Joe,

I don't know what led to your making the above rant about black holes, children and physicists.

Getting back to the subject of our essays: I like your essay - it's funny too. I think what you say in your essay about your real toe is a much needed antidote to the picture of reality put forward in some other essays. The "official view" seems to be that the underlying reality is like a computer, or a horrific mathematical wasteland. Anyone whose essay disagrees is likely to have his head chopped off.

It worries me what is written in some essays. What amazes me is the impaired thinking that fails to see any connection between theories about the underlying reality and what is happening in everyday reality. This includes the thinking that sees living things as automatons whose future fate is already fixed and sealed, and can never be changed. Let these people stand in front of a class of school children and tell the children what they really think about the nature of reality.

Cheers,

Lorraine

Hi Lorraine,

"Do we live in a universe ... where from the point of view of a subject there is only one physical outcome possible for each next moment in time thereby rendering choice impossible? Or alternatively, do we live in a world where ... more than one physical outcome is possible for each next moment in time ... ?"

The way you have stated your two cases, there is no *significant* distinction between them. If I am the cause of the outcome, then there is only one possible outcome - the one I caused. There may have been many choices, but in the end, there is only one possible (significant) outcome - the one I caused to happen. My point is, that at any one instant of time, no one really cares if my left hand picks up a pen, or if my right hand picked it up. The choice of left vs. right is of no significance. The significance resides in whether or not I am the cause of the choice.

Determinism is not really about choices, random or otherwise, but about causation. The existence of choices is merely evidence for causation. More specifically, the ability to *determine* (predict) another's actions, long before that person performs the actions, is taken as evidence that the person cannot be the cause of the action. But if actions cannot be predicted (not just as a matter of practice, but not even in principle), then there is no evidence that the person is not the cause of the action. There is no empirical evidence that such predictions are possible. Laplace and others have hypothesized that *if* all the initial conditions etc. could be known, *then* complete laws of physics would enable such predictions. The real problem is not in knowing the laws, but in knowing the initial conditions; if they were to be truly random, then it is highly probable that the entire cosmos does not contain enough stuff, to build a memory large enough to encode them into memory. So Laplace's argument fails at its initial premise.

Rob McEachern

    • [deleted]

    Hello again Rob,

    I'm sorry, but as is not unusual when discussing issues with you, I don't agree with anything you say.

    My answer to you would be similar to my post to physicist Carlo Rovelli (21 July 2013 @ 03:00 GMT), so here is part of what I posted to him:

    "Many or most physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians focus on theoretical mystical Platonic mathematical entities, and have seemingly assumed that a vast layer of computing infrastructure underlies normal reality, deterministically producing every physical outcome (using law of nature mathematical equations). But where is the evidence for this crucially important computation layer? If there is absolutely no underlying computation layer, and there is absolutely no mystical magical Platonic realm, then your argument collapses. Lacking a mechanism, there can be no basis for your argument for a deterministic reality."

    Lorraine

    Lorraine,

    I'm not sure how "there can be no basis for your argument for a deterministic reality" relates to anything I said. My argument is against a deterministic reality, even if deterministic laws exist (not counting determination, after the fact, i.e. non-predictive). Furthermore, rather than assuming "that a vast layer of computing infrastructure underlies normal reality", my statement was that, however vast that assumed computing infrastructure, may be, it cannot be vast enough to symbolically represent all the required initial conditions, that would be required to carry-out Laplace's computation.

    Rob McEachern

    Rob,

    I'm sorry that I was intemperate and over hasty with my inappropriate judgements about what you said.

    Of course reality is necessarily partly or even mostly deterministic but not 100% deterministic. Without stable structure (e.g. the categories of information and the relationships between categories of information that constitute laws of nature) we wouldn't know where we were. But if reality is 100% determined, e.g. by a law of nature structure, then the future is set in stone.

