Emergence of life and consciousness in a purposeful universe by Rodolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin

I am unsure of the mechanism for your final assertion that through these results in a universe capable of observing itself.

John L

http://youtu.be/gMSGoxUSYxk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8kL3v539D4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alf5IB6iR2c

"To make a long story short, the measurement problem in quantum mechanics is that in its traditional formulation the theory is not complete without an observer involved." I think that the preceding is a good aphoristic summary of the measurement problem. I say that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology -- although one might say that Kepler is sui generis. Is Milgrom's MOND relevant to the measurement problem?

Dear authors,

If you want to find purpose inside physical reality, then it suffices to interpret the fact that all discrete objects in the universe appear to be either modules or they are modular systems. With other words, one of the most influential laws in nature must read as:

"Thou shalt construct in a modular way"

Modular construction implies several aspects. Modular construction applies its resources in a very economic way. Modular design and modular construction enable reuse and that reuse requests standardization. The modular design method becomes very powerful when modules can be constructed from lower level modules. The standardization of modules enables reuse and may generate type communities. The success of a type community may depend on other type communities. Also, modular systems can form type communities.

In the beginning, modular design will use a stochastic approach.

The modular design and construction method is very efficient and even with stochastic design it easily wins against the monolithic design and construction method. With enough resources available even the stochastic modular design and construction method can produce intelligent modular systems. From that instant on, will intelligent design at these locations take over from stochastic design. For those species, the creator's choice for modular construction will contain important lessons. See: Voting for extinction of our species by Hans van Leunen https://doc.co/GMDDeb

Hans van Leunen, retired physicist

Dear Professor Gambini and Chairman Pullin,

Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are. We each have a complete surface and we live in a world that also has a complete surface.

Joe Fisher, Realist

This essay is an extremely enjoyable read and proposes to help us understand "how a Universe ends up understanding itself."

But using prose to say that the Universe has an "understanding" of something still leaves us with the "mindless mathematics."

I wonder-- would mathematical game theory be the best, or the only, "mindful" mathematics that we have for expressing this statement in a mathematical language?

It's certainly not for me to answer this question. But I can't help thinking about it.

"The Universe was viewed as an infinite space where masses described trajectories determined by forces ruled by immutable laws."

I feel a tacit warning, here, that in the subsequent text, the old-time classical model is going to be wheeled into surgery. "Trajectories," "forces," "immutable laws," it seems, are going to be refined somehow in the balance of the text. OK, that makes me think.

Can we assume that the "laws," or the "regularities" of the Universe are indeed constant, indeed "immutable"?

Maybe not. There might be small exceptions-- too small for us yet to notice, perhaps too small for us ever to observe.

And that-- is enough to outline a game.

The particle in this kind of Universe must be able to adapt. For in this kind of game, it cannot "know" the laws expressed by the Universe because they may subtly, or for very brief periods substantially, change.

Instead of "knowing" the laws of the Universe, in this kind of game the particle would have to "learn" the laws of the Universe. For example, the particle would have to perform a "learning algorithm."

Then--

Would finding such a game-- and finding such a learning algorithm-- in the data, support the following statement?

"The Universe was viewed as an infinite space where masses described trajectories determined by forces ruled by immutable laws. But now-- because of these data (wherein we find a learning algorithm)-- we conclude that the laws of the Universe are Not immutable."

Dear Mr. Bloomquist,

Natural reality am simple to understand.As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hello Mr Brown,

I beleive that Mr Milgrom or Mr Verlinde with this modified newtonian mechanic are in the error.But it is just my opinion of course.Here is why.We know indeed that we have this problem of rotations with the galaxies.When Zwicky has found this problem, he has inserted this matter not baryonic to solve this problem.I beleive that people makes also the same error in considering the quantum gravitation, this weakest force like an emergent electromagnetic force.This gravitation cannot be nor relativistic nor baryonic.Gravitons for example cannot answer so because they are bosons and that gravitation is not bosonic.The dark matter and gravitation for me are linked.The newtonian mechanic is universal.If we want to, unify G c and h we must insert new parameters but these parameters respect this newtonian mechanic it seems to me.

Food for thought.

