Meaning and Intentionality = Information + Evolution by Carlo Rovelli

carlo, hi,

i was pleased to see that you explore the importance of evolution - the ability of a bacteria to increase its chances of survival (and thus propagation) through awareness of its external environment. i would love to have seen this explored further in connection with the essay's goal. in what way could your essay be an answer to the main question (or a variant of the same), "how can mathematical laws give rise to aims and intentions?".

apologies if i have missed how your essay already answers that question.

I agree with you, Rodolfo

George

Dear Colleague,

This was a very interesting essay, even though I was hoping that you could have found a connection between the concept of relative information and your relational interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Jarmo Makela

Carlo,

Your good paper was thought provoking, in particular your distinction between meaningful information and directly meaningful information. This covers the stimulus-response relationship well. I was hoping to read how this relates to aims and intentions which encompass a not-yet achieved future state and encompass a strategy to achieve that desired future.

William Goodwin

Dear Carlo,

one of the (many) merits of you essay is, I believe, to draw attention to a concept - meaning, or meaningful information - that was left a bit in the shadow in the Context Guidelines (the keywords there being long-term goals, intentions, agency etc.), and to convincingly argue that this concept could indeed represent a first crucial step in the path from physical to mental, which is of course much relevant to the contest objectives.

Once the entropy-based notion of useful correlation between internal and external variables is given, it is easy to see how the human brain, enjoying memory and the ability to model the external world, can take advantage of these correlations even in a conscious manner, e.g. by playing simulations internally before triggering external actions.

But I would be much interested in the opposite extreme: how far down can your idea be pushed?

In a world conceived as a bunch of atoms of spacetime, or a causal set, rather than a network of cells or animals, when and how could I start spotting meaningful mutual information at work?

Prerequisites include the emergence of sufficiently persistent regions (X, Y...) with an inside and an outside, and macro-variables (x, y, ...) on top of the available micro-levels, which enable entropy notions. Talking about correlations between variables x and y also requires many instances of their value pairs in 'time' and/or in 'space' (thus, persistent or multiple copies of X and Y).

I am much attracted by the search for the most elementary formal systems -- possibly intended as models of a (young) universe -- that support your definition of meaningful mutual information, and its fruitful operation in evolutionary sense. I would be grateful if you could share your opinion on this issue.

Thanks!

Tommaso

Hi Carlo,

"We can easily imagine an alternative version of life where the meaning of two letters is swapped in the genetic code." Carlo Rovelli, 2017

This doesn't quite work because it is the chemical structure of the mRNA that is the template for protein construction. A change in the code is a mutation that would give a different product that may or may not be functional. There might however be alien life that operates with a different genetic code building alien life proteins. Synthetic life with extra base pairs has been developed in the lab, with the idea of building novel chemical structures. And there is the remote possibility of undiscovered Earth life that has a different cipher from all currently known Earth life.

The DNA can be regarded as a causal actor in eventual protein assembly. Looking back, the sequence of the DNA is an important underlying cause of the sequence of the protein. (It can't cause it alone though, as the cell apparatus and raw materials and energy supply are also needed). Does it add anything saying the DNA had this (protein sequence) meaning? Likewise, a signal carried by the optic nerve may cause a particular activation of the visual cortex. Does it add anything to say the signal had that meaning rather than it was cause of that activation?

A signal is a physical event that conveys meaning. A ring of my phone, for instance, is a signal that means that somebody is calling. When I hear it, I understand its meaning and I may reach the phone and answer. Carlo Rovelli 2017

Does it covey meaning or is meaning produced from the sound signal on arrival? There is no labelled attached to the sound waves that has its meaning. The information is only what it is. That could be, as examples, a pattern, a structure or a simple physical characteristic such as a frequency of light or frequency of sound. Only if the means to produce the meaning exist is that, which is transmitted, meaningful. That red means stop must be learned before it has that meaning. Stop is not transmitted but the red frequency light is. Likewise, DNA is just a chemical. The protein product is the meaning, that doesn't exist until it is produced. It would probably be better if we stopped saying meaning is transmitted or conveyed and say instead meaning is translated, extracted or produced, only the carrier of the information is transmitted.

