Hi George,

Very interesting essay especially the loop feedback between "Higher level controls of gene expression" and the "protein machinery".

I would suggests that selections (higher or lower levels) are not based on Causality principle unless the selection result is inevitable. i.e. Causality is a special case in the occurrence of a phenomenon and the mode of selection of an action out of many (or few) potential action is related to the best optimal equilibrium for the phenomenon, especially (or even) if it is a "Protein Machinery". Philosophically speaking there is Freedom of Choice even in the Protein machinery" .

In my philosophical essay: "We are together, therefore I am" I expand the subject and explain how we ratify reality and maintain our self-organization while we ever changing in the continuous present.

thanks for your insights

Yehuda Atai

Dear Yehuda

>>> I would suggests that selections (higher or lower levels) are not based on Causality principle unless the selection result is inevitable.

Well selection is based on having a variety of things to choose from, and they are usually a random set so the result is not inevitable because of this randomness. Any one of a number of solutions that is good enough will do.

>> i.e. Causality is a special case in the occurrence of a phenomenon and the mode of selection of an action out of many (or few) potential action is related to the best optimal equilibrium for the phenomenon,

In the case of living systems, it may not be an equilibrium solution. It might be dynamic. Nevertheless selection to fulfill some goal can be regarded as an emergent causal principle.

>. Philosophically speaking there is Freedom of Choice even in the Protein machinery"

At that level, I'd rather say there is a lack of determinism.

Regards

George Ellis

Dear George

I enjoyed reading your essay, as regards how purpose emerges in biological systems. No doubt this is a hot area, and the emerging field of quantum biology will be one to watch.

I wanted to suggest my own interpretation of the fundamental laws of physics. I note a few of the other essayists have challenged the idea that inanimate life - which includes the laws of the universe - is devoid of purpose. Obviously these laws of physics have an enabling function which serves to allow for the existence of complex life forms. I will summarise some of the argument from my essay From Nothingness to Value Ethics here.

If the universe began from nothing (and multiple lines of evidence suggest this to be a possibility) then it is responsible, within itself, for the creation of the what/when/where that we call "reality". This may be an open-ended process - indeed the universe seems to go on creating time and space in an unlimited fashion. So where can we go from this fairly justifiable set of statements to a deeper understanding of the "what"?

The majority of the laws of the universe, in combination, create a matrix in which complexity can continually expand in a seemingly limitless fashion. The laws may be unchanging by necessity, as to change the fundamental laws of reality would disrupt the whole process. Therefore the laws may have a purpose that is more than analogous to those that support space and time - a complexity dimension, as I call it, allowing for an open-ended creation of "what-ness".

Best regards

Gavin

Dear Gavin

>>> I note a few of the other essayists have challenged the idea that inanimate life - which includes the laws of the universe - is devoid of purpose. Obviously these laws of physics have an enabling function which serves to allow for the existence of complex life forms.

Correct.

>>> If the universe began from nothing (and multiple lines of evidence suggest this to be a possibility) then it is responsible, within itself, for the creation of the what/when/where that we call "reality".

I can't agree that multiple lines of evidence suggest universe began from nothing. I don't know what such evidence would be. Also, I'm not sure what the word "responsible" entails here. That sounds like an animate system, but it's not.

>>> the universe seems to go on creating time and space in an unlimited fashion.

In a sense that's true, although again that suggests it plays an active role - it's personifying the universe. Its the laws of physics that determine that the universe keeps expanding in space, and keeps extending in time in the form of an Evolving Block Universe (which is a topic I have written about).

>> The majority of the laws of the universe, in combination, create a matrix in which complexity can continually expand in a seemingly limitless fashion.

Agreed

>> The laws may be unchanging by necessity, as to change the fundamental laws of reality would disrupt the whole process.

yes

>> Therefore the laws may have a purpose that is more than analogous to those that support space and time - a complexity dimension, as I call it, allowing for an open-ended creation of "what-ness".

Well here you are taking a huge philosophical step in assuming that physical laws have a purpose. How do you distinguish this from them just carrying on doing what they do, in a purposeless way, with life an accidental byproduct? You have to give philosophical rather than scientific arguments to support this claim.

Regards

George

Dear George Ellis

>>>>>> I claim that some sort of consciousness exists also in unicellular creatures. I claim for panpsychism. What is your opinion?

>>>I don't understand it.

Panpsychism is defended also by Tononi and Koch, therefore it is not an unimportant theory. My variant of panpsychism is that the basic elements of consciousness are collapses of wave functions. This model agrees with Zurek's interpretation of quantum mechanics.

At the same time, it is not easy to imagine, that some materialistic world would exist where consciousness absolutely does not exist. Matter and it properties as touch would have lost sense if no consciousness had not existed. It is similarly, as space would have lost its meaning if no matter had not existed (a link to these my claims is in my essay).

I read your link http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1108.5261. In your corollary 3 you wrote "Corollary 3: generically, living cells will not exhibit quantum behaviour (because there are thousands of feedback loops in a living cell);"

At the same time you know quantum biology, because you cited Lloyd. (I cited the same link, [11]). We know still quantum sense of smell and sense of earth magnetic field by birds. Can you write more about quantum biology? I never found how Tegmark's paper https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9907009 agrees with quantum biology? But decoherence times in sense of earth magnetic field are approximately micro seconds, much larger, as Tegmark said.

It is also fair that you mentioned testing of your level theory with Leggett experiment. I wished to mentioned you about this.

