Essay Abstract

The fathers of the Scientific Revolution intentionally excluded mind from the scientific agenda: they wanted to (and did) build science based on the much more familiar, spatial, considerations, while the mind, they agreed, is of non-spatial nature. It seems that behind the attraction of "it from bit" lies a long suppressed in science but deep seated and probably scientifically fruitful desire to see something 'mental' emerge as the principal element in the structure of the Universe. Yet it would be very naïve to hope that the integration of the 'mental' into a scientific view can be accomplished in the historically familiar, incremental, manner, for example, by simply bringing "bits" into the focus. The scientific common sense suggests: to achieve such extraordinary goal requires an extraordinary scientific step, which I propose is the replacement of our numeric 'glasses' with new, non-numeric, 'glasses'. To this end, we have developed a fundamentally new--'informational', or structural--form of data representation, called "struct", intended to capture previously inaccessible view of objects and processes. It might be considered as a far-reaching generalization of the underlying idea of causal sets (in quantum gravity). The struct promises not only to serve as the blueprint for all "its", including space, but is supposed to elucidate the nature of the discovered in the last century ubiquitous discreteness. However, as never before in the history of science, the pragmatic question is this: Since it is the spatial considerations that for several millennia have fully guided the development of mathematics and physics, how many physicists are prepared to start the development of physics more or less anew, on top of such or similar informational structure (as opposed to the present 'safe' flirtations with the bits)?

Author Bio

Diploma in Mathematics (topology; St.-Petersburg University) and Ph.D. in Systems Design Engineering (pattern recognition; University of Waterloo). I worked as a professor in the Faculty of Computer Science, UNB, Canada, and served on the editorial boards of several journals. After an early retirement, I am writing a book, do research and consulting. Trained as a mathematician, I was especially influenced by Bourbaki view of mathematical structures. In my research in pattern recognition, I realized the inadequacy of the numeric formalisms, including the probabilistic models, and have been working on the development of a fundamentally new (ETS) formalism for structural representation.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Lev

The issue is not the choice of representational device, per se, but how it is organised in order to properly correspond with physical existence as it occurs, and not how we think it does so.

There is nothing inherently wrong with considering 'space', because physical existence is a spatial phenomenon. The main problem has been the representation of time, which relates to the rate of change, ie a feature of the difference between successive realities, not of any given reality. In other words, unless that is understood then space can be misconceived (obviously in terms of detail it can be mis-represented by flawed representation). There is no duration in any given existent reality. So when distance (space) is expressed in terms of duration, it is conceptual, not physical. 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. Misunderstanding this leads to the flawed application of the equation x = vt.

Although you do not explain it, the concept of measurement is comparison to identify difference, and for such differences to be comparable this needs a constancy of reference. Again, assuming the correct presuppositions and adherence to due process, this is not a problem. Indeed, it is the only way to proceed in a closed system. The point being that we only have knowledge of. There is no direct access to reality. We are compiling knowledge by comparing knowledge, with the objective of being able to declare it the equivalent of physical existence. Because physical existence is all that which is potentially knowable to us. The concept of information is a fallacy.

"The known physical forces cannot account for the structural regularity of these formative processes as reflected in the observed classes of similarly structured objects, e.g. various classes of stars, galaxies, stones, trees".

The whole point is not about representation, per se, but about correspondence with what is being investigated. Any representational device, and the way it is ordered can be valid so long as it accords with physical existence as it occurs. And that is where the problem lies with physics, the underlying presumptions are incorrect, not the application of maths, etc. There are no 'objects' and there is no form of indefiniteness in physical existence. This is a flawed representation of reality based on a higher conceptualisation than what occurs. That is, we are deeming existence on the basis of superficial physical attributes, which are then considered to change. A contradiction in itself. What exists at any given time is a physically existent state of whatever comprises it. At another given time there is a different physically existent state. There is a reason(s) for the difference. Different is different. It is not the 'same but with changes'.

So unless your alternative representation system recognises that, then it will be no more valid than the systems you strive to replace.

Paul

    Dear Paul,

    Thanks for your interest!

    1."There is nothing inherently wrong with considering 'space', because physical existence is a spatial phenomenon. The main problem has been the representation of time"

    As you may have noticed, in ETS the concept time is embodied in the struct, and hence the precedence of the temporal side of 'reality' over the spatial one, which you should like.

    2."That is, we are deeming existence on the basis of superficial physical attributes, which are then considered to change. A contradiction in itself. What exists at any given time is a physically existent state of whatever comprises it."

    Paul, as you know, science cannot proceed reliably without some formal language to help it on its way. So what is this "a physically existent state" (from a formal point of view)?

    Hi Lev,

    Your best and clearest yet! (Fortune favors the bold, indeed. :-) )

    I'm sure that your essay will spark a productive dialogue, and we have a long way to go before the close of the competition, so I will confine my comments for now to just one feature: the idea of instantiation.

    I think this term well captures the identity between time and information. I used that same term to describe the form of equation that instantiates meaning without adding meaning, giving the example of Einstein's iconic equation E = mc^2. The constant adds no meaning to the form E = m. It only describes the limit of a continuum of change. By the same criterion, your transformative language instantiates meaning; in fact, I think that only one trained in the deep mathematics of continuous functions could have made this leap.

    All best,

    Tom

      Professor Goldfarb,

      This is a terrific essay. As a realist, there is only one comment I would care to make about it. You are correct when you state that: "Since any (abstract piece of information about) object in the Universe belongs to some class(es) of similarly structured objects, be it a star, a molecule, or an organism. We postulate that such classes themselves are the basic units in the informational organization of Nature." You fail to mention that each real snowflake, each real star, each real molecule, and each real organism is unique and can only occur once. The problem with all information and especially of all abstract mathematical information is that it is always perfectly identically structured. Real Nature is uniquely structured.

