Dear Turil,

you ask whether I have evidence that humans can flip themselves, in the sense that they can modify their behavioural rules, while cellular automata can`t.

I suppose this can be seen as an instance of the tough question whether we are completely determined in our behaviour by some fixed rule, or we enjoy free will. I believe there exists a scenario in which both things are in some sense true. This is made possible by the fact that this universe is multilevel.

At the bottom level - the ultimate spacetime scale from which everything emerges computationally, including humans - rules are algorithmic, and fixed; or, if they change, this is not under our control.

But at the much higher level of our direct experiences - say, the biosphere - we feel we are able to change our own behaviour. This is illusional, since, under this scenario, even the fact that I have decided to behave better, or worse, is determined by the rules and dynamics at the lower levels, and yet the illusion works fine for us, since we cannot directly experience the causal influences of those lower dynamics on what happens to us.

I also have in mind the argument used by Wolfram for preserving a (weak) notion of free will in a fully deterministic, computational universe. His idea is that it takes no less than 10 computational steps, in a simulation, to find out how the universe, or my life, will look like in 10 universe steps from now, since the computation that the universe is performing is irreducible - no shortcut. Thus, the rule at the bottom is fixed (no free will), but the emergent behaviour appears unpredictable, thus, in a sense, rule-free, spontaneous.

If this is a bit confusing, don`t worry. It is for me too. Trying to capture the notions of spontaneity, agency, creativity, free will, in a formal framework, is always troublesome. It is probably the hardest problem, when trying to formalise Teilhard`s cosmological views.

Hi Joe,

let me directly quote Tononi: `In short, integrated information captures the information generated by causal interactions in the whole, over and above the information generated by the parts`.

Tononi was able to find a formal way to measure the difference between the amount of information produced by a system when it enters a state, and the amount of information that its parts produce, individually, as that state change occurs. This difference must then correspond to the information produced by the interactions among the parts. These quantities can be measured by the notion of relative entropy, which essentially captures the amount of information produced when moving from one probability distribution (of system states) to another.

I see your point, that consciousness is UNIQUE, ONCE. But this does not prevent one to measure it, if you accept the idea that consciousness is a sort of side effect of the intricate structure of the brain, to which Tononi`s measures can be applied.

I am not sure I understand what you mean when you write that `all information is not unique; therefore all information is unrealistic`. Perhaps you mean that bits are generic, or all equal, and brains are specific, or all different. And you attribute the status of reality to things that are unique, specific, and not generic. In this respect you should probably conclude that the mathematical universe (as discussed by Max Tegmark) is the most unrealistic of all possible universes . . . Anyway, I tend to sympathize with Teilhard`s idea that the ultimate fabric of the universe is indeed made of indistinguishable, abstract, entities (the bits fit this definition), and that the evolution is such that more and more complex entities emerge, up to the brains, which are indeed unique.

Tommaso, thanks for clarifying. I fully agree with your assessment. My own approach, of using binary combinations of awareness has really helped me see both the simplicity and complexity of how things relate to one another, whether they are bits of data or humans.

6 days later

Tommaso,

A learned and interesting adventure conversationally between generations. Your "humanity in silico" makes me think of ants under scrutiny, tagged and studied by higher powers. The social network metaphor is interesting and disturbing at the same time since it seems to accurately represent real life, though with different motivation for observations.

Not having any easy answers for steering billions of separate humans toward a viable future, I am impressed with the images you draw but I still don't know whether to feel optimism about our future.

Jim

    People and companies have actually started using data from social networks, e.g. for `sentiment analysis`, and you can easily imagine the good and bad purposes of this.

    I merely sketched a possible positive usage of `humanity in silico` models, but I myself do not feel particularly attracted by this type of inquiry, while I enjoy much more the ambitious goals expressed by Tommy, Tomas and Alice in the dialogue.

    In any case, I am completely aligned with you in not knowing whether to feel optimism about our future . . . which in a sense makes life more interesting.

    Thanks

    Tommaso

    PS

    You write that you `are impressed by the images` I draw: are you referring to metaphors or the actual drawing of Tommy on the couch? This drawing was inspired by a recent novel by Michele Serra (Gli Sdraiati) - unfortunately appeared only in italian - that I would recommend to anyone who has a 19-year old son, or has been 19 very recently.

