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

Hi John,

I very much appreciate your comments and point of view, and I can agree with the vast majority of them. There are so many awesome things to talk about with regard to this subject. Effectively ganglia are effectively conscious at some level then, which is fine by me just as long as we don't say that ganglia are the reason why the Universe exists in the state(s) that it does.

- Shawn

Tom,

The click, flash, etc. are the intersection of two things that are, the detector and the detected. Does that mean that without that intersection, neither exists? Remember, this is what is "physically real," not what is local. I accept there is much I will never detect that is physically real, even if I lack the means to prove or examine it.

Good and bad might be better explained as the basic binary code of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken, yet there is no clear line where the chicken ends and the fox begins, so even though there is discernment, there is still connection.

Shawn,

Humans are supreme reductionists, which means that in order to encompass the most, we miss the most. I think our current understanding of the universe is only a few steps above mythology, with its own genesis story and host of supernatural explanations.

It's like we are neurons on a larger brain, sending signals around, much of it fantasy, but still exploring the boundaries.

John,

"The click, flash, etc. are the intersection of two things that are, the detector and the detected. Does that mean that without that intersection, neither exists?"

If I've never seen a purple cow, does that mean only that I lack the sensory apparatus to see a purple cow? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; however, "existence" is also not a property of rational science. Evidence of existence is.

"Remember, this is what is 'physically real,' not what is local."

Once again, John, it would be helpful to know what you mean by "physically real." I once had a teacher who, when asked what the test would cover, replied, "Everything inside the book, everything outside the book, everything I've told you and everything I've forgotten to tell you." I have given you Einstein's strict definition of physically real. No part of it depends on nonlocal events being physically real.

"I accept there is much I will never detect that is physically real, even if I lack the means to prove or examine it."

Therefore, purple cows are physically real.

Tom

Tom,

The fallacy of your position is that you cannot actually prove purple cows don't exist.

Somewhere across those multiverses they might be quite common.

Yep, like not mentioning that there is a whole buffer of air between the ganglia and the moon, or not mentioning that static text on a page was perfectly amazing for ancient Egyptians at the dawn of history, but not so much anymore.

- Shawn

John,

I'm sorry you can't see that the logical fallacy is yours, not mine.

No scientific theory is ever proved, only falsified. That purple cows or one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters may exist in this universe or possibly any other, is meaningless to science.

Tom

Dear all,

Feynman vol. 1, (10.7]=(15.1) reminds of what is well known with transmission lines, bandstop filters in EE and also in acoustics where nobody calculates with parameters that depend on the velocity of an observer: 1/sqrt(1-(f/f_0)^2)

Who introduced the putative increase of mass and why? Feynman's lectures do not give references. Did nobody so far realize that the behavior of waves is formally the same as given with Lorentz transformation?

Anyway, Feynman preferred to repeatedly introduce SR via the mentioned increase of mass, presumably because it is considered experimentally confirmed while other possible introductions are somewhat confusing and controversial.

Eckard

Tom,

Isn't falsification negative proof?

Can you truly falsify the existance of purple cows, even on this planet? How do you know there are not genetic experiments or college pranks involving the creation of purple cows going on this very minute?

To quote a certain Sec. of Defence; There are the known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

Shawn,

More than a buffer of air, there is a much more effective buffer of airless space.

If we treated light as a wave, rather than a point particle, reductions in frequency, as well as amplitude, would be quite logical, as it expands in the volume of space and we wouldn't need this Big Bang creation myth, based on the idea that light as a particle can only be redshifted by recession of the source. What constrains a quanta of light from expanding in a vacuum? It wouldn't be light, if it had such an internal bond.

Think how many millions of years it took to turn those memes to symbols in the first place and those Egptians at the dawn of recorded history seem like only yesterday. What will we be in another three thousand years? We can create cheap electronic devices to read messages in radio waves. I think we have the mental ability to do the same and used it throughout those prerecorded times, but lost it as socieities became less organic and more compartmentalized. Studies of aboriginal societies today suggest this is a natural function of their consciousness. The mechanical and technological progress of the last few thousand years is seriously undermining its environmental base, so when society falls back into the mud, what rises back up might be far more integrated into the larger organic system.

John,

Unknown unknowns, no question with no answer, can't be investigated by science. Generating those questions, not yet thought of, that might be answered is however very important to science, technology, business, maybe even the survival of humanity in a world undergoing global change. Otherwise it is just the same ground being gone over again and again rather than really novel innovative stuff that opens up new possibilities, maybe even whole new fields of possibility not previously imagined. FQXi is providing opportunity for those kinds of novel interesting questions to be investigated, that may also be thought pointless because they aren't seen as questions that have needed answering before. Quote " There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." Ken Olsen.

