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

Tom,

There does seem to be quite a lot of evidence from medicine and neuroscience that consciousness is a product of brain function. Brain injury and disease such as tumours affect brain function and the conscious experience is altered as a result. I agree there can be feedback from consciousness to other brain activity because experience can affect decisions and the behaviour that follows, which will affect which new inputs are received. So one might say consciousness is giving -that- brain activity, i.e. activity leading to motor function that in turn controls input (and so subsequent consciousness).

However I am talking about the experienced output of brain function from environmental input not alteration of the input due to alteration of behaviour resulting from the experiences. Though I think it is a valid point to raise it is complicating matters. An observer in a conscious but vegetative state incapable of motor function enabling control of data input would be an easier model and more easily compared to a stationary artificial device acting as an observer. I don't see why continual environmental input of data giving conscious experience and continual moderation of behaviour, controlling the data input should be considered an out of control state. It seems very well controlled to me; by inputs and organised processing to output and responses.

A continuum of consciousness sounds nice but I think it is an ideal based upon misinterpretation of what is observed. The output of processing. The consciousness is internally fabricated within the observer from the discreet data that has been received and processed, which overcomes the paradoxes. The potential data is external in the environment. How it spreads through the environment and the interaction with different media and material objects is the interesting part because it isn't as simple as just a hypersphere of data spreading out from a singular source, though that's a good starting place to think about before the environment under consideration gets more complex and scattering and refraction need to be considered.

"I don't see why continual environmental input of data giving conscious experience and continual moderation of behaviour, controlling the data input should be considered an out of control state."

Georgina, what you call 'moderation of behavior' is negative feedback by definition, a control mechanism. A positive feedback loop (think of microphone-amplifier feedback) is an out of control state by definition.

I think the problem with believing that "The consciousness is internally fabricated within the observer from the discreet data that has been received and processed ..." is that quantum mechanical correlations are not limited to isolated observer systems. That there are no such systems is a theoretical principle, experimentally validated (Bell-Aspect). While consciousness can be said to be nonlocal, however, the physics of consciousness cannot be. As you note, local mechanical functions are affected by local conditions. What's left to be called "physically real" is information itself.

" ... which overcomes the paradoxes." There is no paradox. Either quantum theory applies to the universe in toto, or it is not coherent. Whether classical mechanics can be derived from quantum theory -- or vice versa -- is the problem of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics. My own result says "vice versa" -- that quantum correlations are self-limited by a local classical time parameter, and correlated in proper time to infinity. I accept that Bell-Aspect proves that no classical theory of quantum correlations can be derived from quantum mechanics; it says nothing about what happens the other way around, however.

Tom

Tom,

I don't see why you are assuming the " positive feedback loop (think of microphone-amplifier feedback)."

I said the data was discreet because it seems to be received as light quanta, in either sufficient quantity to activate a sensor or not. There isn't any problem Tom. I am aware that different observers can receive data from the same event and fabricate it into their own reality. That is because the potential sensory data is not just a single particle or ray but many photons spreading out from the source over time. I mentioned the quaternion light cone model described by Roger Penrose (in his PI lecture Twistor space and quantum non locality) in my essay as a potentially useful description of what is occurring as well as the potential usefulness of related algebras.

Yes Tom what is left to be called physically real, that is -your- use of the phrase physically real, is information. (How marvellous that that is the topic of the next FQXi large grant round.) I do not call it information because it is a problematic word that is used in different ways by different people and causes confusion and argument. I have been calling it potential sensory data because that is what it is to us and our technology. It can be received and made into something; it is not just what it is and that's all.

