Where From Appear Algorithms in Universe? How All Algorithms and Ideas May Enter the Physical World and Act There? Who (What) and What for Created the Universe? by Yosef Alberton

Dear Yosef Alberton,

I find your essay interesting. It appears to me to have scientific importance. Your repeated mentions of and description of God will probably keep your essay buried at the bottom of community votes; however, I think that perhaps it may be uninteresting to many others for unscientific reasons. The mechanical bottom-up frame of mind that has taken firm hold on theoretical physics leaves it a weak 'foundational' science.

That weakness leaves open the opportunity for others, such as yourself and myself, to offer ideas meant to strengthen the foundation of science. Whether or not these ideas put forward by others are correct or not correct is not yet as important as is the mere process of breaking free from the mechanical ideology. My own work involves removing these mechanical theoretical inventions from the equations of physics. I do not assume that you agree with my view.

I am not quite certain that I understand your conclusion. Is it your position that a background of intelligence has always existed but remained inactive until processed by individual physical entities? If so, that seems to me to leave too much unanswered, in that viewpoint, about the process by which the universe evolved. If the background intelligence was inactive, how did the physical entities capable of making use of it acquire their ability? Do you accept the fundamental properties described for us by theoretical physics as universal 'givens' and 'natural'? Perhaps if you said more about this it would help to clarify your view for me.

I invite you to express your own opinion about anything that I have said in this message that you disagree with. Thank you.

James

Yosef Alberton,

Hand wave! Hand wave! I left a message in your forum.

James

Dear James,

I'm trying to answer your questions.

1. It is a pity that there are no critical posts. If suggested model is true, then it will change the history. It may be obviously (obvious = proof is obvious) stupid, but even in this case it deserves 2 words contained said proof. FQXi community is master of its prizes, but not master of truth. Is model true or not - it is the only question. At the current stage the question is - if it may be true.

2. About God. God in suggested model appears not as the result of question "if we need hypothesis of God?" We need consistent model of Nature, including life and consciousness. Such model cannot be built without explicit considering of world of ideas, because ideas and programs are cause of matter motions. Taken in account physical laws (Keith Ward) - of all motions. Natural supposition is that world of ideas is Creator of Universe and of human being. He (It) also have other features usually ascribed to God: is everywhere, is eternal.

One by one different ideas that were created and saved by religions were separated, refined and included in physics and cosmology. May be we are close to the main separation: God from religions. This does not necessarily meant end of religions. They keep history, traditions, moral - soul of nations.

Theorem in essay consider problem of God from the opposite side: is shown that some set of usual suppositions about God's features is not compatible with existing of His observable thinking process.

2. " too much unanswered" Of cause it is! I do not suggest solution, rather outline of model. It is the beginning of a long way that is supposed to be true. If it is really true, then there is no choice. Now physics does nothing to explain origin of life and consciousness. These issues are left to the biology, philosophy and religions. Physics does not raise proper questions, and have not even language for such questions. What is new in suggested model? Current choice is chance vs. intellectual design. Both are right to criticize other. Explanation "by chance" is convincing only in phrase: "3 kg of heroin found in my house appear by chance". Intellectual design supposes existing of super intellect acting in supertime. And where to go from here?

I separate time and intellect in "intellectual design". And every of obtained 2 parts is known for us. Time is our usual time. Intellect is preexisting static entity, "world of ideas". World of ideas is not something mystical. Everybody (especially physicists!) intuitively understand and use it. It is simple: every entity for which questions "where" and "when" are applicable belongs to the Universe (to the time-space), other belong to the world of ideas. Examples: for the formula 2X2 = 4 questions "where" and "when" are not applicable, so this formula belongs to the world of ideas; the star exists - Universe is meant; the proof exists - world of ideas is meant. In [2], there is attempt of accurate definition of world of ideas (n-model).

If model is true, then physicists have to part from the familiar and comfortable picture of absurd (Feynman) and pointless (Veinberg) Universe.