What distinguishes its being a signal, from its being a simple link in a physical causation chain? Carlo Rovelli 2017

I think that is a good question. I also think that is a person/people deciding to classify it as a signal because there is clearly transmission happening and specific (receipt)-response correlation. There are very many specific chemicals in biology that are considered to be signals; that bind with specific receptors causing recognized effects. Which works against your next point that the carrier could be different. While in some situations that is true, any buzzer or bell could call an assistant, and in other situations such as 'finely tuned' biochemistry it is not.

Thanks for a thought provoking, well written presentation.

I wrote "meaning is translated, extracted or produced," extracted is definitely not the right word there . I should have said translated, inferred or produced, as i am saying meaning is not carried.

Better still:'...obtained by translation, inference or production.'

Your essay was very readable and held to the boundaries of its topic.

I did not see you discuss the boundaries between the life form and its environment, only correlations between "system A" and "system B". If this means what I think it means, I find it interesting that you find the meaningfulness of information in the correlations that cross the boundaries between life and non-life.

Hi Carlo, I ought to add that I think you have presented some very interesting ideas worth pondering in an accessible, enjoyable, relevant essay. Kind regards Georgina

Hi Carlo,

I do have the feeling you are trying to convince me that the emperor (physics) could be clothed in the ultimate source of meaning.

Working on the "could be" is a good idea. And many of these FQXi.org essays offer some thoughtful ideas. However, at this present moment in history (IMHO) the emperor is Tutta Nuda.

1. You suggest that "to know is to have information about" is misleading. A more complete definition would be: To know is to have information in your mind. The mind being the faculty of consciousness and thought.

2. Your thesis points to a suggestion: "The suggestion is that the notion of meaningful information serves as a ground for the foundation of meaning. That is, it could offer the link between the purely physical world and the world of meaning, purpose, intentionality and value. It could bridge the gap."

I do like this suggestion as a way to spur experimentation and promote new discoveries in physics and mathematics and push the boundaries of what we are about.

3. I think Valentino Braitenberg has done some very interesting work in this area : [link:people.cs.uchicago.edu/~wiseman/vehicles/]

"In the book Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology, Valentino Braitenberg describes a series of thought experiments in which "vehicles" with simple internal structure behave in unexpectedly complex ways. He describes simple control mechanisms that generate behaviors that, if we did not already know the principles behind the vehicles' operation, we might call aggression, love, foresight and even optimism. Braitenberg gives this as evidence for the "law of uphill analysis and downhill invention," meaning that it is much more difficult to try to guess internal structure just from the observation of behavior than it is to create the structure that gives the behavior."

This site and others have programs that run the vehicles. I did not have the plug-in to run them so I don not know how good they are.

This is a very good essay.... forced me to think (a lot).

Thanks,

Don Limuti

Dear Carlo Rovelli

I found really interesting the concept of "meaningful information", which allows quantifying the relative importance of information, a quality measurement essential to support the analysis of global properties of systems, namely of systems of connecting elements, the importance of which I show in my essay. Thermodynamics concerns only systems with non-connecting elements; analyzing systems with connecting ones is much more complex and needs concepts like this "meaningful information".

Your essay is extremely well written, the ideas being presented with such clarity that what is subtle becomes almost trivial. It is focused on how to process information that we know to exist. My essay is somewhat the opposite because I present new information, an information that is critical for understanding the creation and evolution of life. Your essay provides a tool for analyzing the new information I present, while my essay provides new information that may show the importance of the tool you created; namely, the concept of meaningful information seems to be essential for quantifying the "intelligence" of physical systems, considering the non-anthropomorphic definition of intelligence I use.

Given your apparent special aptitude to analyze the subtle side of things, I think that you may find my essay interesting.

Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira

Thanks Carlo for a thought provoking essay.