    You talk about causation, but no matter what side of the freewill/no freewill fence you sit on, surely causation is a thing that has to be assumed. We can represent reality with words or math relationships, but there is nothing that converts this type of blueprint into physical reality. That is, the blueprint, the law of nature, IS the physical reality. Causation is implicit in the blueprint or the description of reality. So we have already assumed causation as a first principle.

    In my essay, I discuss why information should be seen as subjective experience, even at the particle level. I contend that information at the particle level includes category information and category relationship information i.e. law of nature information. I would contend that causation is essentially the same at the particle level and at the level of living things. But living things are more complex and can utilize stored/represented information.

    I think the Laplace argument is far too speculative, and without any evidence anyway.

    Cheers,

    Lorraine

    • [deleted]

    Lorraine,

    I agree with your statement that reality is "mostly deterministic but not 100% deterministic", in the predictive sense mentioned previously.

    But I disagree with the statement that "surely causation is a thing that has to be assumed."

    Assuming causation as a first principle is not the "starting point" of the scientific method. Rather, experiencing repeatable sequences of events is. Causation is a secondary "assumption", namely that when I see the first events in a previously seen repeatable sequence, I then employ induction, to infer that those events will cause the next events in the sequence to occur. But I would never have made such an assumption, if I had never observed repeating sequences of events. In other words, "causation" is a conclusion, not a premise, of the scientific method. Induction, of course, is based on the assumption that the past will resemble the future, in the sense that sequences of events that have always been seen to repeat in the past, will continue to do so in the future. But it is the experience of repeating sequences of events, that causes that assumption to seem reasonable, in the first place.

    There is nothing in the laws of physics, that dictate such repeatability. It is repeating "initial conditions", rather than the laws per se, that enable us to deduce the fact that laws even exist. If you could never repeat an observation or experiment, because the initial conditions could never be reproduced, there would be no "scientific method".

    With regards to what information is, consider your introductory statement, that "the word information meaning "knowledge communicated" comes...", in the following context.

    Claude Shannon worked for a telephone company. One day, Claude's boss comes into Claude's office and says, "The board of directors is looking to add value to our phone system. They want to send other kinds of information over the phone, not just speech. Figure out if we can do that." Claude wisely asks what this other kind of information is about. Surely it would make a difference, if it were about bank account numbers, as compared to videos. The boss informs Claude, in no uncertain terms, that it does not matter "What the information is about!", all he needs to know, if he wants to keep his job, is that it is going to be about whatever the customers want it to be about, and "Whatever you come up with, it had better work for anything and everything, without making our customers worry about what their stuff is about! How the heck are they supposed to figure out if your technique might not work if their information is "about" something you failed to take into consideration? Just you make darn sure your technique is independent of whatever their crap happens to be "about!"!"

    So, being a good engineer, Claude came up with a way to characterize the limitations of "knowledge communication", that is independent of whatever that knowledge may happen to be about. Consequently, his re-definition of information, is not "about" anything, other than determining under what circumstances communication is even possible.

    Rob McEachern

      Hi Lorraine,

      I was happy to read your essay. You managed to tie together many of the concepts. You have a very interesting picture. Wonderful chain: Information - Numbers - Time - Life - Ethics. I just remember the famous words of Kant: "Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. I do not seek or conjecture either of them as if they were veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision; I see them before me and connect them immediately with the consciousness of my existence."

      World contests FQXi - it contests new fundamental ideas, new deep meanings and new concepts. In your essay deep analysis in the basic strategy of Descartes's method of doubt, given new ideas, images, and conclusions.

      Your words are wonderful in conclusion:

      "Whatever the final shape a physical theory of information takes, you can be sure that what physicists say about information and the nature of reality will affect the attitudes of very many people: is the future "already written" or "does what we choose to do really matter? "

      I'll put a rating of "happy nine"...