Regards

Experiments have confirmed the Born rule.

Within experimental limits, the mathematical pattern in the data is explained by the Born rule.

The Born rule says that the same number can be output from two independent algorithms.

(Bohm and Hiley had previously said "from two independent concepts.")

Confirming the Born rule is the same, mathematically, as confirming through an experiment that there is an algorithm in the data.

It has the signature of a learning algorithm.

What is it learning?

The laws of physics.

Who is teaching it?

The answer is in the final thoughts of this essay:

"...we end up with individuals whose purpose is the development of capabilities that are just a further manifestation of the fundamental nature of the world, and through them, of a universe capable of observing itself ."

I gave 10 for public vote and will do the same on community once my essay appears. Your argument is largely ψ-ontic. I tend to think there is some sort of relativity or complementarity between ψ-ontic and ψ-epistemic interpretations though. In effect QM does not conform well to the sort of metaphysical categories we ordinarily think according to.

I enjoyed this essay and style it was written, thankyou. I disagree with your claims on top down causation and emergence. I think these are conceptual errors, albeit very difficult to account for and easy to fall for. There is a lot of talking up of emergence and top-down causation at the moment, and although we think we can demonstrate both occurrences, and although consciousness isnt in the brain when we open it up, in both cases our lack of understanding, and our explanation, is the real issue. A strong clue for this is that there is a fundamental disproportionality in our weighting of thought. The fruits of reductionism and common sense are being fundamentally shortchanged/overlooked. How can one show from top-down causation the interaction between two microscopic bodies? Now sure, in some cases we cant explain, via bottom-up causation, all goings on in those terms. But this gap isnt a gap that top-down causation should fill. It's a little like the Schrodinger equation chuggin along by itself creating all sorts of universes, but oh wait what about the observer. What about wholes being made up of parts in/at/of time?

(Please note I dont hold any of this against your paper, and I understand here i am merely speculating, thanks for a great essay).

Rodolfo and Jorge,

Your essay is very thoughtful and well written.

I appreciate your point that quantum "developments illuminate a world that is much more hospitable to life than that of the mechanist paradigm" which "open the possibility for new vistas on the problem of consciousness and, through it, how a Universe ends up understanding itself."

And I appreciate that "physical laws are descriptions of what happens in the world. Physical Reality may well go beyond the laws, which only describe observed regularities."

I think what you're getting at is that the idea of "blind mathematical laws" is a misconception, and properly conceived, the "physics" of the universe must be compatible with intentionality. The universe must somehow be intentional, in however inchoate its primitive physical form, because we are natural beings and we are intentional.

But although the concept of Life may be illuminated by your accent on top-down causation (i.e. supervenience), it doesn't actually "open the possibility for purpose in the world", or even of experience. Top-down determination only suggests how purpose and intention can be effective, not how it can be possible.

Mainstream biologists may agree that there is top-down determinism in the metabolism of a biotic cell, but they will absolutely deny that there is anything intentional about it. Intention and purpose involve imagining and possibly bringing about an eventuality that doesn't exist by working with and against causal processes. And there is nothing in the idea of quantum probability that begins to explain how such a disposition could come into the world.

Sorry, didn't mean to be anonymous -- the preceding was my review.

Dear Rodolfo and Jorge:

Thoroughly enjoyed your well-written essay. I fully agree with your expressed conclusion - " The purpose of the Universe should appear in the laws that favor the emergence of systems with high degree of complexity. ...... We hold the regularist position that states that the laws of nature just describe certain regularities of a reality that transcends them. From a first person perspective the world has a phenomenal nature which we perceive from our conscious mind but it also satisfies certain regularities that science, in particular physics, describes."

Building upon the spontaneous decay of quantum particles as the Downward Causation agent for the emergence of higher order consciousness or free-will phenomenon, I have developed an integrated relativistic model of the universe that resolves the Hard problem of consciousness, predicts the observed universe, and explains inner workings of QM. I would appreciate it very much if you could please provide your comments on my contest paper - " FROM LAWS TO AIMS & INTENTIONS - A UNIVERSAL MODEL INTEGRATING MATTER, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND PURPOSE" as it explains the emergence phenomenon as transcendence from one state of relative reality to the next higher state within an infinite sets of potential realities following the laws of conservation.