    TB

    Thank you so much for writing and sharing this thought-provoking essay. Your comments on my essay were very thought-provoking.

    "...humanity is not ready to face its stormy future,...". Life is not for the squeamish. We must face the storms or find peace in the cemetery.

    I suggest for all my positivism, I think we are at "life" stage, not even "thought". And maybe not we are not there yet either. As you probably guessed from my suggestion of fractal universe, complexity in the fractal sense is the measure of consciousness. Therefore, a rock has a consciousness and a life or spirit (level of relation between entities). Can thought/spirit/relationship exist without the entities in the relation?

    OK. You got into math and physics. The following was posted to Fisher's essay:

    Math shows only 2 things in reality. Math is really basically simple. We use it all the time. I wonder if the very fundamental idea that math works to help us define observations also describe our reality.

    Math consists of 2 types of consideration - discrete (counting) and continuous (geometry).

    The number system was created to count things. One thing plus one thing is 2 things, etc. When we talk of a thing in our scale (0.1 mm to 1000 km), we can say the thing is at that point or not. We could cahnge3 scale and still talk of integer things. For instance, 0.1 (mm) could be 100 (micrometers). Hence, a thing has a boundary.

    Geometry talks of extended objects. A point can exist in the extended object. Descartes considered the continuous as infinitely divisible. Division presents a quandary in both maths. We can take 1 ft. and multiply by 3 and make a yard. But we cannot always take a thing and make 1/3 of the thing by a scale change. Where on a line is the point of 1/3? There is no such point. Is 1/3 real or is division an improper operation in physics?

    Perhaps this discrete and continuous categorization of math is actually describing the reality of physics.

    Consider Newton's idea for light. Light is a particle (discrete corpuscle) traveling and making waves in Descartes medium (called a continuous plenum). The particle causes waves in the plenum. The waves travel faster than the particle that then direct the particle. (Sounds like general relativity - matter distorts space which then influences mass motion.) Quantum entanglement is the result of the wave action on particles. If the frequency of the wave is related to the particle, resonance produces the entanglement.

    If the reality were different, perhaps we'd be using a different math.

    We a approaching some common ground in the introduction of self-reproduction.

    "...there is no way to predict trajectories, nor the next steps of the human

    species...". I like the Bohm interpretaion of QM. The universe is deterministic (my opinion) and trajectories are predictable if we know enough. We don't know enough. How can we observe cause and effect at all levels is the trajectories aren't predictable. Therefore, "no way" is inaccurate.

    Do you suggest the "how" in the challenge is to gain the knowledge to predict and, then to cause the future of humanity? Or are you saying we can't do this (pessimistic)? It looks like your fig.2 is fractal. How does the suggested program account for the climate change, for example, or any other universe impact that appears deterministic without being in our model?

    The goals of your characters seem vague and, perhaps, unachievable to me. I'll reread your essay again in a few days.

    Your putting these things together triggers some examination. Thanks.

      5 days later

      Hi John,

      similar to your essay, your message is very articulate, and dense with remarks and observations. I`ll take the liberty to react only to a few of them.

      You observe that the goals of my three characters, Tommy, Tomas and Alice, seem vague and perhaps unachievable. Curiously I am more convinced (and attracted) by their long term vision, involving some form of the computational universe going through the (teilhardian) phases of prelife, life, thought, superlife, than to the shorter-term prediction techniques barely sketched in the closing section of the essay.

      I find it quite reasonable to believe that the set of humans and their interrelations form a big super-organism capable, as a whole, of cognitive activities that individual humans cannot control; while I find it more problematic to believe that a model of `humanity in silico`, as I wrote, might be so effective in steering humanity by laboratory experiments.

      You write `It looks like your fig. 2 is fractal`. That figure illustrates the computations of two automata (22 and 54) starting from random initial conditions - bit arrays - and the effect of flipping just one bit in the array. I do not think you can say that these patterns are fractal. But if you run the same two automata starting from a simple initial condition - one black cell in an array of white cells - then automaton 22 creates a fractal pattern, while automaton 54 does not: the pattern is simply periodic.

