Essay Abstract

We explore the inferential implications of the correspondence principle. According to the correspondence principle macroscopic entities, its, are distinguished by their emergent properties. By definition, emergent properties are those properties which exist in the collective, the macroscopic entity, but not in the constitutional parts, the qubits; the whole is more than the sum of its parts. As such, although macroscopic entities would appear to be the result of quantum interactions, it would seem logically inconsistent to reduce said entities to qubits. To do so is to miss the subtleties of emergence; emergence requires more than quantum interactions, it requires a collective awareness - consciousness.

Author Bio

Wes Hansen is an artist and inventor who also dabbles in mathematics, philosophy, and science (he closed the binary Goldbach Conjecture using strong induction with multiple base cases; ). His defining emergent property is a decades old yoga and meditation practice he calls The Journey. The Journey has no destination; this is the wisdom contained in the word "Bodhisattva," infinite compassion tempered by infinite wisdom.

Download Essay PDF File

Wes, it is goof to see you have arrived in the contest. I am glad someone has brought up the relationship between consciousness and information. It is a very interesting idea. I am not going to pretend that I accept the stuff about the powers of meditation and yoga but let me ask you a question to try and get another angle on it.

You say that consciousness depends on the brain for its existence. Does that brain have to be biological or could an electronic brain support consciousness?

Thanks for citing my earlier essay :-)

    Wes

    How can physical existence occur in two 'different ways'?

    This is a function of our misconceptualisation. We refer to things as if they are physically existent. But what we are doing is conceiving of existence at a higher level than what occurs. That is, the thing is defined by virtue of certain superficial physical attributes. Indeed, we even continue to assert the continued existence of the thing when it manifests change. Which is contradictory, because if there is any form of alteration then it is different. In other words, what we are doing is rationalising difference in order to maintain continuity and live a 'normal' life. What we should be doing is differentiating any manifestation to its constituent parts at any given time. (at any given time, because until proven otherwise it must be assumed that alteration has occurred, ie there is something different, during any duration). But in order to get to St Paul's I just need to know where it is and what it looks like, not that in reality it is a sequence of physical states. However, if one considers any manifestation of physical reality properly, then the false differentiation between macro and micro disappears.

    Consciousness has nothing to do with the physical circumstance, other than it is part of the process which enables awareness of it. The physical circumstance is independent of it. Processing received physical input in order to produce a perception thereof is not a physical process.

    Paul

      • [deleted]

      Hi Wes,

      As I am not competent in Eastern traditions, yoga, religions and so on, I would like to address only the issue of emergency.

      You are as much a great fun of Dawkins as me. He gave me a lot of inspiration in physics. Thanks to him I have framed a concept that the matter and energy have evolved from a primordial, conformally flat spacetime (starting before the Planck Era). So I apply the theory of Darwinism beyond its original sphere of organic evolution on Earth.

      Your question "what gives form to emergent phenomena and how is stability of form maintained over time?" is very interesting. My own view is that the Universe is a so called dissipative coupled system that exhibits self-organized criticality. The structured criticality is a property of complex systems where small events may trigger larger events. This is a kind of chaos where the general behavior of the system can be modeled on one scale while smaller- and larger-scale behaviors remain unpredictable. The simple example of that phenomenon is a pile of sand.

      Read more if you want: http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0026

      You ask "the apparently intractable question: if emergent form depends on consciousness and consciousness depends on brains, themselves an emergent form, how did the Universe evolve prior to the emergence of brains?"

      You can find an answer in my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609

      I am looking forward to hearing from you Wes

        • [deleted]

        That Anonymous above is Jacek Safuta. I am sorry something wrong with logging in.

        Phil,

        If you don't accept the causal efficacy of meditation and yoga how do you explain the empirical observations of Harvard's Herbert Benson and Sara Lazar and the experimental results of Stanford's William Tiller and Walter Dibble? I have a simple suggestion for you: start your own yoga and meditation practice and maintain it consistently (daily practice) for 12 months [CB]. You can consider it a scientific experiment with yourself as test subject and all non-practitioners as controls.

        Nowhere in my essay do I say that consciousness depends on the brain for its existence, in fact, I question that very assumption. I indulge a Panpsychism very similar to that of Charles Pierce; however, I diverge from Pierce in that I also indulge the Buddhist Theory of Two Truths [ST]. In short, my position is that we dwell within the Infinite Living Mind of the Perennial Philosophers [AH].