        • [deleted]

        • Post #6

        "Our billions of dollars worth of search engines do not 'understand' a single word in what they search."

        Invoking the principle of sufficent reason: How can intelligence be a human artifact, when we don't even understand our own human intelligence?

        "information can then be thought of as this invariant structure circulating through the communication channels."

        invariant in content, and so immaterial.

        John Bell: "....the photons in those [Aspect's et al.] experiments carry with them programs that have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave."

        Not the photons, John, but their aethereal information scouts(= Bohm's pilot waves?) carrying local intelligence between source and environment......at hyperspeed...... rescuing causality and sanity.

          Thank you Tom!

          Good to hear from you. As you know, I have been thinking about these issues for a very long time (several decades). I did try to explain why now is not the time for small steps, why we *should* expect everything from "information" (there are no other big frontiers left).

          But did you notice that I have some "well-wishers": within an hour or two from its posting it was rated 3, and today in the morning it was rated 1. I must have done something right to deserve such "honor". ;-))

          Well, I can't vote yet, but you can be sure that when I can, it will be a good one! I think most just don't grasp your program.

          Tom

          Dear Joe,

          Good to hear from you!

          "You fail to mention that each real snowflake, each real star, each real molecule, and each real organism is unique and can only occur once."

          Please note that, even though there was no space left, I did mentioned about the non-deterministic nature of the class generating system as well as its ability to interact with other classes "nearby": when it generates a new struct, it does so in a non-deterministic manner, and moreover during the generation/construction process other events from other generating systems may constructively intervene (and such events become a part of the strut being constructed). So both of these, in the case of non-trivial classes, guarantee that each class element is unique.

          Robert, isn't that, basically, a part of what I am saying?

          I did think that, despite one of your earlier suggestions, you will be contributing to this contest: the topic is too important to pass it. ;-)

          Lev,

          I agree with your analysis of the historical aversion to consciousness as a relevant topic for physics, and the conflict that this presents when physics becomes focused on "information". I also agree with your position on the unacceptable ambiguity of information. I particularly like your characterization of the present trend as the "path of least resistance". Finally I fully agree that information cannot be separated from the concept of structure. In short your analysis of information largely agrees with my own. As for your ETS proposal, but I'm sure you know what you're facing trying to sell new ideas in this market, so good luck.

          You do remark that "the formalism will stand or fall based on the quality of such interpretation, or predictions." I'm curious about the predictions that arise from ETS.

          Also, you postulate that "classes themselves are the basic units in the informational organization of Nature." Do you have a means of deriving such classes algorithmically? I treat a similar problem in my essay, which I hope to submit "real soon now".

          Good luck with your essay,

          Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Hello Edwin,

            Good to see you participating in this contest, and thanks for your positive analysis!

            Forgive me for a somewhat pedantic form of my answer. ;-)

            1. " I'm curious about the predictions that arise from ETS."

            Probably the most immediate prediction is that concerning the nature of various particles as the stream of structured events, which should obviate the mysterious particle-wave duality.

            2."Do you have a means of deriving such classes algorithmically?"

            Of course, I do: you can find this in the endnote (v) and the reference there. But the definitions are fairly intricate and they are not short. ;-)

            I also wait for your essay.

            Thanks for the answers, the form is immaterial, like water under a bridge ;-) I did read your end notes yesterday, but not today as I was reviewing the essay and I forgot about (v) when I was writing the comment. I have not yet looked at the reference.

            Best,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Edwin, I forgot to mention refer. 12 and 13 as containing preliminary non-physical examples of classes.

            Cheers,

            Lev

            • [deleted]

            • Post #17

            Lev

            Re 1: in which case a struct must be a sequence of physically existent states. And just what is this information which it is comprised of relate to in physical existence? The event would be the cause of the difference between successive states.

            Re 2: we know there is existence and difference thereto. The only way this can occur is by sequence. In other words, physical existence as knowable to us is a sequence of discrete definitive physically existent states, ie at any given time, whatever comprises physical existence is in a singular physically existent state (which is why there is no duration in reality). The degree of difference and duration involved is vanishingly small. No experimentation could identify discrete successive states, and specifically why each occurred.

            In general my problem is that whilst I can accept this 'classification' methodology as being a potential way of ordering knowledge, I am unsure about its proposed role as some overarching replacement, and specifically the involvement of 'information'. Am I right in thinking that this concept of information really relates to the 'organisation/structure' of physical existence? In which case the label is something of a misnomer, because it is something physical. And anyway, I am then back to asking what is organisation/structure'?

            Paul

            • [deleted]

            • Post #18

            Lev

            You did no comment on Edwin's allusion to consciousness, sadly. Because I have been struggling with another underlying thread which is the concept of 'mental', but did not raise it.

            Paul

            Paul,

            "You did no comment on Edwin's allusion to consciousness, sadly. Because I have been struggling with another underlying thread which is the concept of 'mental', but did not raise it."

            By the way, Edwin said: "I agree with your analysis of the historical aversion to consciousness as a relevant topic for physics". He didn't ask me to comment on "consciousness".

            But since you asked I should say that "consciousness" is as ambiguous as "information", and that is why it is hard to address it. But instead we should focus on more identifiable key processes such as pattern recognition / classification.

            1. "Am I right in thinking that this concept of information really relates to the 'organisation/structure' of physical existence?"

            Yes you are right in that thinking.

            2. Please clarify this: "In which case the label is something of a misnomer, because it is something physical."

            3. "And anyway, I am then back to asking what is organisation/structure'?"

            This is what my essay is supposed to suggest, but of course I had the space limitations: structure -- section 3 and organization -- section 4.