      Constructive ways to the truth may be different. One of them said Alexander Zenkin in the article "Science counterrevolution in mathematics": «The truth should be drawn with the help of the cognitive computer visualization technology and should be presented to" an unlimited circle "of spectators in the form of color-musical cognitive images of its immanent essence.»

      http:/ / www.ccas.ru/alexzen/papers/ng-02/contr_rev.htm

      I have only one question: Why the picture of the world of physicists poorer meanings than the picture of the world lyricists?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3ho31QhjsY

      Please read my essay this year, and if you have time - an essay last year. I think we are the same in the spirit of our research

      I wish you success,

      Vladimir

        Hi Rob,

        Thanks for your perceptive comments which challenge me to explain my viewpoint better.

        I didn't explain what I meant very well. When I said that causation is a first principle, I meant that when we represent physical information as a law of nature mathematical equation (after years of experimentation) we have already assumed that the interconnections in the equation, including the "=" sign, represent causation in physical reality. This causation assumption is the basis of deterministic explanations of reality.

        I think many/most determinists believe that there is a deterministic explanation underlying quantum processes. Determinists seem to deny that, when it comes to living things, the outcomes of quantum processes ("choices") could be a source of non-deterministic information that has any net effect on the system.

        I contend that there is nothing external to the universe, there is no Platonic realm. In my essay I contend that law of nature "equations" represent information category relationships, but they do not indicate that computation as we know it is taking place, because there is no evidence for all the machinery/baggage associated with computation.

        In my essay, I explain why numbers should be considered to be (in effect hidden) information category self-relationships. I surmise that the input of a new number via quantum decoherence is like adding a new relationship to an existing set of (law of nature) relationships: as numbers derive from relationship, it in effect changes some other numbers in the system (from the point of view of a subject). So I contend that quantum mechanics is driving change in the system, NOT mathematical computations.

        So maybe quantum decoherence should be envisioned as the creation of a physical number outcome, rather than the "choice" of a number outcome. In my essay I note that the creation of a new number (i.e. the creation of a new hidden information category self-relationship) is an everyday process that seems to be very much like the creation of a new law of nature (i.e. the creation of a new information category relationship); and that the evolution of complex life requires the continual evolution of new information categories and relationships.

        I like the story about Claude Shannon. Complex living things (they are all complex) also require an internal system of "knowledge communication", i.e. they need to utilize molecules as symbols to represent complex information. I contend that this represented "information" doesn't become information until it is apprehended, i.e. until it is subjectively experienced (e.g. by the molecular components of cells etc.).

        Cheers,

        Lorraine

        Hi Vladimir,

        Thank you very much for your kind words about my essay, and for giving it a good rating.

        I think the famous words of Kant which you quoted are so true: reality is not "veiled obscurities or extravagances beyond the horizon of my vision", and reality is connected with "the consciousness of my existence".

        Thanks also for sending the Alexander Zenkin article, which I have read. I must say that I agree with your essay :"And mathematics and physics have one foundation - essential primary structure of Nature". (I haven't read your essay as yet, it's just that this sentence caught my eye).

        That is a beautiful Nikolai Noskov song on youtube - I had never heard him before. I also like his song:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXJqVlwHyVc&feature=endscreen . We need more inspiration in our lives - I find it inspiring to think that we live in a world of subjects, not of objects.

        Best wishes,

        Lorraine

        Lorraine,

        "we have already assumed that the interconnections in the equation, including the "=" sign, represent causation in physical reality"

        Exactly the problem. It is a bad assumption. a(b+c)=ab+bc is a mathematical identity, but not a physical identity. The physical manifestation of one side of the equation requires two multipliers, the other requires only one. The math equation only equates the "result" of the computation, not the computation itself. This is a point that has confused so many physicists, that it has spawned this year's essay contest. That fact that a "result" of a mathematical physics computation may perfectly "equal" an observable measurement, provides *no* evidence whatsoever, that the underlying physical manifestation is even remotely similar to the structures in the mathematical theory. Many physicists have assumed otherwise, which is the source of the unending confusion. All the weirdness in modern physics, including decoherence, are manifestations of this bad assumption.

