Reality Re-Envisaged by George Arthur Simpson

George Simpson

Hi John, thanks for this. I have not studied Leibniz, but am looking into him now. I will start with Early Modern Translations. Do you have a source you would recommend? Hope to post a sensible response after a little while.

Best regards, ...george...

George Simpson

Hi Steve, Thanks for your encouragement. It is indeed a big puzzle, reality, and getting bigger all the time. The more we learn, the more the unknown grows before our eyes.

Best regards, ...george...

George Simpson

Hi Hodge,

I have searched all the Early Modern Texts on Leibniz for a reference to "student" and come up empty. So I will reply tentatively based on what you have said, pending the proper reference.

The interaction you describe, in which the exchange of an idea results in movement in the physical world, is similar to my example of the stop sign. Both appear as miracles, unless one has a frame that admits that reality has an immaterial aspect as well as a material one.

I hope that is useful,

Best regards

...george...

sridattadev kancharla

Dear George,

I really enjoyed your beautiful essay and concur with your conceptualization of ideas field, mind and material reality. I hope you will enjoy the essay There are no goals as such in which I put forth a similar concept, just that I am using the term singularity of consciousness or soul or unified field in lieu of your "ideas field". Yes this field is beyond causal space-time, but it is the source of it. and This field exists with in all of us and to those who dedicate their time to gain access and knowledge of this field, reality is revealed in its true nature. I see this field working its way out from with in you through your work and several other wonderful essays in this contest. Religions have ascribed a word "GOD" for this field but have failed to establish that it exists with in all beings and hence we are fighting in the name of religions. Science being afraid of the futility of religions have alienated this concept from its study altogether instead of addressing it. I think we are approaching a time in human history where we can reconcile these two diverse fields science and religion and come up with a unified theory of everything base on the fundamental truth of soul or singularity or ideas field or consciousness. There have been great many people who have come before us who have tried to convey this message of singularity of reality and encourage love and peace on earth. I hope that you will find my effort to promote the same in my essay. Intent is the only true content of reality, so let's try to keep our intentions true and good, reality will follow and get better naturally.

love,

zero = i = infinity.Attachment #1: SOULFUL.jpg Attachment #2: TBMI.jpg

sridattadev kancharla

Here is the correct link to the essay There are no goals as such it's all play.

George Simpson

Hello Sridattadev, thanks for your kind words, most encouraging. Like you, I hope that barriers between people, which only really exist in our minds, will become seen as unhelpful illusions.

Jose Koshy

George Simpson,

It seems that your essay suggests 'idea field' to be different from matter. The biggest surprise is that a structure made up of atoms can create an 'idea field'. What I think is that the idea field remains inbuilt in matter, to bloom at the right time.

You have pointed out correctly the different eras in the history of Earth. I would like to add that this is the golden era, the zenith; and after that there will be a gradual decline, leading back to the 'machine era'; a beautiful symmetry, mathematically.

Jose p Koshy

George Simpson

Hi Jost, thanks for these thoughts. I do indeed say that the Ideas Field - and also minds - are distinct aspects of reality, built on the same platform as matter - which is information.

You have a fascinating thought, that the ideas field is "inbuilt to matter". I don't think you mean that everything is conscious to some degree, but rather that the possibility is latent in the situation. Is that correct?

Jose Koshy

George Simpson,

Yes, I meant the possibility is latent, and consciousness emerges only when matter acquires the required structure.

Jose P koshy

Eckard Blumschein

Dear George Simpson,

You are a data scientist while I was a teacher of EE who dealt with auditory function from IHCs up to cochlear nucleus. Your answer to the topical question is more enthusiastic than mine. While I too am aware of fqxi's intention to prefer refurbished idealistic ideas of an information based nature, I am claiming to have revealed unseen flaws behind discrepancies instead.

Somewhere in your arguments I found the reasonable word "latent possibility". Your ideas field looks therefore to me as (un)concrete as are all other known to me steps toward the envisaged theory. Don't get me wrong. Having written in 2013 an essay "Shannon's View on Wheeler's Credo", I am a fan of Shannon.

In order do avoid unnecessary mistakes I would like to stress that

- you are using the notion "symmetry" for what I would rather call coincidence,

- I don't see past and future equal in nature, etc.

Admittedly, I consider Wudu's work more relevant than yours.

Nonetheless respectfully Yours,

Eckard

George Simpson

Hi Eckard, thanks for these comments, which I have reflected upon for a few days.

"Your ideas field looks therefore to me as (un)concrete as are all other known to me steps toward the envisaged theory"

I find it fascinating how we are able to be blind to that which is right in front of us. Where would you say your statement exists? It does exist, I'm sure you will agree. It is on your screen and mine, and in your thoughts and mine. Well, I say it exists in the Ideas Field, to give it a name. There is a symmetry between your mind and mine, and others reading this around the notions we are discussing. And that symmetry can have a physical effect, through the agency of minds.

I find this blindness to mental objects understandable, because the current paradigm does not admit of immaterial entities. However I find it harder to understand the position of philosophers of mind who deny the existence of mind. What is your view?

best regards, ...george...

Eckard Blumschein

Dear George,

I apologize for typos in my comment concerning PHALLUS. You asked for my view. Of course there are immaterial entities. Koran and politics are even eminently important as something that unfortunately urges women to have too much children. My essays don't hide my trust in basic and critical ideas by Euclid, Galileo, Darwin, Seebeck, Malthus, Nobel, Shannon, and many others, and also not just in physiology but in psychology too.

Nonetheless, I would like to reverse Descartes: Sum ergo cogito.

