Hi Neil,
thanks for reviewing my essay, and your kind comments.
Yes, "we have to think about the minds doing the wondering about the world" - particularly so because we/our minds are not actually separate from "the world".
Will take a look at your essay soon,
Lorraine
Dear Joe,
Hope to read your essay ASAP (I am snowed under at present!).
Cheers,
Lorraine
Dear Janko,
I remember you from the last essay contest.
We agree that free will must have something to do with what is called "quantum randomness". This is my way of looking at it: In a (theoretical) fully deterministic universe, all the parameter values that we use to represent a physical outcome can potentially be predicted by us (if the situation is not too complex). But (in the real universe) when representing the physical outcome of free will, at least one of the parameter values cannot be predicted, even in simple situations.
So in order to fully specify the physical outcome of free will, in addition to law-of-nature equations, a new, additional equation is required to represent this unpredictable parameter value. Something new has been created, because a new equation is required to fully specify the actual physical outcome. To my way of thinking, the slippery and difficult-to-define concept of "free will" is more correctly and cleanly envisaged as the creation of something new.
I agree that Tononi's model of consciousness needs correction, but what his model DOES give is the idea of integrated information - which is a valuable idea.
Yes, I am contending that there is no processing going on behind-the-scenes in physical reality. All the processing that WE HUMANS must do (either manually or by computer) in order to represent and predict physical outcomes in reality, is a consequence of the fact that we can only REPRESENT nature with our equations. Doing calculations is a necessary consequence of using symbols to represent reality. I'm saying that reality isn't symbolising itself: reality is directly apprehending/experiencing itself, so reality is not doing calculations.
You say that "ALL physics can be simulated in binary computer" - but doesn't this contradict your idea of free will?
Re Kevin Knuth, "1+1=2", and my essay section 2.4:
Both counting, and the Union and Intersection of set theory, require advanced and sophisticated discrimination and comparison abilities that just CANNOT be present at the level of particles and atoms. I'm disappointed that Kevin Knuth seems to believe in magic. I contend that at the level of fundamental reality, a simpler and more basic regime exists. I.e. the subjective experience of information categories (like mass and charge) and information relationships (which we represent with symbols like + - ÷ x and =). The fundamental reality that we humans represent with numbers is just a special sort of the aforementioned information category relationship, one where the category "cancels out".
I will be interested to read your essay as soon as I can.
Cheers,
Lorraine
Dear Lorraine
About ''simulated in binary computer'' it is more stressed on binary versus continuum. Of course, it can be included randomness or free will, like in a quantum computer.
Of course Tononi make a good work. I was surprised that he and Koch defend panpsichism. (But, I think that they do not like quantum consciousness.) But, last year Bolognesi asked me where I think that I have correction to Tononi's model, that he will try with a different simulation. Snd this year I got an Idea, that quantum free will is this, what make distincition with his model.
I will also think about your ''behind-the-scene calculations'' that I will find answer in it, maybe in a year; it is a deep idea.
Sylvain Poirier sorted me and some others in box of idealism of this FQXi contest. http://www.settheory.net/fqxi I will read also other such essays.
I suppose that your ideas are also close to idealism and still of some persons in this fqxi contest.
Best regards
Janko Kokosar
Dear Lorraine,
Thank you for leaving an agreeable comment about my essay.
My essay proves that Newton was wrong about abstract gravity, Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING. All of the philosophers were wrong about their abstract musings. Pathetically, none of the folk who have read my essay seems to understand its real importance. Dr. Brendan Foster, the FQXi.org monitor of the contest labeled part of a comment I posted on some of my fellow essayists sites: "OBNOXIOUS SPAM."
Joe Fisher
Lorraine,
I was uplifted by your essay from the rather depressed state from finding how much of physics has slipped into the 'maths is reality' mentality. But quite apart from passionately agreeing your argument I found your essay well enough conceived, presented, written, organized and argued to earn the top score even uninfluenced by any element of agreement.
As also an Architect I well understood and agreed your points on creativity. Indeed you may recall my previous support for that and your main thesis. This year I drove straight at proving the important failings of deluded blind trust in mathematics, saying OK, maybe it 'can' well approximate at the level we use it, but also entirely fool and confound us as tools can be dangerous if misused. But when the essay neared the top and differing views it got attacked by 1's without comment! Clearly some think only numbers are necessary!
I hope you have time to read it, and perhaps afterwards to watch this new short (but dense!) video on the implications.
9 min Video; Physical model giving cosmic redshift, CP violations etc etc.
Very well done with yours again this year. I consider it far too lowly and it seems may be out of the finalists, though my score may help. Best of luck in the final run in.
Peter
Hi Peter,
thanks for taking the time to read my essay, and for your very positive comments (and rating)! I am in the process of reading your essay.
Cheers,
Lorraine
Lorriane - without going into detail yet: your essay is a nice interdisciplinary piece and deserves more credit. It's a shame it's stuck in the fours. Reminder to readers: today is the last day to submit community ratings.
