Robots, Supply and Demand by Jeffrey Michael Schmitz

Dear Jeffrey,

You have given due importance to science and scientific method in your essay. You have rightly described first how a pattern is formed by mind and based on this how hypotheses are framed and then how theories are developed on these hypotheses. Sometimes adhoc hypotheses are framed to explain new scientific facts and theories are based on them. If they fail to explain other facts later discovered then such hypotheses and theories based on them will have to be replaced by some other better theories. This is, indeed, found in the history of science. You have also stated clearly why robots and computers cannot take over man as they are not intelligent systems like humans but are operated by him. The idea that the universe may not have purpose behind it makes it look like non- lively. But you are right when you say that there is purpose behind the evolution of Life, because Life has continued to exist even after its existence and evolution for billions of years under going enormous change in its complexity, intelligence and form. When you say that "In evolution we have another intelligent system to compare with human intelligence" reminds me of my hypotheses in biology that "Evolution of Life is analogous to the evolution of the knowledge of mind". It is based on this hypothesis I am going to build my theory of the existence and evolution of Life. Thus in this respect your idea is nearly similar to mine. Due to this similarity of thought I will rate this essay with maximum rating after seeing your response to my comments. I have answered your comments on my essay in my thread.

Thanks for writing an elegantly argued article.

Sreenath

Dear Jeffrey,

As promised I have rated your essay.

Best of luck,

Sreenath

Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics,

Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Dear Jeff

My previous post was erased. I just want to let you know that I have already read your nice and short essay. Robots and computers have no desires and feelings, but how can we explain these in humans if we are just of matter and energy?

I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis.

I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

Regards

Israel

Dear Jeffrey Michael Schmitz:

I am an old physician and I don't know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics, I read your essay and I find it bright and clear and it seems to me seriously done and I rated for it.

Maybe you would be interested in my essay over a subject which after the common people, physic discipline is the one that uses more than any other, the so called "time".

I am sending you a practical summary, so you can easy decide if you read or not my essay "The deep nature of reality".

I am convince you would be interested in reading it. ( most people don't understand it, and is not just because of my bad English).

Hawking in "A brief history of time" where he said , "Which is the nature of time?" yes he don't know what time is, and also continue saying............Some day this answer could seem to us "obvious", as much than that the earth rotate around the sun....." In fact the answer is "obvious", but how he could say that, if he didn't know what's time? In fact he is predicting that is going to be an answer, and that this one will be "obvious", I think that with this adjective, he is implying: simple and easy to understand. Maybe he felt it and couldn't explain it with words. We have anthropologic proves that man measure "time" since more than 30.000 years ago, much, much later came science, mathematics and physics that learn to measure "time" from primitive men, adopted the idea and the systems of measurement, but also acquired the incognita of the experimental "time" meaning. Out of common use physics is the science that needs and use more the measurement of what everybody calls "time" and the discipline came to believe it as their own. I always said that to understand the "time" experimental meaning there is not need to know mathematics or physics, as the "time" creators and users didn't. Instead of my opinion I would give Einstein's "Ideas and Opinions" pg. 354 "Space, time, and event, are free creations of human intelligence, tools of thought" he use to call them pre-scientific concepts from which mankind forgot its meanings, he never wrote a whole page about "time" he also use to evade the use of the word, in general relativity when he refer how gravitational force and speed affect "time", he does not use the word "time" instead he would say, speed and gravitational force slows clock movement or "motion", instead of saying that slows "time". FQXi member Andreas Albrecht said that. When asked the question, "What is time?", Einstein gave a pragmatic response: "Time," he said, "is what clocks measure and nothing more." He knew that "time" was a man creation, but he didn't know what man is measuring with the clock.