" how did the physical entities capable of making use of it acquire their ability". Actually, it is the same question. Possibility to use the world of ideas in principle we see on the USPTO site. You and me are the physical entities, we are not ghosts, right? Tip about how such nice physical entities as you and me were created is provided in [2]: "program creates processor".

Yosef Alberton.

Dear Yosf Alberton,

you pose some interesting questions in your essay. Though I do not think you clearly say which basic physical assumption is wrong.

I wrote this on TH Ray's essay thread but I think it is also highly relevant to your questions. "............ made me think of the end of the book "Falling for science, asking the big questions" by Bernard Beckett. The ending is a story about a little girl who is crying. An evolutionary biologist, a biochemist and a string theorist each give their scientific explanations of what is occurring. Then her 4 year old brother hands her his ice cream. Quote:" It wasn't his ice cream that fell. He wasn't that careless. Then again she is his little sister, and she is crying, and he can make it alright. He thinks about this, takes one last delicious lick and passes over the dripping cone. The crying subsides. The sister looks up and smiles. Such is the art of living."

Its basically saying, as I read it, that we can have wonderful scientific explanations from the different disciplines that fully account for the phenomena occurring but they do not capture what is most important to us as human beings rather than fleshy robots, bags of biochemisty, or an amalgamation of fundamental particles.

There are a number of essays in this contest questioning the over reliance on reductionism for answers. One is Sara Imari walker, another George Ellis.Two very different but well written essays. I too have argued that reductionism does not always provide the best -explanation- of processes that are occurring. It is my opinion that science has (or ought to have)an explanatory purpose/aim rather than just representing or classifying what is happening. I don't think it helpful to divorce philosophy from science.

There aren't any competition entrants who can tell you with certainty that your idea concerning God are right or wrong. I can tell you it is an interesting idea. One of the very good things about FQXi is it provides a platform on which thinkers from many different backgrounds can share ideas, that -they- think worth exploring with others. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. kind regards Georgina.

Dear Yosef,

You discuss some interesting ideas here. A few thoughts come to mind.

1. The question of whether physical laws ultimately govern what MUST happen in the universe or merely describe what actually DOES happen seems relevant here. The "lecturer" in your essay seems to believe that simple laws actually "govern" what is physically possible, while the student points out that many processes that actually do occur are not completely reducible to such laws. Of course, these processes might be consistent with the laws, but that does not mean the laws determine them.

2. Personally I believe that the most fundamental "laws" of physics will prove to be more like the second law of thermodynamics than like Newton's force law. What I mean is this: the second law of thermodynamics does not define what MUST happen, it only describes what is overwhelmingly likely. What actually happens tends to follow the more likely possibilities, but this is a description of what occurs rather than a rule for what must occur.

Thanks for the interesting read! Take care,

Ben Dribus

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Yosef,

I think the rating of your essay was hurt by the unusual formatting of your paper, the fact that English does not appear to be your first language, and most importantly that you take on some highly controversial positions.

Nevertheless, I believe that your essay by no means deserves to be at the bottom because it is coherent (something that I found a few other essays to be lacking), it uses the engaging dialogue format, and it raises some interesting questions.

From my perspective, the most interesting question is how to model intentionality. While there are some rival psychological theories that try to give broad outlines at the human level, it may well be true that modeling it via an exact algorithm is too complicated to be possible. But I wonder whether it can be done at the level of more primitive organisms. Can one find a biochemical algorithm that, say, models how an amoeba "senses" food nearby and then proceeds to engulf it? Such an algorithm might provide at least a starting point for modeling intentionality in higher level organisms.

All the best,

Armin

Dear Georgina Parry,

1. " One of the very good things about FQXi is it provides a platform on which thinkers from many different backgrounds can share ideas, that -they- think worth exploring with others" - 100%.

2." There aren't any competition entrants who can tell you with certainty that your idea concerning God are right or wrong" - if it is really so, then it is excellent! My question now was - "if there exist obvious objections?"

