Dear Olaf,

Simply excellent examples, woven into a unique analysis. I fully agree with your conclusion of "Bit from It". I'm still absorbing your idea that meaning is internal.

I conceive of energy as being transported from source to detector, whereupon, if a physical threshold is crossed and local structure is changed (informed) then information comes into existence and is registered or recorded. The meaning of this information is interpreted by the local codebook which may be in the changed structure [as in an atomic transition] or may be in a hierarchical context [as in a neural network]. The hierarchical context of the orchid and moth is first, the reality of ecological evolution, and second, the model of such evolution in Darwin's consciousness. Both of these seem "external" to me. Perhaps by internal "meaning" you mean something like "function". Perhaps you and I mean much the same thing when you say 'layered' and I say 'hierarchical'. These differences often boil down to a matter of definitions. In any case, I agree with you that "a description of the world that focuses solely on the bits will be incomplete."

I very much enjoyed your discussion of "position" versus "symbolic representation of position" [or GDP, etc.]. Chenxi Guo, says something like this in his essay: "matter is a representation of its own energy...". I also like your discussion of 'layers' and the inertia of solids. I fully agree that "This rigidity is such a common feature of our world that we hardly ever pause to consider how remarkable it is." All in all, an excellent discussion of position, inertia, and emergent properties, and a following discussion of a potential way of understanding some of the difficulties of quantum mechanics.

I read your explanation resolving Dennett's conception of consciousness, but I do not accept Dennett's ideas, so I focus differently. You might find my approach interesting. It agrees with your conclusions. I hope you find the time to read it and comment.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    • [deleted]

    • Post #5

    Dr. Dreyer,

    Hi. I liked your essay a lot, and your points about solids representing positions and information needing an external entity in order to give it meaning struck a chord with me. Some comments are:

    1. In regard to your point that

    "information should be seen as the basis of our description of the world [9, 10]. Our analysis shows that there is something fundamentally wrong with this suggestion. Naked bits require a dictionary that gives them meaning. Such a dictionary is necessarily external to the bits themselves and a description of the world that focuses solely on the bits will be incomplete."

    this suggests to me that anything that requires an external dictionary to give it meaning or to define it cannot be the most basic building block of existence. This then suggests that a thing that is the most basic building block of existence must be self-defining. Something in its properties must give itself meaning, and existence. In the previous analog versus digital contest, I suggested one situation that I think is self-defining and whose very nature defines an existent entity.

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/824

    2. When you say that a solid represents a position, I also agree with this but phrase it a little differently. My view is that there is some most fundamental existent entity that is at the heart of our reality and that it has the ability to generate additional instances of this fundamental entity all around it. Each of these entities is a position of space/volume. Only an existent entity can have a position. The collection of these existent entities defines the space we live in, with each entity representing one location within that space.

    3. Your idea of a solid representing a position also prompts me to throw out an idea I've been thinking about for awhile that I propose may relate to the quantum superposition stuff.

    A. Suppose that there is in existence only one instance of the most fundamental existent entity, named A. A is an existent entity and represents a position. This also means there is only one position in existence. There are no entities or positions outside of A.

    B. As above, suppose that this most fundamental existent entity, A, has the ability to generate additional existent entities, each named B1, B2, B3, etc., in order to cover its surface. Once created, these new B entities would be new positions. One can't say why these new entities were created in the positions they're in because there were no positions until after they were created.

    C. Now, suppose a human mind looks back on this situation after the B entities were created. Given that it seems natural in our minds to think that space is infinitely divisible (e.g. continuous), we might think that the B entities could have been in any of any infinite number of positions around the A entity. That is, there would be a superposition of possible locations for B to have been in. This seems reasonable, but it's not correct because there were no positions other than A until after the B entities were created. So, our after-the-fact imposition of a probability distribution for the possible locations of the B entities is incorrect because there were no locations other than A until after the B entities were created.

    This is just an idea I've been thinking of that I wonder if it may have some relationship to the quantum superpositioning stuff.

    Any feedback you may have on my current FQXi essay and on my ideas at my website

    sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite

    would be greatly appreciated.

    Thank you for listening!

    Roger Granet

      Dr. Dreyer,

      it is a very clear and insightful exposition, but I think you miss an important point and that is the nature of the term "meaning" and its relationship to the term "purpose." You assign characteristics to the term meaning which more appropriately apply to purpose.