I too have talked about the correlation in my essay. I think I understand what you mean by that "quantum correlations are self-limited by a local classical time parameter". You are talking about how the potential 'data' spreads out and so what is found where, when. When one tries to project what is happening in the quaternion model onto a 3D manifold it then looks rather strange, as Roger Penrose explains. It is also going to be strange for Octonian algebra too. The problem is from incorrectly assuming that the space-time in which objects are seen to exist,( that can be adequately described with a space-time manifold), is that space in which the data exists and propagates. The relationship between Object reality and Image reality has some similarity to the description of implicate and explicate orders described in this paper ALGEBRAS, QUANTUM THEORY AND PRE-SPACE by F. A. M. FRESCURA and B. J. HILEY, Department of Physics, Birkbeck College, London WC1E 7HX UK (Received In February, 22, 1984)

Quote " In this view, the space-time manifold is not a priori given. Rather it is to be abstracted from a deeper prespace.... Quote "In this pre-space, the notion of locality is not primary but is a relationship in prespace which, in an appropriate explicate order, becomes a local order in the explicate space-time."

The framework I have set out shows the primary relationships. The Object reality is analogous to an implicate order and the Image reality the explicate order. different words same generally implied meaning. Now do you want to tell me that Sir Terry Pratchett's "Disc world" physics and the physics of our universe must be united into a single model of reality because the fabricated reality was made within our reality?

Tom,

When I said a 3D manifold I should have said Space-time manifold to be clear. I just meant the "squashed" flat representation rather than the hypersphere. Both having 3 spatial dimensions and time but being different representations of them.

Tom,

It isn't that space isn't full of energy that is by definition unstable, but that it can't be simply dismissed as a measure of the actions of that energy. The parameters of logic are the absolute and the infinite. Energy and dimension are a consequence of opposites; positive/negative, up/down, expansion/contraction, etc. The center of which is zero. Zero is not a point, but an absence, a void. A singularity is a point. The complete absence of any reference is unbounded emptiness. That zero is what I refer to as equilibrium.

So all action and the principles describing it exist within the parameters of the absolute and the infinite and the effect of those parameters are what we call space.

Keep in mind the second step religions take, after the creation myth, is to lay out foundational principles.

Electricity is back, but Comcast is still out, so doing this on a phone.

Georgina,

"Now do you want to tell me that Sir Terry Pratchett's "Disc world" physics and the physics of our universe must be united into a single model of reality because the fabricated reality was made within our reality?"

I had to google Pratchett and Discworld. I'm not positive of what you mean, but if I can guess -- if you're saying that fantasy and physics obey the same model, I'd answer, of course they do. You assign so much value to "reality" that you think there has to be some sharp demarcation between what is imagined and what you deem real.

If that were true -- i.e., if we actually knew the difference between what is fabricated in a brain-mind, Pratchett's or anyone else's, and what we know as "reality," theoretical models of physics would be entirely useless. As it is, because science is a rationalist enterprise, we only accept those imagined models that correspond to objectively measured results. I expect that if one devised a test for some phenomenon in Pratchett's world, it would probably not correlate to the reality we objectively share. Objective knowledge is the only reality that science is concerned with.

As George has made a point of saying in so many words -- and with which I strongly agree -- the reality of consciousness has as much potential for projection into the rational, objective world as any other theory that does not violate fundamental rules of physics. We just don't yet know what all those rules are. We do know that fantasies of a short time ago -- heavier than air flight, space travel, television, nanotechnology -- are realities today.

Tom

John,

You wrote, "So all action and the principles describing (the void) exist within the parameters of the absolute and the infinite ..."

I don't know what you mean by "parameter," but the way that mathematicians use the term, it means "adjustable variable." Neither the absolute nor the infinite are either variable or adjustable in any way that I understand.

" ... and the effect of those parameters are what we call space."

Not we, certainly. Not I.

Tom

Hi George,

I could have been clearer. When I said that quantum theory is incoherent unless it holds for the entire universe, I didn't mean the universe as a "single macro entity." I meant precisely what you proposed in the first of your four assumptions: "Physical reality is made of linearly behaving components combined in non-linear ways."

There is, after all, no way in principle to make a closed logical judgement of objective reality -- i.e., a prediction bounded by physical observables such as correlated quantum properties -- without assuming orientability (state vector preparation). In line with your earlier profound statement, "There is no life without a local arrow of time," I had some years ago based my program on the assumption (which is equivalent to your first assumption, though in an n-dimensional Hilbert space mathematical model) that time can be defined as, "n-dimension infinitely orientable metric on random, self-avoiding walk." Translated to a topological model, local and global boundaries are obscured by the property of orientability alone. Quantum correlations are strong at every scale.