      You write `complexity in the fractal sense is the measure of consciousness`. I am not sure I understand what you mean by `complexity in the fractal sense`. But let me remark that pure self-similarity is a `cheap` property; nested patterns that repeat the same structure on a progression of scales emerge quite easily in the computations of models as simple as cellular automata. I believe that the complexity of a conscious piece of matter should be higher than the complexity of fractal objects.

      You may be right (but more pessimistic than me, then!) when you say that we are not yet in the `Thought` phase (given the thoughtless behaviors we often manifest, individually or in groups), but still in the 'Life' phase (like insects and fungi).

      Thanks again for the comments, and best regards.

      Tommaso

      Tomasso - Wonderful and compelling dialogue! Thanks for the journey. However, I did find the overall message of your essay discouraging. My essay (Tip of the Spear) offers a possible counterpoint. So here are two questions:

      How does the computational universe (and cellular automata) capture the transcendental effect of self-consciousness? I find it fascinating what happens to the precision and order of mathematics when self-reference is introduced - paradoxes everywhere! Just like quantum physics. Perhaps human consciousness bootstraps free will from quantum indeterminacy - giving us the power to change the computation.

      On a different note, is there no room for hope (short of de Chardin's Omega) in the evolutionary trajectory of human civilization? After all, progress seems to have occurred through an emergent process based on human altruism and without conscious human direction?

      Thanks! - George

        Bolognesi,

        Your essay was interesting. I have to admit that early on in reading your essay my opinion was not entirely positive. It seemed to start out rather too mysterious. However, the overall theme of your essay later one, particularly once you got into the partition function and the conditional probabilities, became clearer. I had to read your essay twice in order to dispel my initial concerns with it. There is a qubit context to quantum foundations, and further I think that we may need to look at an open world perspective. This would be to treat quantum mechanics, or quantum gravity in particular, as an open system analogous to open systems approach to statistical mechanics.

        The quantum foundations of the universe or quantum cosmology involve entanglements of qubits that underlie metric structure. Your essay then suggests that networks on larger scales are then "mirrors" of this underlying system. This does have some logic to it, for the loss of entanglement on a local basis results in entropy. This entropy is then given by a partition function of states. I think this partition function is most naturally the integer partition function, at least for qubits of a black hole. In an open thermodynamic structure this can result in locally high ordered structures or networks. This is maybe a basis for the existence of biology and consciousness.

        Over all I found your essay interesting and entertaining. My essay touches on some of these issues, in particular with an argument for an open world view.

        Cheers LC

          Dear George,

          I had already spotted your essay, with its opening by Teilhard de Chardin (`for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire`), but you have been faster than me in establishing the contact. Be sure that I will soon comment on your work!

          You write that you find the overall message of my essay discouraging.

          In fact, you are the second person to point out something like this, and to detect some pessimism in my writing. I confess that I am a bit surprised by that. It is true that old Tomas starts with some pessimistic (and very generic) mumbling on the future of humanity. But I hoped to convey, also by the enthusiasm of the two young characters Tommy and Alice, the idea that the computation-oriented view at spacetime, matter, life, and thought, is not at all a bad perspective, and is fully compatible with positive expectations about the evolutionary trajectory of human civilization (even regardless of the nature of the final Omega).

          I am perfectly happy with the idea that consciousness grows with the complexity of the patterns by which *matter* aggregates; this concept is clearly stated by Teilhard de Chardin (and, in a more formal way, by Tononi), whose ideas on the progressive emergence of consciousness from matter end up providing (at least in Teilhard`s intentions) a scientific foundation to the supremacy of spirit over matter, and are `optimistic` in the precise sense that you also seem to advocate. There is a strong sense of hope in the final parts of `The Human Phenomenon`, and I do not see why an attempt to provide stronger formal/mathematical foundations to those views should jeopardise that hope.

          You hit a very interesting point when you write, in essence, that self-consciousness is what makes humans so special, while self-reference in mathematics is a source of trouble and paradox, and weakens the precision and order of mathematics. You seem to take this observation (correct me if I am wrong) as a proof of the transcendence of our consciousness/spirit, which therefore cannot be modelled mathematically, since mathematics essentially breaks when trying to handle self-reference.