I insist, that for "measuring motion" we should always and only use a unique: "constant" or "uniform" "motion" to measure "no constant motions" "which integrates and form part of every change and transformation in every physical thing. Why? because is the only kind of "motion" whose characteristics allow it, to be divided in equal parts as Egyptians and Sumerians did it, giving born to "motion fractions", which I call "motion units" as hours, minutes and seconds. "Motion" which is the real thing, was always hide behind time, and covert by its shadow, it was hide in front everybody eyes, during at least two millenniums at hand of almost everybody. Which is the difference in physics between using the so-called time or using "motion"?, time just has been used to measure the "duration" of different phenomena, why only for that? Because it was impossible for physicists to relate a mysterious time with the rest of the physical elements of known characteristics, without knowing what time is and which its physical characteristics were. On the other hand "motion" is not something mysterious, it is a quality or physical property of all things, and can be related with all of them, this is a huge difference especially for theoretical physics I believe. I as a physician with this find I was able to do quite a few things. I imagine a physicist with this can make marvelous things.

With my best whishes

Héctor

Having read so many insightful essays, I am probably not the only one to find that my views have crystallized, and that I can now move forward with growing confidence. I cannot exactly say who in the course of the competition was most inspiring - probably it was the continuous back and forth between so many of us. In this case, we should all be grateful to each other.

If I may, I'd like to express some of my newer conclusions - by themselves, so to speak, and independently of the logic that justifies them; the logic is, of course, outlined in my essay.

I now see the Cosmos as founded upon positive-negative charges: It is a binary structure and process that acquires its most elemental dimensional definition with the appearance of Hydrogen - one proton, one electron.

There is no other interaction so fundamental and all-pervasive as this binary phenomenon: Its continuance produces our elements - which are the array of all possible inorganic variants.

Once there exists a great enough correlation between protons and electrons - that is, once there are a great many Hydrogen atoms, and a great many other types of atoms as well - the continuing Cosmic binary process arranges them all into a new platform: Life.

This phenomenon is quite simply inherent to a Cosmos that has reached a certain volume of particles; and like the Cosmos from which it evolves, life behaves as a binary process.

Life therefore evolves not only by the chance events of natural selection, but also by the chance interactions of its underlying binary elements.

This means that ultimately, DNA behaves as does the atom - each is a particle defined by, and interacting within, its distinct Vortex - or 'platform'.

However, as the cosmic system expands, simple sensory activity is transformed into a third platform, one that is correlated with the Organic and Inorganic phenomena already in existence: This is the Sensory-Cognitive platform.

Most significantly, the development of Sensory-Cognition into a distinct platform, or Vortex, is the event that is responsible for creating (on Earth) the Human Species - in whom the mind has acquired the dexterity to focus upon itself.

Humans affect, and are affected by, the binary field of Sensory-Cognition: We can ask specific questions and enunciate specific answers - and we can also step back and contextualize our conclusions: That is to say, we can move beyond the specific, and create what might be termed 'Unified Binary Fields' - in the same way that the forces acting upon the Cosmos, and holding the whole structure together, simultaneously act upon its individual particles, giving them their motion and structure.

The mind mimics the Cosmos - or more exactly, it is correlated with it.

Thus, it transpires that the role of chance decreases with evolution, because this dual activity (by which we 'particularize' binary elements, while also unifying them into fields) clearly increases our control over the foundational binary process itself.

This in turn signifies that we are evolving, as life in general has always done, towards a new interaction with the Cosmos.

Clearly, the Cosmos is participatory to a far greater degree than Wheeler imagined - with the evolution of the observer continuously re-defining the system.

You might recall the logic by which these conclusions were originally reached in my essay, and the more detailed structure that I also outline there. These elements still hold; the details stated here simply put the paradigm into a sharper focus, I believe.

With many thanks and best wishes,

John

jselye@gmail.com

Dear Jeffrey

I just want to let you know that I have read your nice and short essay. Up to now robots and computers don't have human features such as feelings and desires, but perhaps in the far future things may change. You also discuss that the universe has no purpose. Of course you assume that the universe is composed of inert elements, but how would you explain the emergence of purpose, feelings and desire from brute inert matter. Usually, the explanation is that all of these are nothing but chemical reactions, do you agree?

I'd like to invite you to read my essay and leave some comments. There I discuss about Wheeler's dream and propose a potential way to get out of the present crisis.

I'll be looking forward to hearing any comments you may have.

Regards

Israel

Hi Jeff

Thanks for your reply. Just to add: If the purpose of life is to reproduce then one could say that the purpose of the universe is to give consciousness, don't you think? So, why do you say that life has a purpose and the universe doesn't?