Among the otheres is Otto von Guericke after whom my university is named.

He should correctly either be called Otto von Gericke (German) or Otto de Guericke (French nobility).

Challenged by those like Descartes, he initiated evolutions that led to steam engine and electricity.

Best regards,

Eckard

Lorraine Ford

Eckard,

your comment concerning PHALLUS was to Gary Simpson (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2694).

John Hodge

Hi George

If I recall correctly Liebniz called the forces in the example Ideal". He also called space (meaning a coordinate system) and time in addition to the family above. They were relation forces - a precursor to relativity.

Hodge

Steve Dufourny

You are welcome, with pleasure.Indeed,more we learn more we see that we are still so far.

Best Regards

Francis Moore

Dear George; The mind-body problem began with what a spherical object is.The sphere with no motion was presented as planes x,y,z, which could be given 2 coordinate positions for each x ,each y, each z. When given motion as in increasing momentum or mass, the Riemann sphere concept fails. Each plane of x, y, or z can change position with each other giving nine planes of influence of some relativistic approximation. The reality of motion is a non linear system of turbulent flow in a continuum of motion where particles as a concept change mass with a topological change in geometry. I hope this connects to your Ideas Field to your specific coordinates of a physical object The essay is a beautiful treatise and has given me further ideas in my work. Reversal of cellular automata in 9 planes of influence may be a way forward explaining reality of relativistic motion.Thanks Francis Duane Moore

George Simpson

Francis, thank you for your kind encouragement. ...george...

George Simpson

Comments have slowed down since I first posted this; I thought I might reignite interest by compiling the most favourable remarks from the conversation so far.

Branko Zivlak: "your essay is entirely on a given topic. It is well presented and has high-quality graphics. It deserves high rate."

William Walker: "I have to say I believe your ideas are very good..."

Satyavarapu Gupta: "Thank you for the very nice essay.... You correctly pointed out that..."

Steve Dufourny: "Congratulations for your paper, you are going to be well ranked and win a prize,it is general ande it is the most important also."

sridattadev kancharla: "I really enjoyed your beautiful essay and concur with your conceptualization of ideas field, mind and material reality."

Francis Moore: "The essay is a beautiful treatise and has given me further ideas in my work."

Matthew rapaport

Hello Dr Simpson, thank you for a thoughtful essay. I'm wondering what in your mind grounds the "ideas field" metaphysically? Physicists do not know what metaphysically grounds the physical universe but they do have the big bang which can at least be considered a brute force beginning of the universe we inhabit. Perhaps there was something "before", perhaps nothing but a random fluctuation in some eternal (or at least indefinite) quantum vacuum. But what is key here is that everything that follows that bang is physical. It's quantum underpinning is physical and all its fields are physical: they can be measured with physical instruments. But the "ideas field" cannot be measured by physical instruments. How does the non-physical (mind) emerge from the physical? What about the physical gives it the power to produce the non-physical? If you have God then no problem. God could be the source of both sides. But you don't raise that possibility, so what else could it be?

George Simpson

Hi Matthew,

I am arguing that "the non-physical (mind) emerging from the physical" appears to be miraculous only if you start from premises that exclude it happening. So change the premises, I say.

There are things in nature that are real, yet are immaterial - in particular information. Information governs events, and therefore is real. The diagrams in section 3.1 express this. In section 2.3, I argue that the physics of this is grounded in information symmetries. This is not "metaphysical", it is actually measurable in principle. It is incorrect to say that the Ideas Field is not measurable. Immaterial yes, but immeasurable no - it just will take a different kind of detector. I touch on this in the Conclusions, point 3.

George Ellis

Dear George

I think you are touching on some important ideas here that are not often recognised because they are unpopular. But I think most of what you say is correct, and is congruent with my own ideas and my own essay.

Thoughts are indeed causally effective, as for example the existence of digital computers decisively demonstrates. Calling this causal power a "mind field" seems quite acceptable, as we must recognize as being real anything that can be shown to alter the physical world around.

Just one thing: you say "The Ideas Field consists of symmetries among information patterns (minds)". I would prefer to talk about multiple realisations of the same abstract patterns. The concept of multiple realisations can be claimed to be key to recognising the deep nature of causation in complex systems, as is discussed in my book on Top Down Causation.

Best regards,

George

Edwin Klingman

Dear George Simpson,

I very much enjoyed your essay formulating the 'Ideas' field.

You say that, in your model, "minds feed on, create, manipulate, and act on ideas and concepts. Ideas and concepts are passive, minds act on the Ideas field and act on the physical world." You also seem to believe matter is built on information. I do not believe "information" exists in any material sense, but information is registered when energy/momentum causes a structural change in a material system. Even then information can only be interpreted or given meaning via a given context or through code-books. Unless and until interpreted, it's only energy flowing through space and rearranging material structure.

You envisage reality as a three-part system, consisting of the physical world, the world of ideas and concepts, and minds connecting the two. It's unclear how the brain fits into this. Whereas you define mind as an information pattern, I believe the information pattern is found in the neural network. I see the mind as possessor of consciousness, which I propose exists in a universal field that physically interacts with matter in motion. You seem to be saying something similar when you say the individual mind takes its shape from "idea gestures" which seem to originate in the brain. You posit the mind gives physical form to concepts, whereas I propose the form is derived from physical flows in the brain, sensed by the consciousness field.

Unless I've missed it you do not specify 'how' the Ideas field interacts with matter. Do you envisage the manner in which such occurs?

Best regards, and congratulations on tackling the 'hard' problems.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

« Previous Page Next Page »