Recognising Top-Down Causation by George F. R. Ellis

Hi George,

Thank you for the recommendation. Sounds like an interesting approach. I've already ordered a copy (how did we survive before the internet?), and will position it near the top of my "to read" pile.

Thank you also for the "sneak preview" of Smolin's upcoming book. If it broadly supports your view, I suspect it may also broadly support my view. I like Deutsch's comment: "The way we converge with each other is to converge upon the truth." (The Beginning of Infinity, p. 257.)

Cheers,

jcns

George: ``The present: The ever-changing surface S(τ) separating the future and past - the 'present' - at the time τ is the surface {τ = constant} determined by the integral (20) along a family of fundamental world lines starting at the beginning of space time... But is this well defined, given that there are no preferred world-lines in the flat spacetime of special relativity?... [argument wrt GRT]... therefore there are preferred timelike lines everywhere in any realistic spacetime model... The special relativity argument does not apply.''

Tom: ``... I think this is consistent with your evolving block universe of spacetime evolution with no preferred surfaces.''

Dear George:

I'm just trying to understand your position. In your conception of an evolving block universe, don't you think there are preferred surfaces S(τ) as well as preferred timelike lines? Are you then arguing that these are well-defined in a realistic spacetime model, as opposed to special relativity, because of the existence of matter? Are you perhaps thinking of this in terms of top-down causation, whereby the matter that there is, which exists *in time*, is actually the cause of the ever-changing preferred surface S(τ)? i.e., that the matter that exists is also the cause of *existence*, so described?

Daryl

Dear George Ellis,

You are being asked some very good questions. I hope you're enjoying the process as much as I am. I wish to thank you for pointing out above that one must "get the same arrow of time everywhere", making me realize that my simple summary did not make this point clear. The scale invariance of my solution [prior to symmetry breaking] is [according to Nottale] equivalent to motion invariance and this effectively means that the 'shape' of the solution does not change with scale *or* the passage of time. I improperly characterized this as 'space and no time'. In actuality there can exist global [cosmic] time but it is not discernible when symmetry is unbroken. After symmetry breaks, the gravito-magnetic circulation leads to vortices -- the first cyclic phenomena -- and essentially introduces "local clocks" to space(time). It is conceivable to me that the left-handed nature of these 'clocks' is related to the one-way flow of time.

Thanks again for pointing out the need for the arrow 'everywhere'.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Wait,Daryl. How is an ever changing preferred surface not a non-preferred surface?

Tom

Dear Tom:

A three-dimensional space that evolves as time flows is described relativistically by defining a particular foliation of space-time, as describing the ``associated surfaces of constant time [that] are uniquely geometrically and physically determined in any realistic spacetime model''. The foliation is a set of preferred surfaces---but really each one describes the geometry of the evolving three-dimensional space at a particular value of cosmic time.

Potentially more important than ``changing'' is the fact that the surface is ``existing'', in a real flowing sense. In this physical system, an ``observer'' can move through this evolving space as time progresses; but then, according to relativity theory, ``space'' at any value of ``time'' won't be the same surface for this ``observer'', but a different spacelike hypersurface of the partially complete evolving block space-time that emerges. This is the case even when there are no forces acting on the ``observer''. Relativity then begs the question why the one foliation should be ``preferred'' over any other.

I think this is the general idea that George has in mind. That was my first question. But then I was curious whether George also thinks this question is answered by associating the bundle of fundamental worldlines with matter, and then saying that these fundamental particles of matter actually *cause* the flow of time, so-defined, and whether this could be thought of as a form of top-down causation.

Best,

Daryl

Hello,

It is an interesting answer. The free will is relevant indeed if and only if the rational determinsim is the torch of hidden variables considering the finite groups. The quantization appears more easily.

The degrees of freedom are always so rational. It is logic in fact. The sortings and synchros. appear with a pure universal determinism.

Regards

Hi George,

A thought stimulating essay worthy of submission. However, there is one small point 聽I do not fully agree with; it does not detract from the overall essence, but it does raise an interesting question.

As an example for 聽top-down causation changing the nature of constituent entities you wrote: 聽"....neutrons bound in nucleus have a half life of billions of years but they decay in 11 陆 minutes when free." implying, naively expressed, that an atomic nucleus is a marble like collection of protons and neutrons. I envisage each atomic nuclei as a unique homogeneous entity of energy and charge. 聽Only, for our better understanding or reasoning have we deconstructed the atomic nucleus top-down into a number of protons and neutrons. 聽 Later we construct atomic models bottom-up immediately creating the problem why the whole thing does not fly apart under the strains of the coulomb forces, which consequently we reason away by defining the strong force.