Regards

Israel

Dear Jeffrey,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Dear Jeff,

A great opening statement that I concur 100%, as a matter of fact KQID is designed to power Xuan Yuan Operating system2.0 to realize Xuan Yuan's Da Tong, an idea society in which "from each to each according to his/her dreams and aspirations" where each has free eduction, free health care and free material wealth. May I invite you to my blog and if you like it please rate it to raise my ranking. I am doing the same here.

You opened with : "The 
universe 
itself 
might
 not 
have
 a 
purpose,
but
 science,
one 
of
 the 
ways
 we 
try 
to
 understand 
our
universe, 
needs 
a
 purpose. 
The 
purpose
 of
 science 
affects 
this
 seemingly
 dispassionate
 pursuit.

"

I also agree with your conclusion: "In 
a 
similar 
vain,
 science 
to 
be
 science,
 must 
continue 
to
 look
 out
and 
relate
 to 
the 
physical
 universe.
 The 
information 
age 
gives
 us
 new
 possibilities 
of 
intelligence, 
but
it 
cannot
 by pass 
the
 scientific 
method."

If I may post here a long summary of KQID:

In summary, quoting my answer to Michel Planat and please forgive me for being respectfully and humbly boastful to counter the doubtful: First, KQID Qbit is (00,1,-1) which is singularity Qbit Multiverse in zeroth dimension at absolute zero temperature that computes and projects Einstein complex coordinates (Pythagoras complex triangles or Fu Xi's gua or Fibonacci numbers) onto the 2D Minkowski Null geodesics and then instantaneously into the 3D in Lm, our Multiverse timeline to allows Existence to move around 360 degree and its arrows of time or ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm). New informations are created and distributed per ≤10^-1000 seconds. No information is ever deleted. KQID is the only theory out there that can calculate the dark energy of our Multiverse ≤10^-153Pm/Pv and the minimum bits as the lower bound ≥ 10^153 bits in our Multiverse. KQID is the only theory that I know here that proves bit = it; KQID calculates Sun lights into Sun bits; calculates electron, proton and neutron in terms of bits; set up equivalent principle of bits with energy and matter. Therefore, Wheeler's it from bit and bit from it. Please correct me if I am wrong. And, KQID is the only theory in this universe has the mechanism on how Holographic Principle works. Also answer the mother of all questions, the why, how and what Existence.

KQID's Origin of Mass:

Furthermore, KQID is the only theory that can explain the origin of mass as A+S=E=ψI(CTE) that Wilczek said admittedly in 2012 after the discovery of Higgs boson mH ≈ 125 GeV in his tour the force article Origins of Mass arXiv:1206.7114v2 that human beings do not yet know the origins of mass and it is not even in sight. He concluded on page 32/35 and lamented like Einstein 51 years before: "We've passed some milestones, but the end of the road is not in sight." Einstein, after his landmark article 107 years ago on m=E/c^2 showing mass in terms of energy in 1905, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy Content?" But this equation required us to know what is energy before we can define the origin of mass. Einstein truly like Socrates before him as the wisest man in Athens according to the Oracle simply because Socrates claims that he does not know anything, Einstein the wise similarly stated his own ignorance of energy in 1951: "All these fifty years of pondering have not brought me closer to answering the question, what is light quanta?"

KQID's origin of mass is simply A + S = E = ψI(CTE) that is Dao's Wuwei (the least action moves) maximizing the flow of A, anti-entropic time-future bits-waves function moving from future to time-present bits-waves function E in optimizing the E flow and minimizing the flow of S, entropic time-past bits-waves function moving from time-past to time-present in terms of both bits and joules SI. That also leads to Pauli's exclusion principle and the lowest amount of energy arrangement required in an atomic system. See KQID Ouroboros Equations of Existence.

Michel asked the heart of KQID: "Where is the FAPAMA concept coming from in your frame? I mean who is the influencial thinker?"