        As for electronic brains supporting consciousness, that is an interesting and contentious question. Based solely on my perusal of Neural Interface Systems research [DHSN] I feel strongly the question will be answered in the affirmative, quite possibly in my lifetime (I'm 43 years old). In the near future it could become increasingly difficult to distinguish between man and machine; I believe such entities are called cyborgs in the science fiction literature and, as I'm sure you're aware, the space shuttle, now an obsolete technology, used to be science fiction.

        Humans are evolving as a collective, a swarm [EY], and I feel that evolution is directed by a mechanism closely approximating the top-down causation of George Ellis [GE]. It's interesting to note that, viewed from the proper spatiotemporal perspective, top-down causation implies backwards causation. This is nothing controversial, rather, it's a natural consequent of cybernetic theory and organicism. And of course it would seem the top level goal of all systems calpable of top-down causation is system maintenance and reproduction. The Universe, based on the definitions of Mr. Ellis, is obviously capable of top-down causation.

        So here's a bit of pure speculation which may be too quasi-religious for you:

        Yoga is considered to be a divinely revealed psychophysical technology. According to Tantric theory, everything in existence, including the Universe, is composed of a dual nature: mental and physical. The word yoga comes from the root "yuj" which means to yoke or join. The universal set of all yoga is Hatha yoga. Ha means sun (physical), tha means moon (mental). So the goal of yoga is to yoke or couple the mental with the physical leading to complete harmony between the two (you might say complete symmetry). The result of this is the manifestation of the triune, the unification of the three bodies, gross, subtle, and super-subtle. The result of this is multiplicatio - the multiplication of consciousness.

        Now consider the theoretical framework of Messrs. Tiller and Dibble; they describe a duplex reference frame for reality, an electromagnetic physical domain and its magnetoelectric frequency conjugate - a mental domain. Their experimental results demonstrate that these domains can be coupled (yoked) by a deltron moiety the density of which can be influenced by human consciousness! What this tells me is that humans are capable of helping to facilitate the manifestation of the triune on a profound hierarchical level - the Universe. The result of this is multiplicatio on the scale of the Universe - the Multiverse! And this is the direct result of top-down causation - divinely revealed psychophysical technology. Of course if one considers, as most yogis do, that the top level agent is also the bottom level agent one comes to the realization of The Great Unborn Expanse, The Unmoved Mover, Wheeler's pregeometry.

        So assume that the final condition of the Universe is the triune, which leads directly to multiplicatio - reproduction. Then the final state of the Universe is not arbitrary, rather, it's distinct and backwards causation manifests in the form of the Anthropic Principle. Information Gathering and Utilization Systems (IGUSes) emerge because the final condition, indeed, the continuity of the Multiverse, demands it. Under such an assumption IGUSes which are not constrained by narrow environmental parameters - conscious machines/cyborgs - would have a great deal of evolutionary fitness! Of course such entities would have a great deal of evolutionary fitness regardless . . .

        References

        [CB] Brown, C., A guide to yoga including pranayama and meditation in: The Yoga Bible ( http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Yoga_Bible.html?id=-d3hraj9YHoC), Godsfield Press, 2003.

        [ST] Thakchoe, S., A look at the philosophy behind the Tibetan Theory of Two Truths in: The Theory of Two Truths in Tibet ( http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-tibet/) Stanford University, 2011, accessed 30 April, 2013.

        [AH] Huxley, A., A look at the universal philosophy of enlightenment in: The Perennial Philosophy ( http://archive.org/details/perennialphilosp035505mbp) Chatto and Windus, London, England, 1947.

        [DHSN] Donoghue, J., et al. A comprehensive look at progress in Neural Interface Systems research from the perspective of the Braingate cooperative ( http://www.braingate2.org/) accessed 30 April, 2013.

        [EY] Yong, E., A look at the science of swarms in: How the Science of Swarms Can Help Us Fight Cancer and Predict the Future ( http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/powers-of-swarms/all/) accessed 30 April, 2013.

        [GE] Ellis, G., The five classes of top-down causation in: Top-down Causation and Emergence: some comments on mechanisms ( http://rsfs.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/2/1/126.full), Royal Society Publishing, 2011, accessed 30 April, 2013.