If idea is true, and God may be explored by physics, then it is not so important, if my essay is well written, or bad written, if I have art of living, or have art of making scandals. If idea is true, then it gives many solutions: simplifies "Big Questions", eliminates so-called "paradoxes". Puzzle is solved! And existence of 1 God discovered and explored by science eliminates the main current threat of human civilization - contradictory believes. As said Solzhenitsyn to illustrate another idea: "It is difficult to survive the man with two hearts" (Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Lecture). Here we assume only statements for which question: "is it true?" is applicable. Truth is only one and must be common for everybody. Attempts to cover contradictory truths with tolerance lead to explosion (may be nuclear). National histories, traditions, national characters may be different. They are subject of tolerance.

3. " I can tell you it is an interesting idea" - does it means that you do not see objections?

4. "... but they do not capture what is most important to us as human beings rather than ... amalgamation of fundamental particles". Here and in Beckett's story, humanistic idea is expressed. But world will not be more humanistic, if physics is wrong or incomplete. Human being belongs to the physical world and his motions must be fully explained by the physical laws. If physics have not even terms to describe his behavior, then it is indication of incompleteness of physical laws, rather than indication of greatness of human being.

5. "I don't think it helpful to divorce philosophy from science." Sciences must always be checked by common sense, in the other case we would still learn phrenology at school. Is it the same thought?

6. " Though I do not think you clearly say which basic physical assumption is wrong." Perhaps you are right. My essay actually answer the question "what is missing in basic physical assumptions?" Reading your post, I checked in Wikipedia what is reductionism. Now I know it! Reductionism is goose with gears. It is a pretty image how physics explains life and consciousness now. There is missing consistent explicit including in the physical laws terms: algorithm, idea, world of ideas, read-write memory, process (performing program), free will. Implicitly all these terms exist in physics: observer in quantum physics; person doing measuring in definition of distance in classical physics. How algorithms jumped from differential equations of physics? Where observer came in the physics from? He escaped from biology?

Thank you.

Yosef.

Dear Hoang Cao Hai

If I was able to prove, it was not assumptions.

Dear Benjamin,

Laws of thermodynamicas do not cancel Newton's laws. They analize different situations. Every individual molecule always obeys to Newton's law. Algorithms appear at the level of 1 molecule, so this phenomenon must be explained.

Sergey,

What I was not understand is not why I am the last. It is sport. Somebody must be last - why not me? Strange for me was combination: assey is accepted to contest - no positive votes - no negative posts.After essay was accepted, I had hope - now I will hear objections.

Dear Armin,

Once a student I hear a lecture of M.M. Bongard. He mentioned bionics and says (as I remember): "Simultaneously in US and USSR bionics was defined as way to get money from the military to the development of biology. Do not think that you can to see something in the nature and implement technically. Usual way is opposite. How many words were said about heart! But only when the simplest pump was invented, then it became clear what the heart is."

I mention this lecture to explain my direction. There exist wide region of modeling. But I think that more important in the opposite direction. Possibility of modeling human being indicates that algorithms are a deep entity staying behind life and consciousness. They may be found in the biology, and further - in the physics, and further - in Creator.

First article I wrote in internet in said direction was "Static Creator Models", 2008 (exists more detailed Russian version).

About senses. I think that first of all it is interesting what they are. I suppose that they may be defined at the level of physics, as "something", appear when some algorithms are performed. In the physical world, not on the computer.

And here is the formula of life from mentioned article: "Program creates processor".

Thank you.

Yosef.

Dear Yosef, thank you for your reply.

Re.2 Your essay talks directly of God. It may possibly have deterred potential readers who might have thought it out of place in a physics contest. Or deterred them from commenting for fear of causing offence to your religious sensibilities.

Re.3 The word "God" has a lot of theology and popular religious ideas associated with it. You have not said what "God" means to you. Without clear definition of the word (what is and isn't meant by it, as you use it, within the context of physics), it is not really possible to say whether it is helpful, or bringing a lot of unsubstantiated ideas along with it that have no place in science.

Re.4 Yes physics is incomplete knowledge. It can't for example fully explain the emotional experience of being human. That's not what the subject of physics is about.