First from Fu Xi's gua(trigrams) Ξ ☷ as DIRECT representations of nature, from Pythagoras's all things are numbers, from Jesus's Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, from Hindu's Trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, from Planck's intelligent mind as the matrix of all matter and from Maxwell's infinite being with infinite storage capacity who computes in bits/qbits to create and distributes energy that does works, and from Landauer who teaches us that information is physical and nature can freely create and distribute bits/qbits but to erase/deletes the created bits/qbits must incur entropy cost somewhere else in Multiverse. That is why our Ancestor FAPAMA Qbit does not and can not erase any information. The computation of Holographic Principle must be within the one and only Qbit(00,1,-1) showing that Existence origin is from Non-existence and the calculations of Einstein complex coordinates can only be done at absolute zero temperature in which Bose-Einstein superconductivity perfectly happens without resistance or entropy. From Susskind and Hooft, who got the idea from Beckenstein-Hawking black hole entropy, proposed/discovered Holographic Principle and Hooft's quantum entanglements must be from the beginning. Thus FAPAMA Qbit must be there from the beginning (Hooft) and splits freely without cost (Landauer and Guth) to itself and Multiverse infinitely every absolute digital time T≤ 10^-1000 seconds. Moreover, every T-moment, our FAPAMA Qbit escapes extinction from its forever chasing companion Non-existence to be reunited only just barely by rebooting, resynchronizing, refreshing, renewing and reborn itself, so that it is forever just newly born evolved immortal baby. This gives us the arrow of time. Ξ00☷ = < S | E | A > = ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) ⊆ T. Time reemerges every digital T-moment. Every T-moment Qbit resynchronizes all Minkowski events in time-present. This is the KEY in re-entangling everything and keeping things in order and not crashing down. Complementarily, KQID also supports block Multiverse within T-moment in which all time-past-present-futures are forged into the NOW that in turn enabling resynchronization above! Time disappears. Yes, Einstein-KQID relativity rules (8πG/c^4)Tμν - Kqid(ΑΘ-ΘS)gμν = Τμν block Multiverse. Yes, Existence is the founder of creativity, it must invent new ways to escape from the grip of its Non-existence complementarity-companion. Dear Akinbo, KQID answers your immortal question if our founder is it or bit. The Founder Qbit is both bit and it simultaneously. Existence-Non-existence is one Qbit. This Qbit is It as Existence. FAPAMA: FA in Chinese means law like law of gravity that gives Existence order in time, PA from the concept of papa or the Holy Ghost or Brahma or Fu XI heaven Ξ that connects everything with everything else as one meaningful whole that manifests in quantum mechanics as Hooft's physical quantum entanglement. Yes, quantum entanglement phenomena must be instantaneous with infinite speed because it is within that one Qbit, there is no gap, no space, no time, no dimension, no locality but it is everywhere locally in physical forms that are derivative from MA as mama trigram earth ☷ that gives birth to mass and structure of Existence in ψτ(iLx,y,z, Lm) relativistic Multiverse in which time contracts, thus length contracts and mass/energy increases. So you see KQID gives picture of Existence as fantastically magical Disney's world, a holographic but physically relativistic fiction but real Multiverse. We are active game changers in our Wheeler's participatory magical kingdom, the Leibniz's happiest Multiverse possible. Because we are limited, we have choices to make including mistakes that lead to man/nature made miseries; so that we have free will to enjoy this wonderful make-believe holographic world. Let us sing and praise Xuan Yuan's Da Tong song and dance.

I do strongly believe that we must encourage diversity of opinions/theories. Because uniformity of opinion is a heat-death state of thermodynamic equilibrium tantamount to Schrodinger's defunct bumblebee. Let us celebrate symphonies of ideas. In the end, because of our Ancestor Qbit's meme ψI(CTE) imperative to venture into our realm, we the Qbit must discover our own truths in different ways and methods. Let 1000 bumblebee's thoughts bloom, flourish and make love to give births to another forever new 1000 hybrid flower of thoughts.

Hope for the best,

Leo KoGuan

Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Interesting.

I rated your essay a ten

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1616

Dear Jeff,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Light and fun to read.

I enjoyed it. Descartes may have helped invent 'It from Bit' Cogito Ergo Sum - if translated in the impersonal - is Thinking therefore Being, or Bit engenders It.

Have Fun!

Jonathan