      Meaning is inherently reductionistic, while purpose is necessarily contextual. We distill out meaning by eliminating all that is meaningless, then we apply this tidbit of knowledge to where it fits in a larger context in order to understand its purpose.

      Meaning is a node, while purpose is where it fits in the network.

        Olaf,

        I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

        My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

        Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

        Manuel

        PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

          Dear Tejinder,

          thanks so much for reading my essay. I had to refresh my memory about Stephen's program (I only heard him give a talk once). I guess there is a difference after all. He proposes that quantum mechanics is emergent (quantum mechanics emerges from the statistical mechanics of matrix models). My proposal says that classical mechanics is emergent. My level 1 objects would be the classical (and emergent) objects. Level 0 is quantum mechanical.

          I am still trying to understand whether his reasons for the emergence of randomness are related to mine.

          Cheers

          Olaf

          Dear Edwin:

          Thank you for the interest in my essay. Maybe I can use your idea of a changing local structure to say what I mean. The local structure you are talking bout could be the molecules in the disk of a computer hard drive. The head of the drive can magnetize parts of the disk. This is when "information comes into existence and is registered or recorded", to use your words. Assume

          1001

          was written onto the disk. What does it mean? Does it represent September, is it part of a representation of pi, is it the red value of a pixel in an image, ...? None of this is clear from the bits themselves. The meaning is outside of 1001 (in the program accessing the bits, or the programmer, or the user looking at the computer screen). This is why I call this kind of meaning external.

          What I have in mind is a notion of information that is internal. It arises by interacting with the representation with similar objects.

          Looking forward to reading your essay.

          Cheers

          Olaf

          Dear Hoang:

          Thanks for the interest in my essay! I'll have a look at your article.

          Cheers

          Olaf

          Dear John:

          You say that

          Meaning is inherently reductionistic, ...

          What you are basically saying is that there are atoms of meaning. I do not think that this is true. I also do not think that purpose is really a better word. You might say that my whole point is that meaning is not reductionistic. Stu Kauffman put it this way:

          The meaning of a cuckoo clock doesn't become apparent if you grind it

          up and analyze the remains.

          Thanks again for the interest.

          Cheers

          Olaf

          Dear Manual:

          Thanks for the heads up. It looks like fqxi is having some technical problems. I will also email them.

          Thanks again.

          Cheers

          Olaf

          Dear Roger:

          Thank you reading my essay so carefully. I am looking forward to having a look at your essay!

          Cheers

          Olaf

          Olaf,

          Reductionism isn't necessarily a physical function. Consider your example of Darwin's deduction of the existence of that moth. He distilled from knowledge of the shape of the orchid's spur to mean there must be a particular insect that could reach the nectar. Yet if you then conceive the larger relationship, does the concept of meaning apply, or does the concept of purpose fit better?

          I suppose you could say there is meaning to the synchronicity of the relationship and what it says about the inter-workings of nature, but that to would be a distillation of some deeper meaning.

          Not trying to be linguistically nitpicky, but they are two words that I've given some consideration to and think "meaning" is overused and "purpose" is under appreciated. We are frequently tearing the environment apart, trying to find some hidden value or meaning and don't appreciate the ways in which everything gives everything else purpose.

          Dear John:

          Here is a definition for purpose:

          The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

          I am not comfortable with the "reason for" part. To use one of my examples, I think it is odd to say that the reason for the solid is to represent a position.

          If you look at the quotes at the beginning of the last section of the essay you will see that both Shannon and Gleick use the word meaning. In my essay I am talking about the same thing.

          Cheers

          Olaf

          Hello Olaf,

          A good presentation. My comments...

          I cannot fault and I agree with your tower of layers and the direction of emergence. I think through this hierarchical arrangement meaningful descriptions of the reality we can apprehend will emerge.

          But I wish you allowed layer 0 objects, RETAIN properties we think of as fundamental rather than coming to lack them in interacting with other layers. If that were so, layer 0 objects will resemble objects I described in my essay, especially as you also regard position as a fundamental property.

          Permit me to rephrase your statements thus: " ... there is something fundamentally wrong with this suggestion... that information should be seen as the basis of our description of the world".