Re.5. No, I mean that thought should be given to meaning, how ideas are related, to be consistent with the evidence. Common sense alone is not sufficient to understand what is going on in physics.

Re.6 The role of the observer in physics is really interesting to me. The observer has a place in physics because the models that we have are based upon the observations that are made. To have measurements an organism, device or sensitive material that makes detections, i.e. an observer, is needed.

Regards Georgina.

Dear Georgina, thank you.

Your last letter highlighted points where my position may be clarified.

Re. Re.2. " directly of God ... out of place in a physics contest ". But contest IS about possible and impossible changes in the physical context! Sorry for the grotesque: "Dear Copernicus. Your paper talks directly that Earth rotates around the Sun... " Yes, it is what I say - that God really exists (and give supposition about His identity), is part of Nature and may be explored by physics. Quotation from the internet article " The Twilight of the Gods: two experiments of M.M. Bongard.":" Real cause of coexisting of different religions is not tolerance. Real cause is the faith that units all believers and atheists. This belief is: never God may be explored in the same way as other entities of Nature." And simple experiment is suggested in essay.

" deterred them from commenting for fear of causing offence to your religious sensibilities"- or causing offence to the radical believers, or causing offence to the radical tolerantists. These 3 fears make almost impossible discussions about God's nature, though in the "dark middle ages" it was possible.

Re.Re.3 "The word "God" has a lot of theology and popular religious ideas associated with it." Is it correct the situation (story " Coffee-House of Surat." of Tolstoy)? Sun and stars also were associated with many ideas before development of astronomy.

"You have not said what "God" means to you." I do not agree. May be essay is badly written, but I suppose that using of word "God" is accurate. There are 2 different schemas in essays.

Schema 1 (theorem). Theorem really speaks directly about God. But there are distinct 3 suppositions about His features, and theorem is formally deduced from these suppositions only. Supposition 3 actually means absence of miracles, so if being correct, Gods of believes do not satisfy it.

In contrast with Schema 2, theorem does not contain suppositions. Here and now, the simple proof is given that God (if not makes miracles) has not his own thinking process. And no one checked it, though the proof is a few lines.

Theorem may be formulated without term "God": does not exist one thread thinking process that is able to communicate with everybody in Universe. Condition "one thread" is substantial, because for many threads processes exists trivial counterexample - all humankind. Condition "one thread" is weaker than absolute time - said process knows only order of its conversations, but not times of conversations.

Schema 2 is hypothetical:

o because of existing in Universe consciousness that is able realize motion of matter based on [potentially all] abstract ideas and algorithms, physics must explicitly include entity "world of ideas";

o "world of ideas" must be distinctly defined. Its place in consistent model of Nature may be explored and discussed as every other scientific entity;

o "world of ideas" has substantial part of important features usually ascribed to God in most connotations: it is Creator of Universe and of human being, it is eternal, it is everywhere (omnipresent). Part of such features "world of ideas" has not, but these are parts that lead to contradictions (so called paradoxes) - God is all powered (omnipotent), God knows all (omniscient);

o word "God" should not be used inside physics. But if previous points of this Schema will be explored and recognized, then outside the physics it actually means that real God was found.

Re.Re. 4. " physics ... can't for example fully explain the emotional experience ". Can't now. It is why the algorithms where chosen: 1) algorithms has now strict mathematical definitions; 2) functioning of an observer from the quantum physics is impossible without performing algorithms.

Re.Re.6. " The role of the observer in physics is really interesting to me" My questing is: how observer appeared in physical world? Currently physics does not explain this .

Once more about Copernicus. Actually, Schema 2"rollbacks" the ideology following from discoveries of Copernicus. It returns to the human being the role of center of Universe, implementation of God inside Universe. And this is expected to be proven in scientific explorations, rather than be expressed in declarative statements.

And the last. Exploration of God by physics - it is not about prizes and not about "bright idea". It is even not about truth. It is about surviving of humankind. Sooner or later, splitting in understanding of Creator will lead to the explosion. And physicists only can prevent it. However, may be they hope to go to one of the worlds from the "many world interpretation"?

Best regards, Yosef.