Is the strong force now merely a bottom-up artefact? 聽-聽Stof tot nadenke

Groete

Anton @聽( 聽.../topic/1458 聽)

George,

This is a great essay. I enjoyed reading it. Many of the ides remind me of the theory of emergent probability formulated by Bernard Lonergan in his book Insight: A Study of Human Understanding,especially chapters IV and VIII. You might want to look at it some time.

Paul

George,

Although I agree with your overall point, I note that your "Hypothesis", as stated, is self-contradictory:

"Hypothesis: bottom up emergence by itself is strictly limited in terms of the complexity it can give rise to. Emergence of genuine complexity is characterized by a reversal of information flow from bottom up to top down."

The "reversal of information flow", is well known to occur in many instances, as you note. Indeed, it is so well known, that we have a special word for it - "feedback".

In the context of your essay, if "bottom up emergence" is "strictly limited", then "feedback" processes would have never "emerged" in the first place. "Feedback" is the mechanism by which bottom up processes add top down ones, to their repertoire. It is the cause, the mechanism for emergence. The existence of bottom up processes is necessary to the existence of top down ones.

George,

Your comment that: "feedback ...is not the only type... a very important one is adaptive selection... feedback control cannot lead to that result.", implies that adaptive selection is an example of "top down causation", but not "feedback."

Others employ a much broader definition of "feedback" than you imply. Almost all modern communications signals employ a form of feedback, known in the literature as "decision directed feedback", that is what you are calling "adaptive selection". Instead of simply feeding-back an output into the input, they exploit a priori knowledge, to feedback what the emitter must have "intended to send", rather than what was actually received. They determine what was "intended to be sent", by adaptively selecting their "best guess" from an a priori known list of allowable possibilities; a limited "alphabet".

As you say, such processes do indeed exist and have causal powers. Indeed, processes like Decision Directed Feedback are a major causal power for why an HDTV picture is so much cleaner than older TVs.

I read today the article of Walker and Davies, that you recommend in this blog.

I think that the first organisms, on the Earth, can have contained a unique mixed genetic code: dna+rna in the same helix.

The same structure can contain the hardware, and the software: for example a mechanical clock (or astrolabe) is built to carry out some functions, and there is not a software, because the planner have the software (the idea).

Is it possible that analogic mechanism with great complexity can self-replicating, in an environment that give the right substances? I think that each sensor, and function, can be made in analogic, then a self-replicating robot can be made; but is this a life form? There is self-replication, there is evolution (because of the construction error), but there is not software (only a mechanical structure that make a task); it is possible that the robot can make alternative tasks (I think some nanotechnologic machines self-replicating with elementary chemical and that make some tasks): the problem is that there is not a code (DNA) but a structure.

It is interesting to try a test for life like the Turing test (top-down life test): an artificial ant (with the same external function of an ant) can be recognized like an artificial ant (without dissection)?

It is possible to built, with supercomputer, self-replicant program (that self-write in some memory location, isolated from external environment) more and more complex, until to obtain an artificial life (like game of life) of great complexity (artificial software microorganism like virus, or better bacteria), where the artificial environment make the selection (top-down selection); only the real interaction (with sensor and mechanism) permit to obtain an artificial life (artificial insect) without self-replication.

I think that can be possible to build artificial robots (nanotechnology) using complex chemical reaction (bottom-up construction), using some automatic robots to try chemical reaction to simulate different complex chemical reaction (in a far future can be possible the computer simulation of different chemical reaction to built life); I think that can be possible alternative chemical reaction to obtain life (without organic chemistry): the Universe is great, so if it is possible an alternative chemical reaction to obtain life, then in the Universe these reactions happen (I am sure for the elementary process, not until the life creation).

Saluti

Domenico

George,

Yep, I've changed my mind again. This is the best essay. Another top down phenomena.

And you have made this the most interesting thread I have seen on FQXi. It deserves an award all by itself.

Don Limuti

PS: Check out: http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/44_The_Arrow_of_Time.html

Hi George. You will see many of your ideas relate to mine (in different/linked ways) in my essay -- soon to be posted.

FUNDAMENTAL gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing fundamentally sits at the heart of physics, and it demonstrates/proves F=ma fundamentally as well. George, do you agree with this statement?

Gravity sits at the heart of fundamental/general unification in physics. My essay proves this. Do you agree with this?

I would appreciate your rating and comments on my essay -- soon to be posted. Thanks. You are remakably silent given all that I have said in this thread. Yours is a necessary essay and topic/subject. My essay is foundational on waking AND dream physics -- and the link between the two is proven.

Thank you for your essay.