        With regards,

        Wes Hansen

        Paul,

        My essay rests on the assumption of the correspondence principle; if one denies the validity of the correspondence principle, as you would seem to, then one needn't bother themselves with any more than the abstract of my essay. The idea that physical existence occurs in two different ways is rather mind-boggling but there is a plethora of scientific evidence that supports a distinction between quantum and classical. And it's not just a matter of coarse-graining; the mechanism of decoherence is not really understood thoroughly. I certainly don't profess to understand quantum mechanics.

        One of my favorite science blogs is Stanford physicist Nick Herbert's Quantum Tantra. Mr. Herbert is a proud supporter of all things quantum and freely shares his profundities with the world. Not long ago I left a comment on Mr. Herbert's blog suggesting quantum mechanics was in an equivalence class with the Shakedown Man from the Greatful Dead song Shakedown Street; Mr. Herbert may have been amused but he quite promptly deleted my comment! Of course he knows I'm rather fond of the theory myself, it maintains humility in the world!

        As for your suggestion that consciousness has nothing to do with the physical, this is thoroughly refuted by empirical evidence; read the references in my essay. The causal efficacy of consciousness is well demonstrated therein.

        With regards,

        Wes Hansen

        Jacek,

        Yes, I too believe a refined Darwinism is useful as a general theory. As to self-organized criticality, I would direct your attention to the past winning FQXi essay of George Ellis, Recognising Top-down Causation, in which he demonstrates that self-organized criticality is not a sufficient explanation for truly complex systems (this is like the fourth time I've referenced that essay so obviously I find it interesting!).

        I've read your essay and my intractable question remains intractable. Your essay is brief to the extreme so I'll have to read your Spacetime Deformation Evolution references to get a better handle on things. At such a time I will see about leaving a comment on your own forum section.

        I really like the Einstein quote in your essay and I'll conclude this comment with something similar from a favored mathematician, Louis Kauffman:

        "The Universe is what would be if anything could be at all, the Flower of Nothing in the Void of Perception."

        With regards,

        Wes Hansen

        • [deleted]

        Wes

        Thanks, I don't want to get into a repeat of the on-going exchange with Jochen, So I will say no more.

        Paul

        Wes, I agree with your answer that consciousness can be transferred to inorganic machines. I think we also have a shared interest in the mathematical aspects of physics and possibly some philosophical issues. I am quite comfortable with Ellis's essay on top down causality which makes perfect sense to me. I am not so keen on his ideas about temporal causality and the flow of time which he wrote about in another essay contest

        However, our views diverge very sharply when it comes to these ideas about what consciousness can do via deltron moeity etc. I think this is one of those areas where we need to just politely agree to disagree, because it is unlikely that either of us could convince the other to change their mind.

        Thank you for the link. I will check it out soon because the subject is really important for me.

        And the sentence of Kauffman is great...

        The subsequent processing of physical input received can have no affect on the physical circumstance, because:

        1 That process is not physical, it does not involve a change in physical form, but the conversion of physical input into a perception thereof.

        2 The sequence order means that is impossible, ie what existed did so before the processing, by definition, because something has to be received in order that this processing can then be initiated.

        3 What was received was not the existential sequence anyway, but an existent representation of it, in the case of sight, this is known as light.

        Paul

        Phil,

        So, does this mean you don't buy into my idea regarding the evolution of the Multiverse? I'm crestfallen . . . Yeah, I don't mean to come across as a thick boundary type, I'm not at all, but I would be interested in any alternative explanation for the empirical results demonstrated in the references of my paper - certainly those of the two Harvard researchers! And one of the reasons I find your work so interesting is due to the similarities to William Tiller's work. I doubt you've read much regarding Psychoenergetic Science but there's a great deal of similarities especially regarding symmetry. I mean, if you think you intuit a great deal of hidden symmetry you should read Will Tiller's ideas; his background being in solid state physics symmetry plays a huge role. One of these days I'm going to get up to speed with the maths (I'm still working on Diffy Q's but it's already enhanced my understanding of physics) and then I'll engage in a formal debate. Thanks for reading and commenting anyway . . .

