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

Greetings Rodolfo and Jorge,

This essay is certainly one of the finest I have read, in this contest. Both in terms of an idea that is worthy to present, and in having clear exposition of your message, I must give you kudos. But also; you have squarely addressed the topic in a satisfying way, which many of the essays fail to do. I like that a universe that encourages evolutionary trends is a natural consequence of quantum mechanics, and that this is a more general result - rather than being tied to your own interpretation of QM.

I admire that you were able to explain all of the technical details using only one easy to understand equation. This essay sets a standard for clarity. My own essay affirms that the laws of nature encourage living beings to arise and evolve, and creates spaces or ranges for us to do so, but my rationale is very different. I assert that certain features in higher-order Maths can also give rise to evolutionary features of natural law. A conversation I had with Tevian Dray at GR21 affirmed some of my ideas on this, which inspired this year's paper.

I invite your comments on my entry. Good luck in the contest!

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dears,

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Dear Rodolfo and Jorge,

I think I understand in general terms how your view of the emergence of consciousness and purpose depends on a number of factors. These factors include a regularist as opposed to a necessitarian view of physical laws, an ontology in which events are fundamental, some features of quantum mechanics, the values of fundamental physical parameters, and the "elegance and creative potential of the physical laws." However, one thing that is not clear to me is the importance for this picture of not accepting the principle of sufficient reason in the form in which Leibniz advocated it. You mention the principle of sufficient reason at the top of page 8.

In any case, thank you for an interesting and worthwhile discussion.

Laurence Hitterdale

A very clearly written and thoughtful essay. Congratulations! I gave it high marks.

Jarmo Mäkelä

Dear Jorge Pullin,

Thank you for your wonderfully written and thorough essay, covering ground from physical laws, to emergence and top-down causation, neatly summed up in "Ultimately it is the laws of nature and their ontology who are bio friendly". I wanted to let you know I really enjoyed reading your essay and you have given me much to think about. Thank you for the new perspectives. I have in the meantime, also rated it.

Reagrds,

Robert

Rodolfo and Jorge - An excellent essay, thank you. You have addressed the key topic of the contest - the nature of purpose in a world described by mathematics - that many others have not. I also appreciate your comment on the "lack of answers to the inexplicable life-friendliness of the Universe"

If you have a chance, I'd appreciate your review of my essay The How and the Why of Emergence and Intention. I suggest that the "inexplicable" is the result of an intentionality that drives emergence at all levels, and I contrast it with the multiverse speculation which has no answers.

Cheers - George Gantz

Dear Rodolfo and Jorge,

the hints at a radically new way to look at (and solve) the matter/mind dichotomy that you provide in your text appear to me as very original and attractive, and superior to the majority of the several essays I've read. I wrote 'hints' because the impression I had is one of a treasure-map in which a considerable amount of effort is still to be made for getting a fully detailed picture. For example, you seem to hint at some intimate connection between the disposition to act that one can attribute to objects under a certain ontological view at quantum mechanics, and the more familiar agency of conscious creatures: how can I decide whether this idea is extremely profound, has practical consequences (up to suggesting specific experiments), or is just a cute remark of purely metaphorical value?

This type of assessment is further complicated, I believe, by the 'regularistic' choice that you make, which, unlike the 'necessitarian one', leaves room (if I understand correctly) for descriptions of some other, non-regular aspects of nature that escape the Galilean grip of mathematical language. How would one then proceed for rigorously assessing similar conjectures? (Please note that this is a genuine question, not a criticism: I think that bold visions of this type are very appropriate for the FQXi Essay Contest, when supported by articulated arguments and competence, as in this case.)

Another idea that I found brilliant is that of viewing the relation between a QM entangled system and its components (the state being defined only for the former, not for the latter) as enabling a form of top-down causation. I never thought of that phenomenon under this perspective, and this is now one of my favourite examples of top-down causation -- I wish I knew more, beside the 'classical' ones from the biosphere. By the way, I have quickly checked George Ellis' recent book ('How can Physics underlie the mind' - 2016), largely devoted to top-down causation, and I could not find an explicit mention to this case. Was this idea first proposed in Gambini et al. 2015?

Thank you

Tommaso

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2824.

Dear Jorge,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating. Excellently written.

You are one of the few who directly answers the question put by the contest.

I understand your search for causality in quantum mechanics.

«We will then review the ontology that is suggested by several interpretations of quantum mechanics and how it lays out building blocks for reality dramatically different from those of the mechanist paradigm. In particular we will see that this ontology naturally leads to the understanding of emergence and top-¬‐down causation. We will conclude arguing that it opens the possibility for purpose in the world and that it fitsvery elegantly with the description of the Universe that modern science leads to.»

«A realist interpretation of quantum mechanics given in terms of events is much more than an understanding of the measurement problem. It is a vehicle to understand how a world with given properties emerges from a world of quantum potentialities. One would end up with a world in which objects, understood as quantum systems in given states and the ensuing events are the building blocks of reality.»

«An important point is that in order to have a truly quantum ontology, the interpretation of quantum mechanics considered should supply a self‐consistent notion of event.»

Based on my explanations of the structure of the solar system, we can say that it is in a certain complex quantum state, like the Hydrogen atom. How will the quantum ontology change in this case?

I wish you success in the contest.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Hello again my friends..

It is good to see that your well-written essay continues to fare well in the ratings, as the contest draws to a close. It is one of the few that appears to address the essay question squarely, and in relevant fashion - presenting an honest and plausible answer - so it is deserving of high regard. I wish you continued luck into the finals.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Dear Rodolfo and Jorge,

Another very good entry in all valid ways and with some great content. However I must take issue with the suggestion that; "Mechanistic views strip from the description of the world any reference to aims and goals". I suggest my and other essays disprove that.

But I do like and agree your important comments on QM; "The theory does not say what happens when there are no measurements on the system." and;

"..in order to have a truly quantum ontology,the interpretation of quantum mechanics considered should supply a self-­‐consistent notion of event."

However I think I falsify in my essay the suggestion a that (do check and comment) "Interpretations that define events via interactions with classical systems or observers are not suitable to construct a purely quantum ontology.;" Though only as Bohr missed a Maxwell momentum! Please do look and falsify!

Very best

Peter