          As you might expect, I disagree with this conclusion. To me the concept of self-reference in mathematics (as used in Goedel and Turing) is precisely an indication of the power of mathematical thinking, that is able to capture in a formal setting even its limits (the unknowable). The fact that self-reference assumes so much importance both when talking about human consciousness and when studying axiom systems or nonterminating computations might be an indication that science is on the right track for understanding crucial aspects of the human phenomenon. Aspects that, when not yet fully understood by science, we tend to label as `transcendental`, or the subject of philosophical or religious discourse.

          Nevertheless, be sure that I value above anything else the fire of your opening quote!

          Ciao!

          Tommaso

          Tommaso -

          I suspect (but cannot prove) that the paradox of self-reference in mathematics corresponds to a paradox of self-awareness in consciousness - and that consciousness will at some point prove impervious to empirical or theoretical explanation. Interesting also that we are struggling with paradox in quantum physics as well. What explanation can we give for this most interesting feature of the universe, if not a transcendent one?

          Wittgenstein famously wrote " Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent." Being human, of course, I don't think we will ever stop talking about it.

          Cheers - George

          Tommasso

          Congratulations for a really enjoyable essay and a great illustration of Tommy tied up by his devices like Gulliver (is that your drawing ?) Already my grandson of two years old is badgering everyone "wez yo ifon?" to play with.

          The Internet as an emerging Noosphere is a credible scenario, and through your nice storytelling you take us to various other fascinating related concepts. One that struck me particularly is your ruminating about Wolfram and others' idea that the Universe is an evolving cellular system that runs on a bit of code.

          Taking this idea furthest, at the smallest level you get to the point where the software and the hardware are one and the same. This is the root concept of my outline 2005 Beautiful Universe theory Spinning Bloch-sphere-magnet-like dipoles interact with their neighbours to create energy, radiation, matter as well as dark energy and matter. Space itself is defined by the node-node interactions, while time is not needed as a dimension but emerges when we monitor the state of the mutable Universe or local parts of it.

          Your analysis conjures the frightening conclusion that if human beings are regarded as computable bits, then a Grand Programmer programs our behavior: A self-conscious Internet can steer humanity where it (the Internet) wills!

          (time out for fervent prayers and supplications that it ain't gonna be so)

          Best wishes from

          Vladimir

            Dear George,

            we might agree on the terminology, and call `transcendent` any feature of the universe that we are not able to capture by the scientific method. The substantial difference is whether one considers (pessimistically) this status of affairs as permanent, or (optimistically) slowly evolving to a better and wider scientific explanation of those features. Science has progressed every time an item has been moved from box 1 (`Magic` - e.g. lightning) to box 2 (`understood`). I see this as a one way process.

            I must add that the ideas about measuring consciousness expressed by Tononi (and, more abstractly, by Teilhard de Chardin) sound quite plausible to me, and I would not be too surprised if in 10, or 50, or 100 years, the phenomenon of matter that becomes able to `reflect` (on) itself will be explained. Progress in robotics and artificial intelligence should help a lot in this effort.

            And still, human imagination is so strong that I guess we will always keep finding interesting items in box 1, to keep our scientists busy.

            Ciao

            Tommaso

            Oops, I erroneously wrote my answer to you in the wrong place. Find it below, as an answer to Lawrence B Crowell. Sorry.

            Hi Vladimir!

            yes, that`s my drawing, but I sure can`t compete with your coloured pictures (including those in your 2005 Beautiful Universe essay).

            And yes, one of the implications of the dialogue is that the future of humanity is in the hands of the self-conscious super-organism that emerges from the interactions of us humans. This might be the case even if one did not emphasize the computation-oriented character of the universe dynamics.

            A scary picture? I am not sure. Maybe we are not exactly replicating the ant vs. anthill scenario, because a human has much more consciousness than an ant, and as such might be in a better position to interact with the emergent entity at the upper level. This is in fact what Teilhard postulates, when he talks about our relations with the Omega pole, but that, admittedly, is the most speculative part of `The Human Phenomenon`.

