3 worlds: Bit, It, Reality by Jacek Safuta

Jacek,

Apparently you seem to be of the opinion that Albert Einstein was just as infallible about mathematics as the Pope is reputed to be on matters of concern to the Roman Catholic Faith. It was good to see the good old reliable physics abstract chestnut about the Big Bang theory in your utterly confusing chronologically mystifying computerized chart.

The Big Bang was listed as being [2} under the evolutionary succession of objects column. Basic definitions and notions (concept) seems to have come in as a show [3] in the third world territory. See, as a realist, I am convinced the Universe is only eternally occurring once. I do not have to perform the Orwellian mental gymnastics of having a Big Bang commencement of the Universe occur before I could ever think of whether a Bog Bang might have actually occurred. Surely, if there indeed was ever a Big Bang, it must have come a bit before the chicken and egg problem did.

Jecek, I like the idea of your essay. I find it easy to accept that the ontology works in a cycle just as you describe. Some people have theories about a universe that is cyclic in time to avoid the question of first cause that dogs temporal causality. You have done the same thing for ontological causality with your cyclic ontology and I like that much better.

I think it would have been a good idea to include more about the experiment in the essay rather than referring to an external reference. You had plenty of space left to include it.

Jacek

We are not looking for three worlds.

There is physical existence, and there is knowledge of it. We can only have knowledge, because we cannot externalise ourselves from our existence. But, because we are therefore in an existentially closed system, we can have objective knowledge within that constraint. In other words, we can compile knowledge of what exists independently (albeit limited by the physical process which enables that), by comparison and the identification of difference, until such time as that knowledge is proven (by default) to be correct, ie nothing new/different transpires. At which point we can deem that knowledge to be the equivalent of our physical existence, ie as opposed to 'it is the best fit as at this time'. We can never in any sense, 'directly access' reality.

Paul

Jacek

It is very easy to avoid the 'first cause' syndrome. Just stop considering all the possible alternatives to our physical existence. We cannot know them, and therefore they are all just belief. That is, we can only know what it is potentially possible for us to know (which icludes proper hypothesising), and that is governed by a physical process, not philosophy.

By definition, we arrive at a point where we cannot know any more, and we need to accept that, rather than invoking beliefs which aledgedly transcend our existence and reveal facts. We cannot externalise ourselves from the existentially closed system in which we are trapped.

Paul

Jacek

You have not understood my point, but then given it was a post it was very cryptic (and it is explained in my essay).

The key is to establish what it is we are investigating. There is existence and we are part of it, but we are only aware of it via a physical process, ie sensing, which involves the receipt of physical input. We can supplement this with hypothesis, but that must be effected in accordance with the rules of sensing, so in effect it is virtual sensing. The important point being belief is not allowed. Some proven audit to experienceability must occur.

So, we must presume that existence as knowable to us, is just a form of existence. There might be an alternative. But as we can never know this, that is irrelevant. The corollary is that what is potentially knowable is an existentially closed system. So we now have the ability to establish objective knowledge, albeit within a confine. In other words, we compile knowledge by comparison and the identification of difference. Eventually, at least in some aspects we are going to establish all that is available to know, in which case we can then deem that knowledge to be the equivalent of physical existence as knowable to us. As opposed to this knowledge is the 'best depiction attainable at this time'.

Put simply, we can only know what it is potentially possible for us to know. If one wants to 'establish' any alternative then religion is the route.

Paul

Jacek

This is not an issue of perception, where that means individualistic persectives or the generic result of sensory/brain processing.

We cannot 'directly access' reality because of 3 points:

1 There may be an alternative, we are only accessing via one mode

2 What we do receive is not the reality but a representation thereof (eg light)

3 We can only ever have knowledge of, we can never in any sense 'have' the reality, that is even the one within our closed system.

My point being that is you read the way many people express it, they invoke a reality against which they are then referencing some infrmation for validity. Whereas, in actual fact what they are doing is comparing knowledge with othr knowledge.

So the simple answer to what you don't understand about what I am saying is that there is not what you are calling reality. There is only something and knowledge of that.

Paul

Jacek

Indeed. But you need to eradicate the sensory/brain processing element. This is not a physical process, as it converts physical input to a perceptual output of that. I am not saying this is not impportant, we certainly need to know how it works, as it is the start point (ie perceptions are all we have in the first instance, and at the indivual level). But it is not physics.

Put it this way, if a brick was in the spatial position your eye had been in, or even your mouth, then the light would have been received (ie there would have been an interaction). The only difference being that the brick or your mouth cannot subsequently process the physicalinput available as a result of tht interaction.

Paul

Jacek,

I read a few of your viXra papers to get a handle on your spacetime deformation evolution concept; it's an interesting concept. I also fail to see a logical reason to distinguish between apacetime and the "matter" embedded in it. To me it would seem all one continuous entity.

