Reality Re-Envisaged by George Arthur Simpson

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

Jose Koshy

George Simpson,

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

Jose P koshy

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

George Simpson

Hi Edwin,

"You also seem to believe matter is built on information." Quantum mechan"ics, as I understand it, establishes information as a foundational component of reality. It is information that determines the outcome in the twin-slit experiment. However, this is not central to my argument.

"Unless and until interpreted, (information is) only energy flowing through space and rearranging material structure" Agree. Therefore minds are needed.

"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 am a bit nonplussed here - I thought it would be obvious to readers that the information pattern exists in the brain, constructed on the infrastructure offered by neurons. I could have been more explicit about this.

"I see the mind as possessor of consciousness, which I propose exists in a universal field that physically interacts with matter in motion." I'm sorry here I think you are going off the deep end, hypothesising something enormously hard to verify and understand. Why would we think that matter in motion would always interact with mind? And motion is relative to some frame - there is always a frame in which the motion is zero.

We can verify that there are information patterns in brains, and we can verify that actions in the physical world take place as a result of the changing configurations of these patterns - i.e., what they believe.

"the individual mind takes its shape from "idea gestures" which seem to originate in the brain" Idea gestures are simply the analogue of physical gestures, which we already know rely on a causal link between activation patterns in the brain and motion of the body.

you do not specify 'how' the Ideas field interacts with matter You are right, I did not specify this explicitly, and should have. My "idea gestures" in the mind, which are patterns of activation, can remain internal to the mind, not affecting the areas associated with motor control, or they can interact with these, resulting in motion of the body.

congratulations on tackling the 'hard' problems. THANK YOU!!!

pjackson

Dear George,

I commend both your interesting fresh viewpoint and excellent presentation. Top Job. I agree with your proposal and discuss similar patterns and pattern matching. But I also suggest improvements in 'field structure and use' are both possible and needed. Comments? (perhaps read my essay first - interesting we both discuss neural Architecture).

I suspect recognising such a field exists at all is a big first step. I also agree and show that most are very poor at seeing new things even if right before our eyes (or even just behind, along the optic nerve!)

The mechanisms for turning pure 'ideas' into actions are well developed in our motor neural and bio chemical responses, and used in AI. It really shouldn't be as incredible as some seem to 'think' (lol) yet I too expose the simplest classical 'quantum' mechanism hiding in front of us and passing un-noticed to almost all!

And yes, I'm sure Apes do have 'ideas'. Do you think maybe it extends to AI?

Great Job. I look forward to discussing in relation to mine too.

Very Best

Peter

George Simpson

Hi Peter, Thanks for your encouraging comments.

Sorry it is taking me a few days to respond - am reading your paper in spare moments, and will get back to you soon. ...george...

George Simpson

Hi Peter, Having reviewed your dialogue with George Ellis, I'm afraid I have nothing to add. Best wishes, ...george...

pjackson

George,

Is that as you're not an 'expert' in QM's foundations? If not can you elucidate?

George said he'd read my essay and respond, but hasn't yet. I Did you read it? Understand it?

You may see from my blog there are currently a handful who have done both. Yet the most established 'professional physicists', rather than comment or tell me where the classical derivation may be wrong, just shut up and run a mile! (as do editors as it would be 'new physics').

Do you think all our academic professors (who all believe different things anyway) have it all spot on so no-one else can make useful contributions?

Do you think we're really now so familiar and happy with weirdness that we can't advance understanding?

Best

Peter

George Simpson

Hi Peter,

You are probing, I think, to find out why I have not commented on your essay.

I have it in front of me for the third time, and to be frank, it is hard to understand, and I become discouraged quickly. It lacks "signposts" that tell the reader where you are going, seeming to jump around a lot. I empathize with you, because this was a serious fault in the first draft of my essay.

Do you think all our academic professors (who all believe different things anyway) have it all spot on so no-one else can make useful contributions?

I hope this is not the case, because I myself have been outside academia for several decades, and I think this has allowed me to purchase an advantage of perspective. But to approach our "academic professors", one needs to write with care and respect their conventions.

Sorry I can't give you more than this,

best wishes, ...george...

pjackson

George,

I understand. Yes, all my essays have been rather dense for some, but they've been scored highly (better than any I think) so maybe that extra effort is rewarded.

I do warn there are 7 concepts or building blocks to construct the ontology, where most can cope with 3 if a bit lazy. (They DO all come coherently together!)