It is apparent that you have a keen interest in the interplay between living organisms and the external environment and the mechanism that can affect survival. Let me therefore seize the opportunity of this essay contest to extract expert comment from you on two ideas:

(1) If I may paraphrase your statement, "A life form that increases in mass, as the universe increases in mass, and reduces in mass, when the universe is reducing in mass prospers; while that life form that reduces in mass when the universe is increasing in mass, and increases in mass when the universe is reducing in mass has less chances.... Therefore we see many life forms are of the kind that grow in mass, rather than reduce in mass"

What do you think of the idea that dinosaur survival was affected by the later increase in Earth gravity?

(2) The cosmological history of the parameter, Ω being approximately one. This approximation as you know is described as the 'flatness riddle'. This ratio of the density of the universe, ρ (or when multiplied by volume, the mass, M) to the critical density, ρc (or critical mass, Mc) suggests a universe whose mass is increasing with its expansion.

I touch on these two ideas in my paper and would value an expert's commentary.

Regards,

Akinbo

Dear Carlo Rovelli

I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

Carlo Rovelli,

Can we see from perspective of matter? Why matter sustain (survive)? What is that makes atom resist to disintegration?

Why matter has inertia?

Anything that exist has to have the goal of survival.

What are differences between animate goals and inanimate goals?

Dr. Carlo Rovelli,

"The first is Darwin's theory, which offers evidence on how function and purpose can emerge from natural variability and natural selection of structures [2]. Darwin's theory provides a naturalistic account for the ubiquitous presence of function and purpose in biology." (2) [2] C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species. Penguin Classics,

2009.

Darwin acknowledged or better announced that evolution occurs. Where does he provide an account for the presence of purpose? I did change the wording. Please respond in your own words. I assume that you are suggesting that he provided an explanation for the existence of biological purpose? If this is not correct, then I stand corrected. Where did Darwin correctly explain how biological changes occur purposefully?

Quoting you: "The first is Darwin's theory, which offers evidence on how function and purpose can emerge from natural variability and natural selection of structures [2]."

Your use of the word 'can' instead of 'does' is at the root of my question. Darwin did show that function and purpose do emerge? What evidence did he offer to show how function and/or purpose can emerge? I understand that you said that "The first is Darwin's theory, which offers evidence on how function and purpose can emerge from natural variability and natural selection of structures [2]." and then followed it with this: "Darwin's theory provides a naturalistic account for the ubiquitous presence of function and purpose in biology." Your first statement uses the words 'on how' instead of the word 'that'. Your second statement uses the words "provides a naturalistic account for" instead of provides a naturalistic account of". Can you please explain where Darwin provided the 'on how' and 'a naturalists account for'?

I am aware of natural selection and that it is an after-effect that destroys biological designs that have occurred for reasons that are not due to the later occurrence of natural selection. Where does Darwin explain correctly how failed designs are purposefully followed, at anytime afterward, by an improved design. I do not use the word 'design' other than in the context of the Universe's ability to produce the new life-form.

I do have other questions, but I will wait to see how this one is received. Thank you.

Dr. Rovelli,

I withdraw my questions. Good luck to you.

James Putnam

Dear Professor Carlo Rovelli,

Thank you for a richly stimulating and most enjoyable essay. I relate to your approach toward finding the link between the physical world and abstract concepts such as mathematics more easily that many of the other essays I have read in this contest. Claude Shannon and David Wolpert have done great work and I would like to add Charlie Bennett (IBM TJ Watson Research Center, NY) as being a pioneer in this regard.

I have a question regarding the exchange of information across different levels of emergence. Do you have any indication if the same process occurs when going down beyond the sub-elementary particle level? For example, how do electrons know their charge, mass, spin, etc.? Said in a different way, if we have a computer simulation of a physical process, we can say the program operating on top of the hardware level (actualized as traveling voltages) is what drives the simulation. But what about the physical world? How do the elementary particles know how to behave? Where does that information originate?

I wanted to let you know I enjoyed your essay very much and have in the meantime rated it as well.

Regards,

Robert