I have to say, having long been familiar with the work for which you are most known, in relativity and large scale structure, how delighted I have been to become exposed to your quantum methods. Though I don't -- at least not yet -- agree with you that the classical world is an approximation to quantum completeness, perhaps the reason that I disagree is significant to the discussion:

If the classical world (classical continuity) can be built from quantum assumptions, I can see no place at all in physics, for Bell's theorem. It has been my disagreement with Joy Christian -- who holds that the theorem proves nothing at all -- that if the theorem is taken at face value on the measurement interval {- oo, oo} then the correlations are true; i.e., the mathematics of linear measurement results in a nonorientable space prove that no classical theory of measurement can be derived from quantum measurement theory. OTOH, I agree with Joy's topological model that demonstrates how strong quantum correlations are derived from classical measurement -- i.e., continuous measurement functions.

Best,

Tom

Joy -- LOL! -- I have never doubted the adage (Mark Twain?) that none of us has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.

There's a subtlety here, though. What I concede is that you're right -- a topological model of continuous measurement functions is the correct way to think of quantum correlations at any scale.

The mathematical structure of Bell's theorem forbids continuous measurement functions (quantum measurement problem). So it would have no relation to the physical world (as I said in my essay) independent of what it assumes. IOW, the quantum theory tautology of "what you see is what you get" leaves no room for metaphysical realism. The stark realism of quantum mechanics dooms the theory to incompleteness.

IF quantum theory could be complete (as, e.g., George Ellis hints at a perturbative quantum measurement scheme in his linked arxiv paper), it might produce classical measurement results. If it did, Bell's theorem would have nothing at all to say about either the quantum measurement problem or classical continuous measurement functions. Or at least -- it would apply only in the limit of a nonorientable space, as a technically useful concept but not foundational.

Personally, I think completeness demands a theory that is nonperturbative, background free, singularity free and coordinate free. I used to think that could only be accomplished by a field theory.

Tom

"No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar." ~ Abe Lincoln

My memory is failing, but my research skills remain intact. :-)

Tom

The Science of Discworld Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen at SCIENCE GALLERY, Trinity College Dublin. Worth watching to the end for their interesting thoughts on science.

Tom, Sir Terry Pratchett's books are very clever and very amusing. Some are essentially highly intelligent children's stories and other's more complex and suitable for young adults. For example in the "Last Continent" the academics of the Unseen University, who find themselves trapped on a strange tropical island, decide that they must first of all find a library to learn how to escape. Very funny because it is so sensible within their sheltered view of reality that it is ridiculous. Quote" After finding a plant-based boat, the wizards start to question their surroundings even more and the god of Evolution, who has been causing the events, then turns up and helps explain things a bit. He created the boat plant so that the wizards would leave him in peace, as the plants are going haywire attempting to evolve to suit the wizards' every needs."Wikipedia. I also love the explanation for the camels being that they arrived by floating on driftwood. Unfortunately Sir Terry is now living with Alzheimer's, but still creating with collaborators.

Sorry I should have tested the link. Here it is working properly

The Science of Disc World

Tom,

There is a difference between imagined ideas shaping the world through human behaviour and those imagined ideas being synonymous with the physical laws in operation in the world. Great cathedrals exist because of the idea of God, but the buildings do not in themselves prove the idea. There are painted and printed images of a Discworld on top of 4 elephants on a turtle that exist, as that particular arrangements of paint or ink molecules on top of the paper or canvas' cellulose molecules, because of a man's idea. However the thing that is imagined does not to our knowledge exist as it is imagined out in space.

I agree with George about the importance of "top down" causality, that larger scales and higher level complexity has effects 'lower down'. Those ideas are briefly presented towards the end of my essay too. I do not agree that there is no difference between what is imagined to be and what is, which seems to be your own position. Though not, to my knowledge, what George has said. The fabricated world of our consciousness built using data input from the external environment, and the imagined world built from internally supplied data are both outputs of processing . The fabricated output can not also be the external raw data pool or the material sources of the data in that pool. They are separated by the function of the interface that turns whatever input data is received into output Image reality.