"Purple Cow: Transform Your Business by Being Remarkable" is a book by Seth Godin. A Purple cow is an idea that is different from anything else that is being done, that stands out as different from the herd.

Tom wrote, Quote:"That purple cows or one-eyed one-horned flying purple people eaters may exist in this universe or possibly any other, is meaningless to science."

The question "How do we know there are or are not any purple cows?" could become "Why not?"; "How do we make a purple cow?"; then "What can we do with the purple cow?"; "Who will buy it?" and "How will it change the world?" Having demonstrated that purple cows can exist by making one, the likelihood that similar creations also exist elsewhere in the universe, perhaps in another science laboratory is more likely than before. I.e. No longer a question of possible or not possible but has it been done elsewhere or not. Then the question might become" How can I make my purple cow even more appealing than theirs because the purple cow is no longer a "Purple cow"; Or "What is the next "Purple cow?"

Reading that, I feel a lot better about shoving their face in the mud with my boot -- it's only natural.

- Shawn

Georgina,

Yes, some of us do live in a closed loop. I find though, the normal reaction to this, looking outside the box, can be its own routine. I have had much more luck in simply looking at what is in the box from differnt perspectives. The most interesting is to really look at something bottom up, ie, how it really came to be, as opposed to what it is. We tend to be so object oriented, rather than process oriented, but things tend to make much more sense when we see them as products of process, rather than as objects in themselves. Given how my life goes, making sense of what is, is more important than discovering anything new. Not to knock the new, but most of it is transitory and only further process, ie. time, will tell what matters.

Ps, I hate windows!!!! I want the mac back. Might have to go buy a laptop. Daughter is happier, so I'm happier. Still a mess.

Ashes to ashes....

John, amatuer same as me,

"Ashes to ashes."....Empirical discovery to empirical discovery, theory suggested to explain one after the other. What about tired light stretched to its limit creating an astronomical push? Is that the fire that leaves the ashes? Am I missing the purpose of your message please?

James Putnam

John,

you wrote "We tend to be so object oriented, rather than process oriented, but things tend to make much more sense when we see them as products of process, rather than as objects in themselves."

Maybe that will change when 3D printing becomes common place. Then people will see things first as input information, then process and then output object. It could be like going back to individuals fashioning objects for personal use. Designing and printing a spoon, for example, rather than whittling one from wood, but nevertheless returning to a personal connection with the manufacturing process.

That ties in with George's essay because the object that is printed will only exist because of the machine and the code input to it, but the object will also be built up simply, little by little, until it is complete. That is built only because of the complexity and organisation of the environment in which the process occurs but also arising from the very simple repetitive process of adding layers of basic constituents.

James,

Shawn was expressing a certain degree of what I suspect is youthful anger and frustration with the world and its current power structures. I was reminding him of those eternal cycles that are both the source and definition of our existence. There is no happy medium, as it would be a flatline on the universal heart monitor. The best I think one can do, is to fully connect with the world around oneself. Yes, there are all sorts of walls and barriers, but we have many walls within ourselves and while they often are holding up the roof and protecting us, they still warrent examination, as do those outside ourselves. We really are headed for a worldwide upheaval that will likely dwarf those of the twentieth century and much of what we take for granted will be shaken to its foundations. As I said to Shawn, what does rise from the ashes will be a melding of many things, but something will rise.

This is an essay I wrote last winter, explaining the nature of this predicament and how to go forward;

www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/17/1075305/--What-is-Your-Occupation

Hopefully it loads. Due to major disruptions in my life, I'm stuck using a slightly disfunctional dell, rather than my mac and the cut/paste doesn't work on address bars, not to mention no spell check, fuzzy typing box...grrr

Hi John,

Don't be so naive. Einstein wrote a paper -- you know, the one that gave birth to quantum theory -- clearly outlining what's going on, and Shannon took that up decades later. And still, we have modern physicists musing genius soundbites like "the magical, mysterious scalar field that is hbar". If by youthful, you mean I was pissed off when I got off my rear and got a job at 17 and had to throw my tax dollars to these posers, then yeah, I guess you could say that it was youthful anger. But really, the fact that the tax dollar giveaway has only since grown by orders of magnitude does truly make it an issue of mid-life anger.

And that doesn't even begin to cover their psychopathy...

- Shawn

Georgina,

My last request concerning Feynman's lectures was addressed to all after George Ellis did not further respond.

Maybe you simply put again your post on the wrong place. Nonetheless I hope you are among those like me who are reading at least as much as they are writing, and you certainly studied Feynman's famous lectures, too. Can you please comment on them? Can you answer my questions?

Eckard