            Best wishes to you, Vladimir

            Tommaso

            Thanks for your cheerful response Tommaso. All that I can add is that I sincerely hope that your optimism and faith in the human mind (or whatever is involved here) will be bourne out in the coming years, decades and centuries. Humanity has been slowly moving on a trajectory that has now become a self-propelling super- highway to a future full of possibilities and dangers. hang on tight!

            Best wishes

            Vladimir

            Tomasso -

            I should have said that I disagree with Wittgenstein. I am also an optimist. While I believe there are fixed limits (e.g. Godel's Theorems, Turing's Halting Problem, Planck space and time, non-locality, ...) to the scientific enterprise, these limits can be approached using different modes of understanding. Life is deep and complex - transcendent experience is part of being human - this is something we need to honor and explore.

            Thanks!. PS - I am looking forward to a vacation in Italy in another week.

            Ciao! - George

            Hi Tommaso,

            I have read your essay. An interesting presentation style. Lots to think about.

            You wrote "It is well known that, due to a malicious antipodal butterfly, the possibility to accurately forecast the weather - let alone controlling it - is severely limited. Why should it be easier to predict and steer the future of humanity?" My immediate though was that human behavior is not chaotic and so is a lot more predictable. However a quick Google search and I found "Chaos in human behavior: the case of work motivation." Universidad de Barcelona, Spain. j.navarro PubMed Commons, 13th May 2010 Quote: This study considers the complex dynamics of work motivation. Forty-eight employees completed a work-motivation diary several times per day over a period of four weeks. The obtained time series were analysed using different methodologies derived from chaos theory (i.e. recurrence plots, Lyapunov exponents, correlation dimension and surrogate data). Results showed chaotic dynamics in 75% of cases. The findings confirm the universality of chaotic behavior within human behavior,......" Which I find really surprising.

            I still don't think people are as hard to predict and steer as the weather. With training and/or conditioning they can become highly predictable. The work of Derren Brown hypnotist, illusionist, mind reader shows how easily ideas can be planted into people's minds which they then regard as their own thoughts. I don't have overt mind control in mind but subtle political -social engineering that drip feeds the desired behaviours. Smoking- not our future Its then a matter of deciding what direction will be promoted as desirable. The lesson of low fat diet advice leading to more heart disease and obesity should be heeded as cautionary tale. It shows that what we think is best for the people may not be.

            Good luck, Georgina

              Nice, Tomasso!

              I am also a big fan of Chaitin's metabiology and I think you hit it dead on: "In his book Chaitin mentions Wolfram and his New Kind of Science [9]. Well, one of the messages from that book is that the emergent properties of the computations of simple programs - software - might explain the complexity and creativity of the physical universe at all levels. Spacetime, before anything else, must be creative! And discrete! And algorithmic! Spacetime as a causal set [4] - an algorithmic causal set!"

              While you seem to doubt that Chaitin's program either includes or can include consciousness, though, I think it is implied as an inherent characteristic of matter. (As you say, even a stone has a small soul.) This idea is formalized in Murray Gell-Mann's IGUS (information gathering and utilizing system) model of complex adaptive systems.

              My own essay should be up soon. Looking forward to dialogue!

              Tom

              Here my answer to your question:

              Hi Tommaso,

              thanks for your interest and sorry for the delay (Easter travel with my family and no internet connection...)

              No, Lem is not at the origin of this idea. In his book, Lem wrote about the theoretical limits of human development. Here he discussed also the direct change of the human body (or the brain) also in the direction of genetic engineering but also as combination of technology and biology. But the main part in his argumentation is the evolutionary development of all kinds (technology, humanity and society). For me it was the first time that someone mentioned such a unifying principle and this was the main influence of Lem for me. (Quantum gravity is also such a unifying principle but this is another story....)

              In the second part of your question, you mention a two-way process (technology influences humans). Yes, you are right that there is such an influence.

              As model I would propose a coupling of the two evolutionary processes (also by a special rate, so not deterministic but probabilistic). Years ago we developed this strategy (and call it diochotomic strategie). Unfortunately we never published something and it is only contained in a PhD thesis (but in german). The corresponding equation was later found to be comparable to the Dyson equation in quantu field theory (but now with imaginary time, a usual trick to change from quantum field theory to statistical physics).

              But your question reminds to make some work in this direction again.

              Best Torsten