        Paul,

        It's called back-action buddy! We're embedded in that which we perceive. If subsequent processing of physical input can have no affect on the physical circumstance, how do technologies come about? How can skyscrappers withstand the onslaught of 500 year storms? We perceive the properties of materials, use abstraction to optimize those properties under certain constraints, and then effect change in the physical circumstance; it's called engineering! I left a comment on Jochen Szangolies' section of the forum under Phil Gibbs' thread which explores mental causation so I would direct you there for my brief argument . . .

        And that's just the classical viewpoint; add the quantum to the picture and things get real weird! I prefer weird myself . . .

        Paul,

        I guess I'll have to read the on-going exchange with Mr. Szangolies; you've aroused my curiosity. Feel free to say whatever you like, provided it's cordial I'll try to respond in kind.

        With regards,

        Wes Hansen

        Wes

        Curiousity is good. I have just picked up on a point you made in Philips blog. If you want to bring the response here, please do.

        Paul

        Wes

        "We're embedded in that which we perceive"

        Yes, but not what we receive. Which is a physical input, which is then processed into a perception of that. Forget all the complexities of what is received, and it is received at the individual level, etc, keep it simple, but generically valid.

        "If subsequent processing of physical input can have no affect on the physical circumstance, how do technologies come about?"

        Now, there are two aspects to that: 1 sensing (eg observation) 2 the differentiation of past/present/future.

        1 As I have said elsewhere, the activity of sensing, ie subsequent processing, can have no affect on the physical circumstance. This is because:

        -what occurred has already done so, ie the sequence order of existence makes this impossible

        -what is received is not the existential sequence anyway, but an existent representation of it, in the case of sight, this is light

        -the process being referred to is not a physical process, it does not involve alteration in physical form, but the conversion of physical input to a perception thereof. Think on this, if a brick had been in the spatial position instead of the eye, then it would have received the physical input, ie interacted with the light. The only difference is that the brick is not capable of subsequent processing.

        2 There is no physically existent state commonly referred to as the future. Any concept which involves the notion of change to it, or that it can have some physical influence, is incorrect, because there is nothing in existence to affect, nor anything to invoke an effect. The idea of changing the future is based on the misconception that it is already existent, and hence potentially alterable, and/or capable of having some form of feedback influence. Whereas, all that exists is the present.

        This notion is properly expressed as the circumstance where a physically existent state (ie effect) occurred which is different to what would otherwise have done so, had the causal factors been different. Which is meaningless, as by definition, any given effect is a function of a previously existent effect(s). What prevailed and became the cause of the next step in the sequence, was just different from any logical alternative which could have prevailed, but did not, and was therefore not the cause.

        Paul

        Wes

        Blimey, that was a long post. Now I must just stress that in saying what I do, this is not dismissing the subsequent processing as irrelevant/whatever. Clearly we need to understand how it works generically and individually. But the reason for this is because the resulting perceptions are all we have as the start point. For example, there was a piece about the physiological basis of short term memory problems in the news recently, which I pointed out to Philip. We need to understand what physically constitutes colour, etc, etc. In simple language we need to understand the workings of the sensory systems/brain. But this is only so that we can properly extrapolate what physical input was received, not the perception thereof. In respect of the physical circumstance, this processing is irrelevant, all it does(!) is invoke an awareness of it.

        Paul

        4 days later

        Paul,

        I read your essay and I must say there is no intersection, no compatibility, between our world views and I see no reason to have a discussion regarding said views. You reduce reality to a sequential function chart with discrete states and transitions. From this you conclude that since no two states in a sequence can possibly be the same (your "predecessor must relinquish to successor" principle) there is no possibility of duration hence Newton's and Einstein's mechanics are flawed:

        "Failure to understand this results in the flawed application of the equation x = vt [. . .] Einstein failed to differentiate reality from its light based representation [. . .] This remains the most important failure to distinguish something from a representation of that something. The Copenhagen interpretation is another; while space-time is a model which contradicts how physical existence must be constituted."

        The fact that an object's position varies in time as a function of its velocity is true BY DEFINITION; it can't be refuted! x = vt holds when v is constant; it maps a straight line to the x-t plane. If velocity is not constant then one can generally derive a position function which maps an objects position relative to time and the velocity is simply the derivative of that position function, df/dt. It tells one the slope, which is the instantaneous rate of change, of the position function at any given time. Of course other factors such as air resistance and friction can play a role but they can often be negligible hence ignored. Einstein's mechanics are just a more accurate derivation, i.e. a closer approximation, and have been empirically validated over and over. And the Copenhagen interpretation is an epistemological interpretation to begin with; its only proper claim is to distinguish our knowledge of a system's state from our ignorance of such.