        You are aware of the problem with reconciling a deterministic future, with free-will. And with the problem of having enough hardware to "compute the cosmos", and with the problem that the equations of physics do no distinguish between forward and backward time-travel.

        You can kill-off all three of these problematic "birds" with one stone:

        The cosmos computes itself, by simply being itself. An electron is employed both as itself, and as a symbol for itself. Hence, predictions of all events, are "physically" equal to, not just "symbolically" equal to the event itself. This "cosmic" computer employs all the available resources. Hence, no other computer is as powerful, since they cannot employ all the resources. But even for this most powerful of all possible computers, the amount of time required to compute/predict a future event, is exactly equal to the amount of time required for the event itself to unfold, precisely because they are one and the same thing. Consequently, even if the laws of physics are entirely deterministic *after the fact*, they can never be used to predict the future, except in cases "devoid of information", which is to say, events that do not depend upon knowing anything other that a tiny subset of the initial conditions required to describe the entire cosmos. Such a tiny subset *Can* be built into a computer, built, in turn, from a tiny subset of the matter in the cosmos. In other words, trivial events, devoid of information, like all those described by physics, may be predictable. But complex events, like living entities, remain unprediatable, even in a universe with fully deterministic laws.

        Rob McEachern

        Dear Lorraine,

        I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

        Regards and good luck in the contest,

        Sreenath BN.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

        Rob,

        I think I we agree that "That fact that a "result" of a mathematical physics computation may perfectly "equal" an observable measurement, provides *no* evidence whatsoever, that the underlying physical manifestation is even remotely similar to the structures in the mathematical theory."

        But I don't agree that "This "cosmic" computer employs all the available resources". There is no evidence of any type of computation infrastructure, which would have to underlie the normal physical reality that we observe and measure. There is no evidence that law of nature "equations" represent calculations taking place. And without a Platonic realm, a place to dump all awkward problems, we have to say that law of nature "equations" represent something about physical reality: categories of information in relationship with other categories of information; equation symbols like "=" and "" must represent something about physical reality (but not something measurable).

        Categories of information like mass, momentum and relative spatial location ARE (usually) measurable, which means that they have a number associated with them. The aspects of reality that "=" and "" represent don't have numbers associated with them. I propose in my essay that numbers obtained from measurement are hidden information category self-relationships, or ultimately derive from hidden information category self-relationships. Numbers are not Platonic objects, they are not points on a line, they are physical reality. Physics can't make sense of reality until it makes sense of numbers (i.e. number information).

        I make the point in my essay that there seems to be two types of information (information being subjective experience): information about current physical outcomes and information about potential future outcomes. So for a subject, decoherence would mean that an actual physical outcome has been "selected" out of a range of potential physical outcomes: I wouldn't think that there is any "weirdness" about this at all (so I disagree with you here). If decoherence didn't exist, you'd almost have to invent it, given my contention that there is no underlying computation going on that deterministically calculates what the next physical outcome will be.

        Law of nature relationships ensure that whatever number, associated with whatever category of information, results from decoherence, it doesn't appear that anything out of the ordinary has occurred (unless you look very closely). Also, the above "mechanism" introduces an arrow of time.

        So I think we can agree to disagree about the solution to your three "problematic birds"!

        Cheers,

        Lorraine

        Lorraine,

        The It from Bit, or Bit from It? question, presupposes, without any evidence, that a dichotomy exists. My point is, there is no dichotomy. That is why people cannot agree upon which it is. Bit==IT. The "thing" and the natural "symbol for the thing", are identical.

        "There is no evidence of any type of computation infrastructure, which would have to underlie the normal physical reality that we observe and measure." I agree, the infrastructure does not underlie reality, it is the reality. There is no dichotomy.

