Beyond information: A bit of meaning. by Olaf Dreyer

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.

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.

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

Dear Olaf,

Nice approach. Defining Bit is difficult as you suggest and I think you've re-categorised it well. When you look at it this way, it does indeed suggest It is more fundamental. It also seems to she'd light on the measurement problem of Quantum Mechanics, as you say.

My essay concludes that Bit and It are equally fundamental perhaps revealing the Fibonacci sequence as an entropic arrow of time - hope you take a look.

Well done and best wishes for the contest,

Antony

Dear Dreyer,

I am absolutely in agreement with your arguments. Absolutely so, because I think I have secured some data that back them!

Will you agree with me that your six characteristics of meaning is capture naturally by defining the "bit" as I have done namely:"...the "bit" is by definition no more than the harmonics (perturbation or amplitude or inverse-length) of the "it" while by definition the "it" is in turn only the fundamental frequency or namely phase-space of any spectrum/path/amplitude of "bits". And in being so the fundamental is not in fact a frequency, it is rather by definition the period (i.e. wavelength) if "superposition". This little difference is most crucial. It follows we can now call a fundamental the entity. The harmonics we call the observables (information) specific to it."

In other words: "...information (in the sense of a "meaning") is not actual the physical material exchanged; information consists in the interference pattern that an exchange forms on/with the observer/exchange points (possibly why conventionally it is not directly the amplitude of a wave function that counts but the squares, and we add now also the logs, of the amplitude that counts). So consciousness (the mind) might as well be thought of as Huygens's wave fronts or as the "phase velocity" from/on which Huygens's wavelets (wave packets) emerge as per se the information."

In fact I argue that all "symmetries" break forth from the "observer" ("observer" signifying in fact the "superposition" if "uncertainty" or Markov property).

If you can spare your precious time to actually read through What a Wavefunction is as I have read through your fine essay I will be most grateful to have your questions.

In the spirit of collaboration please investigate meanwhile if Philip Gibb's Necklace Lie Algebras and Iterated Integration (in "An Acataleptic Universe") might fit your idea of an "emergent computation".

All the best,

Chidi

Olaf,

I have received word that although it was unfortunate that there was a delay in conducting the ratings, no extensions to the final deadline will be made. I will keep this in mind when I get a chance to review your essay later this week.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Dear Olaf,

What a beautiful essay you have written! The six characteristics of meaning could have been fleshed out some more, but I realize that the length requirement puts a limit on how much you can say about each.

In the caption for fig. number 3 you wrote:"The tower of layers. The arrows indicate the direction of emergence. We pose the following question: How does layer 0 look like to someone who's lowest level meaningful objects are from layer 1?"

This is essentially the question with which I have occupied myself the last few years. I mention a principle that guides an answer to this question in the second half of my contribution to this contest. I really hope that you will take a look at it, and if you find it sufficiently interesting to want to know more, would be willing to discuss further.

All the best,

Armin