Looking forward to your feedback on my paper,

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Hi, Gambini and Pullin,

Very Good essay sirs, Your views on consciousness are really fantastic ...!

In your concluding para you said.............. If the Universe Had no beginning as in the eternal inflationary scenario, one cannot discuss the purpose of its creation. But In a Universe That is life-­‐friendly and phenomenic in character one can always find purpose in its inhabitants.............

I want to say few points for further discussion ...

1. Probably you are referring to Bigbang based cosmologies here. There you are considering only 40 percent of all the Galaxies and remaining Blue shifted Galaxies and quasars are not considered.

I request you to have a look at Dynamic Universe model also for the other side of the coin.....

2. You are implying someone created the universe. I am also firm believer of God, but everything we cannot leave to God .... If we need some progress in science.... What do you say...?

3. You said nicely that life friendly phenomenon exists in Unverse... Good.

Hi Rodolfo and Jorge

"So any system in an entangled state exhibits downward causation. The states' roles in causation, their disposition to produce events, and their non separatiblity when entangled are at the root of this phenomenon". Bravo!

George

Dear Profs. Pullin and Gambini,

Thank you for your very well written and insightful essay. I agree with your final reflections on "purpose". Although I was a bit surprised of your aesthetic choice of the term "object" to describe any pre-event system. Still, you made it work. Thanks again and hope you find time to look over my essay.

William Ekeson

Dear Rodolfo and Jorge,

I am glad that I found your essay. I think we agree in our starting points, and our essays talk deeply with each other. In particular, I would note your, "If a further fine-tuning were required to have close to optimal conditions for life the Anthropic Principle would be insufficient to account for our existence in the universe. The recently discovered life-friendly properties suggest that this is the situation we are in." Although it is not fully clear what you mean here, I am happy to suggest you my proof of your point: the discoverability of the laws of nature, which is definitely an excess to what would be needed for the existence of simple observers.

Best,

Alexey Burov.

Dear Rudolfo Gambini and Jorge Pullin,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay.

You discuss an event ontology and the possibility that events in the brain can be accessed physically in a third person sense, but also mentally in a first-person sense as perceptions. Is this 'mental' access occasioned by the neural network itself, or by physical field, or what? As you know, I postulate a physical field that possesses the attribute of awareness: awareness of itself (hence Yang-Mills type non-linearity) and awareness of momentum/energy density. This postulate actually takes one quite far in a physical world that includes consciousness and intelligence in myriad entities.

As you note, I am 'regularist' in the sense that I believe we project structure onto regularities of nature. The 'necessitarian' interprets the structural projections as 'laws' governing system evolution, despite that QM is only a statistical bookkeeping system that depends from the evident universality of the partition function.

One would think that the underdetermination that is obvious from the existence of five or more 'interpretations' of quantum mechanics, would give pause to Quantum Credo-ists, but this is met head-on with "shut up and calculate". As a means of solving specific problems, this may be good advice. As a means of determining ontological reality, not so good.

You note that in a universe that is life-friendly and phenomenic in character one can always find purpose in its inhabitants, and this may imply "a universe capable of observing itself". With a consciousness field it is almost a foregone conclusion that local observations of self will evolve. If, instead, only a possibility exists that life and neural networks will evolve, given sufficient time, the possibility would also seem to exist that such would never happen, leading to absurdity and nihilism.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Rodolfo and Jorge,

Interesting read. You say that the world has a nature that is receptive towards life and consciousness and encourages organization and complexity? The popular hypotheses has been that a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck brought about life, but a more interesting proposal England's theory seeks to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. He believes that "clumps of atoms surrounded by a bath at some temperature, like the atmosphere or the ocean, should tend over time to arrange themselves to resonate better and better with the sources of mechanical, electromagnetic or chemical work in their environments." The animate and inanimate have these characteristics.

Does the universe offer opportunities for life and consciousness thru such mindless laws that Jeremy England is describing? Since we are a further manifestation of the nature of the world do we become part of the capability of observing ourselves and the current and past universe through our telescopes?

You inspire some interesting questions.

Jim Hoover