        You know, I worked through the open-access physics course of Dr. Jeffrey Schnick from St. Anselm's College and it really enhanced my understanding; perhaps you might find it helpful! It's a calculus based course but all one really needs is an understanding of Calculus One, (although partial derivatives, from Calculus Three, do make a brief appearance).

        With regards,

        Wes Hansen

        • [deleted]

        Wes

        "You reduce reality to a sequential function chart with discrete states and transitions"

        No, as I said to Anon in Jochen's blog (which I presumed was you), it is the logic if reality that does this, not Paul Reed. What Paul Reed points out is the true consequence of it, which has not been properly understood. It is therefore not a 'view'. And anyway, you need to come up with some reality based argument against it. And within the confine of physical existence as knowable to us, not some invoked belief.

        "The fact that an object's position varies in time"

        How does an 'object' remain in the same physically existent state, which is a necessary pre-condition for this assertion to be a fact. It does not. We actually know it does not. But with the concept of object we are conceptualising physical existence at a higher level than what physically occurs, by defining object in terms of superficial physical attributes.

        Re x=vt. As I said. Unless this is understood, a problem arises when distance is expressed conceptually in terms of duration. The concept being that it can be measured as the duration which would have been incurred had any given entity been able to travel along it, either way. But this is not possible, because there is no duration available during which that can actually happen, so it must be understood that there is no duration, as such. That is, the result is just an alternative expression to, and the equivalent of, a specific spatial measure.

        Put simply, if you start out from A, by the time you get to B it has altered (or one must until proven otherwise assume it has), ie it is not the B that existed at the same time as A. Apart from the simple fact that Einstein didn't even understand how timing works (there are the first few paras pf another paper on my blog, which was a response to people quoting Einstein at me.

        Paul

        • [deleted]

        Wes

        Did not fully notice these comments towards the bottom of your post.

        "the Copenhagen interpretation is an epistemological interpretation to begin with; its only proper claim is to distinguish our knowledge of a system's state from our ignorance of such"

        Precisely. If you start with a presumption, then you are highly likely to prove it. The arguments are about how this presumption, which can be characterised as some form of indefiniteness in physical existence, manifests, not whether it should be there in the first place. Especially when the subject area is the form in which physical existence occurs, where a discrete physically existent state cannot be identified by real experimentation, only by conception (which is scientifically acceptable if effected properly). You either know something in its existent state, or you do not. Either way, that something is in a definitive physically existent state at any given time. It is not affected by our ignorance, or lack of it, or whether we observe it, or not, or detect it via any other sense. Because, apart from the fact that existence must be definitive, it has already ceased to exist in that state by the time you become aware of it.

        "Einstein's mechanics are just a more accurate derivation, i.e. a closer approximation, and have been empirically validated over and over"

        In form, the same argument applies here. Einstein incorrectly asserts (reifies) a characteristic which is a function of something else, as being an inherent attribute of physical existence. Because he did not understand timing and therefore introduced a non-existent superfluous 'layer', ie 'local' to 'common' time (Poincaré's simultaneity is the problem). Which counterbalanced the fact that although he talked about it, there was no observation in Einstein, since there was not observational light for potential observers to observe with (ie he conflated physical existence and the existent representation thereof-eg light). In other words, he shifted the actual time differential, which occurs in the receipt of light (observation) to the other end of the physical process, ie existence per se. Although obviously he does not say that as such, because he did not realise his own mistakes. Though he got very close, here is his best statement on his flawed concept of relativity:

        Einstein para 4 section 9 1916

        "Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, ie that it is independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in section 7) disappears".

        But there never was a 'conflict', because Einstein does not have any observational light, all he has is a constant used to calibrate duration and distance, which just happens to be an example of light, eg a ray of, lightening, etc. Indeed, even when Cox & Forshaw try to explain it, they have to introduce an example of light, in their case it is a light beam clock, thereby muddling the differentiation between obseervational light and an example of light, and hoping nobody will spot the flaw. We cannot see with a light beam, neither can we see with lightening, etc. In other words, his second postulate is irrelevant, because he did not deploy it as defined. But essentially the theory 'works' because the time differential is there, it is just not where it is thought to be.

        Paul