        Rob McEachern

        Dear

        I like how you focus on the 'real-world' aspect of information, and I agree with your broad-based, common-sense approach.

        My view is that much of the confusion concerning information stems from physicists ignoring the role of the observer in the field of observation. This should not be the case - as you put it: 'We have physics at the level of the particle, and physics at the level of the cosmos, but the bit in the middle where living things reside is also the domain of physics.'

        That's well said, and I agree with you that information is subjective experience: The persistent conundrum is to figure out how we can account for 'objective experience' - or facts and truths.

        I show in my essay that the objective truth (or, at least, any significantly less subjective truth) only exists for a certain time, and relative to a particular group of evolving observers. The same applies to numbers - they only have significance relative to an observer - and as distant space, quanta, or great speeds become involved, the fundamental nature of numbers - and even law-of-nature equations - changes.

        A Bit is not necessarily information - but something that can be perceived. Everything is positive-negative (and derived from the original proton-electron), but whether the observer perceives a Bit-structure, and how he perceives it at a given time and speed, and from a given location, is variable. Ultimately, whatever reading is taken, whatever information is considered as existing, will not be permanent - because what makes the cosmos 'fly' (or 'breathes fire' into things, as you quote Hawking) - is simply the observer's correlation with the inorganic realm of the cosmos.

        This correlation is caused and maintained by the same energy-field force that defines a proton and an electron, and makes each separate from the other - therefore creating the original positive-negative charge that initiated the cosmos; it is the 'non-Platonic physical/information structure' that you mention.

        This also means, if you agree, that there are other 'categories' besides those you mention - and that these must be the most fundamental: namely, the inorganic, organic, and sensory-cognitive realms that emerge from this correlated system. As you say: 'It seems to be clear that the evolution of complex life requires the evolution of new categories of information, and this in turn requires the construction of new categories interconnected to currently existing reality.'

        Given your broad perspective, I'm sure you'll find many points of interest in my essay - as I certainly have in yours: it is a well-written, clear and focused work for which you should be congratulated. I have rated it highly, and wish you all the best in the competition -

        John.

          Hi Lorraine

          Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

          said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

          I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

          The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

          Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

          Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

          I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

          Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And you have touched some corners of it.

          Best of Luck,

          Than Tin

          Dear John,

          I appreciate your reading my essay and giving me feedback on it. And thanks for rating my essay highly.

          From what you say, I see that there are a lot of similarities in our views, so I definitely would like to read your essay in the coming week. I do agree that there seemingly must be some sort of "most fundamental" category/categories of information perhaps underlying even basic categories of information like mass and charge.

          Best wishes,

          Lorraine

          Hello Lorraine - thanks for commenting; yes, I do believe you'll find many points of interest in my essay - and I very much look forward to your insights.

          Best Regards,

          John

          • [deleted]

          Hi Lorraine,

          Right now I'm at the start of your essay, I like very much how you start with definitions and historical perspective. An yes Shannon did not deliver the goods philosophically, but he sure did in an engineering sense. He developed the science of how to get information out of noise. Very important when you are trying to transmit information over real transmission lines. Shannon may have not delivered the goods in philosophy, but he sure did in engineering and science.

          I have just finished the essay and can say: Honestly, this is the best essay in the entire contest. I have done my best to raise your score.

          You ended with: what physicists' say about information and the nature of reality will affect the attitudes of very many people: is the future "already written" or "does what we choose to do really matter?"

          This category of question also contains Wheeler's (and anyone that thinks) "Why Existence?", This category of question is the category of question that is not legitimate to ask because the answers is at the level of being and not at the level of knowing.

          Your fellow countryman (educated guess ?) Zoltan (who is also underrated) went into the philosophy of Emanuel Kant who said: The thing in itself (IT) is unknown and unknowable by the categories of the mind (BIT).

          Visit my blog I think you will like it.

          Sincerely,

          Don Limuti