairly recently acquired language and high-level reasoning faculties, it may be tempting to think that what we call "meaning" has always existed in more or less the same form. I'd suggest that the ability to contemplate meaning -- and ultimately meaning itself! -- emerged as a very slow process. It's similar to something I call the comb-over effect: When we see someone with a bad comb-over, we wonder how he could go out thinking this makes him look like he has hair. But we forget that he's been parting his hair like that ever since it began to thin. It has been a long and gradual process but eventually leads to the person looking ridiculous.

        The idea of "borrowing the attributes of a physical world while denying it" sounds a bit like the historical opponents to Copernican theory. That idea was considered absurd by many, because the Earth was, by its very definition, that which did not move. So it seemed as if Copernicus was invoking something that was both the Earth (clearly a non-moving object), and yet moves! Crazy talk, right? Only when you throw out the assumption that the Earth is stationary does the picture make any sense.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #23

        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

        • [deleted]

        • Post #24

        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

        6 days later

        • [deleted]

        • Post #25

        Hi Karl,

        I really enjoyed your essay. Its very clearly written and very interesting and thought provoking.

        It seems to me there has to be a source of the information rather than it just existing. It makes sense, for me, for there to be a source, information/potential sensory data, and output. Having the objects as well does not prevent string like histories, or EM information in the environment being on spherical surfaces. Just data and output doesn't work for me. Which may be my inability to get my head around the alternative. Does the orphan information just exist in the way that we might think of an object just existing? If a blind cave shrimp feels its environment it is obtaining information from the objects,it seems to me. Were is the information in the environment if there is no object to feel?

        Really liked your explanation of chipping away at many histories to make the reality that is known. It is an interesting idea though again one that I cannot say I think is correct. I think there is a lot more information in the environment than is selected and a fabricated reality is formed from that. So from the Multiverse of possibilities originating at the source events that occurred, not many (different)histories.

        Also really liked what you were saying about Aliens having a very different perception of the universe because of their different sensory capabilities.They might also process information differently, being adapted to their environment and way of life.

        Well done. Good luck in the competition.

          Hi Georgina, thank you for the kind words. I realize that the ideas in this essay are a bit out there, and I understand why people may not be getting their heads around it on first look.

          The orphan information exists in the same way we think of objects as existing -- the primary difference is its history. A fundamental object is generally assumed to have existed in that absolute state since shortly after the Big Bang. In the informational scenario, data is constantly being generated in relation to existing data, and it accumulates in this way as an ongoing evolutionary process. There is one and only one fundamental entity, the bit; the particles of the Standard Model emerge to us complex systems and our technology. Wheeler described this emergence process: we hear our detector make a click, and we say, "Aha! A particle did that." But perhaps it was just the appearance of a new bit in the world, and in the very rich context of the situation and everything we've learned about the laws of physics, we interpret the bit as a fundamental object speeding through space and hitting the detector.

          Think of the blind cave shrimp as a bundle of bits, like us, only simpler. However, we don't see bits when we interact with this bundle. A cave shrimp, an object, is what appears to us. It is like a projection that we are biologically equipped to create in our mind (which itself consists of numerous interacting bit-bundles), and these projections are what make up much of the human experience. This is a phenomenon that has evolved over billions of years. As for the cave shrimp itself, it's hard to imagine what experience is like for such an animal, but in some sense, objects emerge in its mind as well. Though more crude, the shrimp is similarly equipped to create these internal projections so as to enhance its fitness.

          The hardest part of this scenario, as you've noticed, is trying to envision the environment as information rather than objects. Space-with-objects seems "normal" to us, and standalone information seems very abstract. But, I claim we should be skeptical of a reality consisting of objects, because it might be unnecessarily extravagant. While it's true the universe may contain ~10^90 objects carrying their accompanying bits of information, perhaps we could have the same identical experience in a universe containing only ~10^60 bits and zero fundamental objects. If that's the case, I claim that Occam's razor points toward the latter. The universe might be much simpler and more elegant than we intuitively assume, and having just one type of fundamental entity, in a compact, self-driven system of mutually relational subsystems, may be all that's needed to account for what we see. To me, an unknowably vast landscape of spacetime with various bosons and fermions obeying seemingly disjointed physical laws of mysterious provenance -- let alone multiple universes out there! -- seems ugly in comparison, like the hilarious building in Vladimir Tamari's essay.

          I've been struggling with various approaches to explaining these ideas. Thank you for the opportunity, and for your time.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #27

          Hi Karl,

          thank you for explaining.

          I can't help thinking that the process of perception is being taken for the foundational physics in the "it from bit" view. Yes images or ideas of objects, that we name, are formed from received data, after learning has occurred.

          The learning component is important. I watched an interesting video, I think it was TED one, about people who were born blind learning to see.For most people this learning would occur in very early infancy. Interestingly it was the relative motion that allowed them to identify separate objects rather than just object outlines. The vital information for differentiation was not concerning the objects themselves but the relationships.

          Without motion overlapping portions of shapes could be misinterpreted as separate objects, and separate objects could be considered the same object.So it seems to me, the "it" comes from knowing it is a separate "it". ie.requires the pattern of neuron connections in the brain of the observer and the received "bits". You seem, to me, to be implying the same in your reply.

          That processing is all on the internal side of a reality interface by my way of thinking.It is producing the observer's Image reality. A fabrication of what exists externally. On the other side of the interface is the existence and change of material objects and sensory data; and ongoing production of data; the observer independent Object reality. To deny the source of the information seems to be doing away with a large part of reality.

          I do appreciate the challenge to think about things differently and the time you have taken explaining your viewpoint to me.

          Good luck.