          Yes, but I believe you are open to the idea of 'It coming from Bit' and may have a change of mind, IF as you also say we adhere to your admonition or conviction that 'the bit-part is improved'.

          I very much agree to this. It appears better understood than Bit. And one of my suggested improvements in Bit is a more comprehensive list of the available binary choices on our list of Bits. Appropriate layering can then be used to build Its.

          Deserving of a good score. All the best and well done.

          Akinbo

            Olaf,

            I don't doubt there are variations in and on the "meanings." I just think it important to distinguish between their somewhat different functions. You might say meaning is a coming together. Not just distillation, but coalescing as well. Purpose is more the contextual connections. It is more the dynamic relationships, than the static focus or answer. As I alluded to, the reason I find this important is because western culture is focus oriented and we are constantly looking for that deeper meaning or value within all this chaotic reality, but when we are done, have turned the forest into a stack of 2x4s and some furniture and the earth into slag heaps and some metal. When we look at it in terms of purpose, there is the inclination to understand value as it is and how it fits into and supports its environment.

            In my own very short essay,

            I go into the relationships between focused knowledge and broad knowledge and why knowledge is inherently fragmentary. So when we become too focused on the particular, it is time to step back and contextualize.

            Dear Olaf,

            I agree with your above example. When the structure of the magnetic coating changes, the information comes into existence and is registered. But the interpretation or 'meaning' of the information is external. (Lorraine Ford, in her essay, goes further, and does not consider the registered data to be 'information' until it is apprehended. The magnetic recording, in her terms, only 'represents' information. I tend to agree with her, but common usage is based on considering the stored local structure as information.) My point about energy transfer is to emphasize that there is no physical entity "information" being transmitted, only energy that can 'convey' information, if it finally crosses some threshold and is apprehended at some future time.

            I will look at your essay again and try to understand your sense of internal information. I think you are saying that the meaning is implicit in the structure, such as moth and proboscis, and need not be interpreted externally, as Darwin did, whereas there simply is no meaning to the 1001 until and unless it is interpreted externally. Is this close?

            Best,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

            Hi Olaf,

            I really enjoyed reading your essay. Maybe, I feel the same philosophy in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1836 if you are interested in this, please read it.

            As the same question to my essay, how to resolve the mathematical treatment "a bit"? Do you have any idea?

            Best wishes,

            Yutaka

              Dear Olaf

              Warren McCulloch an American neurophysiologist and cybernetician, known for his work on the foundation for certain brain theories and his contribution to the cybernetics movement once told:"Greatest riddle of the World "What is "the same information?"

              That is modern version question of Plato.

              Do you agree with him?

              Regards

              Yuri

                Dear Olaf,

                I found your essay very deep and well written. I like the new definition of information you propose, and I agree in particular that the meaning should be internal in the sense you use it, and layered. Also, that computation is emergent, hence includes random elements and is approximate. We agree that the view that particles should have well-defined position and momentum is at the origin of the dichotomous view promoted by the wave-particle duality and related puzzles. Maybe they are explained on a deeper layer. Could you please develop your proposal "that some of the puzzling features of quantum mechanics can be understood with our new view of information.".

                Best regards,

                Cristi Stoica

                  Thanks Olaf - now that you explain it, I agree there is a difference. For Adler the emergent statistical thermodynamics is equivalent to a nonlinear quantum mechanics [= linear quantum mechanics nonlinear fluctuations]. When the fluctuations are negligible, the emergent nonlinear quantum mechanics reduces to standard linear quantum theory. When the fluctuations are significant, the nonlinear quantum mechanics reduces to classical mechanics. In this sense both quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are emergent from the matrix models.

                  In your work, can one form a mathematical picture as to how emergent randomness is responsible for the quantum to classical transition?

                  Best,

                  Tejinder

                  ciao Olaf

                  so here it is!!

                  Reading it through I find your thesis even more intriguing than when you explained it to me before you started working on the essay.

                  I would claim that your line of reasoning here on it from bit is to some extent similar in spirit (in spite of the many difference in context and perspective) to the thesis put forward on time in the recent book by Lee Smolin.

                  And I think the complementarity between your essay and the one by Mauro D'Ariano is one of the most interesting aspects of this essay competition.

                  Congratulations!!

                  Giovanni