It"s interesting that you start with a primordial spacetime which somehow gets perturbed and this perturbation creates density modulations in this spacetime "stuff." I'm curious as to your prime mover; what started it all?

You know, your concept fits to my own to a high degree. I start with the assumption that Aristotle's potentia, Plato's Unmoved Mover, and the Great Unborn Expanse of the Buddhist philosophers are all equivalent and that they all describe the most abstract mind. This mind has volitional capabilities and this is the prime mover. It deploys an ancestral thought which manifests as conscious intent eventually evolving to sentience - existence in perception.

So let's talk about survival of the stable. I think you would find the work of mathematician and AI researcher Ben Goertzel, whom I reference in my essay interesting. In his book The Evolving Mind [BG] Mr. Goertzel examines evolution from the perspective of the human immune system. Not only does this put evolution on a whole different time scale but it demonstrates the prevalence of feminine fitness. Darwin put sole emphasis on masculine fitness - competition - where the dominant entities survive. Mr. Goertzel points out that in many situations fitness is best understood from the feminine perspective, as in this coat fits well. Feminine fitness better captures the idea of symbiosis, both parasitic and mutually beneficial.

You find feminine fitness at play wherever you find complex systems which have evolved to fit an environmental niche. An example of parasitic symbiosis would be mange mites on dogs or certain fungi on saltwater fish. (Interestingly enough, these fungi can be eliminated by feeding the fish garlic; I've often wondered who it was who discovered this and what made them think to try it!) In both cases the parasites have evolved to fit their host but they provide no benefit to that host. An excellent example of mutually beneficial symbiosis is the relationship between zooxanthellae algae and their host coral. That relationship is not thoroughly understood but it's known that the zooxanthellae capture carbon dioxide from the coral and converts sunlight into energy in turn releasing oxygen and carbon based sugars which the coral utilizes. It's also known that zooxanthellae somehow assist the coral in secreting calcium bicarbonate from the water but the process is not well understood. These are excellent examples of feminine fitness.

And you see interplay between masculine fitness and feminine fitness in all types of environments. I've been diving since 1991 and maintaining reef aquariums since 1997 so I tend to use examples from the reef. One of the best is the relationship which has evolved between giant carpet anemone and their resident clown fish or colony. The clown fish doesn't really exhibit a great deal of masculine fitness; they're a prey fish towards the low end of the spectrum. Likewise, carpet anemones also lack masculine fitness in that they're a predator which can't move very fast! But when put together what you find is emergent behavior which displays a great deal of both feminine fitness, the carpet anemone protects the clown fish while the clown fish acts as bait attracting the anemone's lunch, and masculine fitness, the survivability of both complex systems is greatly enhanced.

Humans, of course, are the ultimate in parasitic symbiosis. A recently re-elected Texas congressman told the local newspaper that his goal this term was to gut the Endangered Species Act. He said it was time emphasis was placed on the human species for a change. He obviously doesn't understand complexity science; it's well known that selfish parasitic behavior can sometimes overwhelm the host leading to system failure on a global scale. I agree with Murray Gell-Mann, it's absolutely foolish to have such callous disregard for what has taken evolution billions of years to produce. But I diverge . . .

I'm waiting to rate essays until just before the submission deadline. I have determined a couple of benchmark essays but I would hate to give those a 10 rating and then have some essay appear that redefined the benchmark; it would be impossible to properly reward the essayist for their extraordinary effort. So, give me a few weeks and I'll return to rate your essay.

Reference

[BG] Goertzel, B., The Evolving Mind, Gordan and Breach Science Publ., New York, NY, 1993.

With regards,

Wes Hansen

No, I have'nt read The Extended Phenotype, I'll have to check it out! Thanks for directing my attention to it and good luck to you as well!

With regards,

Wes Hansen

"The mysterious connection between the three worlds is the self-organized spacetime ..... the spacetime geometry"

This mysterious connection may be the aether of Maxwell and Faraday, abandoned by physicists in the last century? Has Penrose - or you - considered this?

"...information can be immaterial, material or observer's description"

Wheeler has noted that info is immaterial. E.g., the words you are reading now have content independent of the encoding material... LCD screen, paper, sound waves, etc.

"reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one".

Not if the 5 senses give a faithful representation of their proper objects. What evidence supports Einstein's scientific idealism?

"Einstein said: 'reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one'."

That's stretching a point too far. What Einstein actually said (on the death of his friend Besso) is that time -- in the sense of past, present and future -- is a stubbornly persistent illusion. Einstein was most certainly a proponent of objective reality.

I don't understand your essay yet -- I'll revisit it later.

Tom