I identify it's important to use our brain in that 'rational' mode for very good reasons. I show we haven't previously identified a classical mechanism able to reproduce the statistical predictions of QM precisely because the mechanism is complex and 'layered', with around 6-7 stages! It allows complex neural interactions and far more. If the mechanism is carefully followed it can be seen as entirely self evident. (I'm going through it in detail with Stefan on my string under Mar.4 if you're interested).

Of course very many won't be bothered, or don't understand QM enough, or do but are 'sold' on its weirdness so fail at cognitive dissonance (certainly editors are all 3!!). I understand that. But in my position (unless I wish to keep it secret!) I seem to have have little choice but to describe the complex sequence as simply as possible. Can you see another option?

Let me start you off with some basics; Did you know that surface momentum distribution on a rotating sphere varied by the Cosine of the angle of latitude? Neither did most outside (and many IN) geophysics! Had you spotted that QM doesn't employ BOTH the Maxwell ('Curl' AND angular momentum) states for its "entangled" pairs? Neither had anyone else! Do you know how Photomultipliers work? or considered that interaction 'cascades' in a field are 3D (cones) NOT just 2D? so 'square' not 'double' at each 'matrix layer'? No, nobody has before (outside QCD). This ensemble adds up to new physics and NO new physics seems simple at first!

But as I've written, I AM impressed with ALL who follow it through and understand it, so it's not something I 'expect'. John Bell did predict and write on this; "professional physicists really ought to be able to do better." I'm sure they can, ...but none have as yet. Even the odd 'pointer' is eshewed!

I do hope you'll have a go. You would need to read slowly and some bits at least twice, but you may find it a revelation!

Very best

Peter

George Simpson

Hector, this is an area for those who have read my essay to discuss it. You have posted some advertising coupled with science fiction rant. This is not consistent with FQXI guidelines or good manners. Would you like to try again, or are you simply a spammer?

William Goodwin

George,

Your Ideas Field corresponds to the Information Dimension in my essay. We both maintain that ideas, intentions, and imagination don't have the same properties as the physical world where mindless mathematical laws determine the actions of the basic elements.

"An item exists in the Ideas Field if two or more people share it." This suggests that the idea field lies outside of the brain. I would suggest that a single person's imagination also reaches the idea field. I have struggled on whether the idea field or the information dimension is within the brain or outside of it. Certainly the brain is the access medium to the idea field. Yet there are some connections of ideas that seem to involve multiple persons, as though the brain is reaching an outside field.

William Goodwin

George Simpson

Hi William,

Thanks for these thoughtful remarks.

What minds do, in my model, is explore reality, and reality consists of those things that can be seen and measured, and also those abstractions that allow us to evaluate and explore the way things relate to one another, including abstractions themselves, such as number. I agree that a single person's imagination can do that; however in my model, that exploration (assuming it is original) does not yet exist in the Ideas Field because there is no symmetry among the minds that share the idea. That symmetry is a physical fact that can be in principle detected, and which we know may have an effect on outcomes in the world. The individual who does not share the idea he has, however important, has no effect.

We vastly underestimate the importance of the enormous pool of ideas we live and breath, acting as if our own ideas sprung from nowhere, when in fact originality is rare.

I note from the start of your essay "Humans with aims and intentions can program an artificial intelligent (AI) agent to have intentions." NO. All an AI can do is pursue the goals it has been programmed to pursue. Aims and intentions are the conscious choice of a mind and can be amended or abandoned.

best regards, I will continue reading your essay.

...george...

Conrad Johnson

George,

Your theme and the conclusions you draw from it seem very good to me.

I have hesitations about the notion of the "Ideas Field", because the "field" metaphor has such strong physical connotations. Also because to complete the picture - as in your section 3.1 - we really should include a "Life Field" - but there the connotations would be even less appropriate.

But it's certainly true that human consciousness (and also the evolution of life) have important effects in the physical world, that wouldn't happen through physics alone. And you give clarity to the "field" notion when you point out that things belong to the field insofar as people share them. We're not talking about some mysterious entity that affects the physical world from outside, so much as the web of communication that arises from foundations in physics and physiology as well as language and culture.

I hope you'll have time to look my essay, which also makes an attempt to cover the whole territory, and let me know what you think. Among other things, I try to give a rough sketch of the kind of human connection that gives rise to our ability to share ideas.

Thanks for contributing - Conrad

« Previous Page Next Page »