George,

To the extent life is a reflection of nature, something to keep in mind is that our bodies consist of two primary systems; The central nervous system processes information, while the digestive, respiratory and circulatory systems process energy.

Tom,

"Neither the absolute nor the infinite are either variable or adjustable in any way that I understand."

You are right, but the absolute is an abyss and the infinite is, well, infinite. So, no, we can't "adjust" them, but nor can we "fix" them.

Georgina, you wrote: "There is a difference between imagined ideas shaping the world through human behaviour and those imagined ideas being synonymous with the physical laws in operation in the world."

There is a difference? Where? From the earliest days of human awareness, fire (from lightning or other natural causes) blazed out of control in a continuous positive feedback loop between fuel and oxygen. Negative feedback introduced by controlled burning was among the first technological examples of " ... imagined ideas shaping the world through human behaviour ..." an elementary example of how positive and negative feedback systematically apply to evolution. What actually separates human and animal consciousness is our enhanced ability to participate in our own evolution.

One is challenged to think of a single example in which *rational* human behavior is out of line with physical laws. I agree with Gell-Mann: from the exceedingly simple (quarks) to the exceedingly complex (jaguars, human beings) one need not invoke "something else" besides those physical laws to explain relationships among all the elements of reality.

While one conventionally views quark to jaguar as bottom-up causation -- the top-down causation, as George points out, of "imagined ideas" in your words, drives the negative feedback mechanism which promotes increased awareness of the physical laws which both aid and threaten our survival as a species.

One of my favorite Kurt Vonnegut novels -- *Breakfast of Champions* -- has the protagonist musing over his glass of champagne, wondering if the yeasts, who consumed sugar and excreted their waste as alcohol, could be aware that they were drowning in their own excrement to create this marvelous elixir for some other creature's benefit (or destruction).

Self-awareness isn't all there is to staying alive -- the imagined ideas that inform us through our relation to and behavior toward the universe of how the natural laws operate, compel us to abstract meaning from "the search for unity in hidden likenesses" (Bronowski). Because I am aware that meaning (imagined ideas) precedes construction, I am a rationalist. There is no essential difference ("something else") between the idea and the physics from which it emerges.

Tom

Tom, I'm sorry I possibly did not word that reply clearly enough. If there ever is the slightest ambiguity you always seem to find it and choose the opposite interpretation to the one I intended : ) I also think that ideas can lead to actions and from the actions changes to the material world occur. False ideas and misinformation and fantasy can also shape the world through human actions.I also agree that ideas arise because of physics that is occurring (leading to the biochemical changes that allow brain activity).

I am not suggesting that there is any other where for the Image reality to be I.e. a material separation from the foundational reality. The image reality is wholly contained within the Object reality, the separation shown in the set diagram is not spatial. The subtle difference I was trying to highlight is between whether the content of the idea is itself synonymous with the external foundational reality or not, not its ability to affect behaviour and through that cause material change.

There can be a perfectly reasonable imaginary science of Discworld described and depicted within our world but impotent to act in it. I mean THE (imagined) SCIENCE, the magic and narativium, is impotent not the idea of the science which can lead to human actions that change the material world. The thought of the idea can have expression through human behaviour. So there are pictures and sculptures and toys of Discworld and the things of Discworld, even though it (the Discworld) is a fantasy thing.

We do not have multicoloured My Little Pony's rampaging through the countryside because some little girls have had the idea of them doing that implanted in their receptive minds. There are however packets of them in the toy shops because someone decided on the basis of an idea that they should be manufactured and through their behaviour the necessary action happened to cause the required material changes. Can you now see the difference I am trying to articulate?

The relevance to physics of that differentiation is its relationship to the "implicate" and "explicate",the concepts needed to comprehend the difference between what is occurring at the foundational quantum level and what is observed by the macroscopic observer.