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

      Dies ist, was Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz Höhle tut. Das ist nichts Neues.

      Dear Georgina,

      thank you for the comments and the mention to the essay on the chaotic dynamics of human behaviour. I understand that chaos in this case refers to individual behaviour: in certain situations, we tend to behave in chaotic, unpredictable ways. Nevertheless, I agree with you that in many circumstances our behaviour, as individuals, is more regular, and predictable.

      My point, however, is that, even when the members of a population have, individually, a regular, predictable behaviour, it may happen that the resulting, overall behaviour of the population, as a whole, is chaotic, due to the emergent dynamics. The obvious example is that of cellular automata: all cells behave in the same, completely defined and predictable way, and yet the patterns that emerge can be highly irregular and unpredictable.

      I see that your essay is published now. I`ll read it quite soon.

      Ciao!

      Tommaso

      I liked your essay a lot Tommaso..

      I did not know about some of the musings of Teilhard de Chardin before reading your essay, but his message resonates very strongly with me, and I am glad you brought it to my attention. As it turns out; he lived not far from here for a time late in his life, and his final resting place in in the same township where I reside. Of course, everything has changed; the St. Andrews monastery is now the campus for the Culinary Institute of America, but some folks still remember TdC's Hudson Valley connection.

      I find the insights you discovered through de Chardin are similar to the views expressed by Arthur M. Young in his "Reflexive Universe" book. Young details how the evolution of consciousness and the cognitive faculties follows a similar pattern as the evolution of form in Physics and Biology, and unfolds in seven stages. I have attached a document supplementary to my essay, which details my adaptation of this theme to the playful process of learning, but it also speaks to the work of de Chardin - as I cover the entire evolutionary spectrum of the learning experience, or the grand arc of all learning.

      We will have to compare notes again later, but for now; good luck!

      All the Best,

      JonathanAttachment #1: Playful_Flow_of_Information.pdf

        Hi Jonathan,

        yes, I`ve read that TdC has spend his last years in New York City, and that he is buried in Poughkeepsie. I`ve recently found that in this period he used to walk in Central Park, where he once met a young girl, Jean Houston, with a dog called Champ (which is the name I borrowed for the dog in my essay). They had interesting conversations, as reported by a grown up Ms. Houston:

        http://tcreek1.jimdo.com/mr-tayer/

        . . . and thank you for the pointer to Young`s `Reflexive Universe`, and to your addendum `Playful Flow of Information`. Reading your notes made me think that it would be nice to be able to see the seven steps implemented in terms of the features of some formal model - to see whether they become the essential features of an artificial universe too. I am not familiar with Young`s book, but I`ve found on the web a summary of Chapter 4 that seems to provide this implementation in terms of particles, molecules, and the physical world. No mention to the computational aspect, though. This is all very interesting, and . . . time demanding!

        By the way, I also liked your essay a lot; it was one of the first ones I've read, commented, and rated.

        May it please you to learn..

        There exists an algebraic system in which that progression is already encoded, the octonion algebra. There are seven imaginary dimensions in the octonions, and if you interpret imaginary components as depicting change or motion, it is easy to see this is related to process. In fact; one might even say that octonion algebra is sequentially evolutive.

        P.C. Kainen comments "Of course, multiplication in the octaval arithmetic fails to be either commutative or associative, but that could be a blessing in disguise. If multiplication depends on the order of the elements being multiplied together and even on how they are grouped, then at one fell swoop, geometry enters the calculation in an organic way."

        This has been a subject of my research for a number of years, and I would be happy to compare notes, save you time by directing you to known results, ... You have already saved me time by summarizing things in your essay that strongly support my work.

        All the Best,

        JonathanAttachment #1: 2_octophys.pdf

        I meant to post here..

        But my reply to you ended up below. Sorry for any confusion.

        Regards,

        Jonathan

        Dear Tommaso,

        Your essay has a delightful structure, and Tommy comes off looking quite good in it!

        In your comment on my essay you ask about non-linear system stability. I suspect that you are addressing, by referring to nonlinearity, the Wolfram automata/Game of Life observation that with a change in one cell or automaton, as you say, "an avalanche of modification causally spreads across the space-time diagram." I do not find the two viewpoints exclusive. In fact, I find it supportive of the system of maximum freedom, and most likely to result in stability, as it is most likely to address threats to existence as they arise.

        I very much admire your attempt to "provide some formal foundations to Teilhard de Chardin." I have felt, for 50 years, that his view of reality is the most complete. (Which of course is not to say that he has all the details right, only the big picture.) And as others have noted above:

        "A stone has a soul... but a very small one."

        My first FQXi essay, Fundamental Physics of Consciousness is compatible with this (somewhat pan-psychic) perspective. As you note,

        "Self-modifying code may be an elegant idea, but if you equate the program with the data structure, thus to the physical universe, you end up with a piece of code as big and complex as the universe itself."

        There is considerable discussion in the comments on above link, but I will summarize by saying that I distinguish between consciousness-- defined as awareness plus volition -- and intelligence, which adds logical structure. When these aspects of reality are not distinguished, things can become even more confusing. But awareness, per se, is built into the universe globally, whereas the existence of local structure (instantiating logic) provides both higher local 'density' of awareness, and a local, logical framework. My book "Gene Man's World" provides a more complete picture of what, I believe, is a unified theory of consciousness. If Chardin's view is correct, we should find the universe comprehensible, not incomprehensibly mystical.

        I find the fact that more physicists are recognizing that understanding the world requires that we try to understand how consciousness fits to be a very positive sign.

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

        6 days later

        Hi Tommaso,

        Great essay! I find your presentation style very interesting. I learned a lot from your essay, especially about the philosophy of Teilhard de Chardin and the work of Tononi.

        Thank you, and good luck.

        Mohammed

        Dear Tommaso,

        Sublime! I rated it a ten (10. Having self-aware Qbit like you, we have no fear of the future. Our world is Leibnitz's world, the best of all possible worlds.

        Best wishes,

        Leo KoGuan