But, your theory is bad accrding to Ockham razor, because it needs new parameters, a lot of them.

>>> I am not against the influence of gravity. It just is not important in the way that neurons function.

I think that only that gravity defines nature of time and indirectly nature of panpsychism.

About top-down causation I agree with you a lot. Maybe some software for artificial life could visualize this. One basic example of top-down causation is also quantum entanglement, because information is included also in a connection between two particles, not only in the particles themselves.

But, existence of top-down causation is not in contradiction with quantum consciousness.

About your division of physics and biology I think that the essence is that both are informatics, or as simulation in some computer. For instance, using physics 200 years ago, one meter was typically clear physics, not math. But, by physics known nowadays, one meter can be described as multiple of Planck's distance, thus it is dimensionless, thus so physics can become math.

But I agree, that the problem of interpretation of quantum mechanics is a separation of micro and macro worlds, but my proposal is panpsychism. Probably there are other persons who suggest such models, because this is model which is fall in eyes.

You also claim that life is known only in biological level, nowhere else. This is true, but this not prevent to introduce panpsychism, which is not equal to "panlife".

I disagree also with Feynman, as you cited him in your paper. Philosophical models enable testing or at least they can be estimated by Ockham razor, and nature needs very sharp Ockham razor. Scientist today to much follow to Feynman view, they think that they are objective, but at the same time they have some model behind, for which they think that it is correct. The same is valid also for Feynman.

My essay

Best regards, Janko Kokosar

Dear Janko Kokosar

Thanks for the post. I'll have to read more about panspychism. There is a nice Wikipedia article about it: Panpsychism.

Regards

George Ellis

Dear George

Thanks for your thoughts on this line of reasoning. Our first major point of difference was:

GR> If the universe began from nothing (and multiple lines of evidence suggest this to be a possibility) then it is responsible, within itself, for the creation of the what/when/where that we call "reality".

GE> I can't agree that multiple lines of evidence suggest universe began from nothing. I don't know what such evidence would be.

Well it is indirect evidence, but here is the section of my essay which discusses the indicators of a cosmic origin ex nihilo:

"How did the universe begin? Even before we ask this question we should perhaps ask - did it, indeed, have a beginning? Multiple lines of evidence strongly suggest that it did, and since 1965, when Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background radiation, most have considered the evidence to be overwhelming. It appears as if the universe began in an explosion (the "Big Bang") approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

It is important to note that there is no special point from which the universe originated. Rather, wherever we may position ourselves - here, or a billion light years away - we would see the same pattern of expansion. It appears as if the universe began everywhere at once. But what was the nature of this primordial 'everywhere'?

Large-scale surveys of the universe show that it is spatially very flat. What this means, in essence, is that the spatially contracting forces very equally balance the spatially expanding forces. Thus, if we were able to put all of the forms of energy in the universe (including gravity) together, they may very well cancel out to a net sum of zero. This observation prompted Alan Guth to refer to the universe as "the ultimate free lunch".

Another important observation is that the universe is very, very large. What we can see is limited by the finite speed of light. But there is no reason to think that it stops at our visual horizon. It may well be infinite. But to create something infinite, we would seem to require some precursor state that was also infinite in extent.

So here we have something of a riddle. What sort of cosmic origin state could there be, which is of perhaps limitless quantity, and whose net sum of energy is zero? This state would also have to take up very little room, as the Big Bang appears to have started with a very high density. The answer may be nothingness - no space, time, laws, energy - in short, nothing at all. Nothingness should have a net energy sum of zero, and would take up zero space. It would also be limitless in quantity, because if we are dealing with nothingness then why should there be any limit to the amount of the stuff? In fact, true nothingness by its very definition should have no limit or boundary, or else it would be something rather than nothing!"

Also, with an other cosmic origin state there are potential problems with the first law of thermodynamics.

There are many possible points of contention in this argument, but as I have said it is worth considering nothingness as a cosmic origin. It is also a useful philosophical starting point, as then one can easily argue that it must possess, intrinsically, a means by which it came into existence. And as existence (as we know it) entails a what, a when and a where, then the universe should have mechanisms by which it creates all three. I know "create" suggests consciousness, but I think it is impossible to get past some kind of decision making process when one approaches the nature of the laws and constants in this way. The only alternatives I know of which don't require consciousness are i) saying that all the unexplained features of reality are just brute facts - the "purposeless way" you refer to, or ii) saying that we live in a multiverse. I don't like either of these answers, and suggest that if we subscribe to either of them there is a real risk we are making premature intellectual closures on important questions.

One way of arguing my metaphysical position is to go on to show how origin ex nihilo can lead to a model of reality which contains everything - gravity, complexity, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, consciousness, free will, emotions etc. This I have attempted elsewhere, and you can read the short version here. In my essay (this contest) one of my underlying arguments is that, in order to answer foundational questions, we should be thinking metaphysically through exploration of the consequences of possible cosmic origin states. I think a lot of metaphysical speculation is a waste of time, because it is too limited in scope &/or based on incorrect assumptions. But I hope to demonstrate that thinking metaphysically from a cosmic origin ex nihilo is worthwhile. In science, we have picked the low hanging fruit, and deeper answers are not immediately apparent. I think that's where we need this type of reasoning. I note Roger Trigg has a new book out "Beyond Matter: Why Science Needs Metaphysics" - I am looking forward to reading it.

I would be interested in your thoughts on any of this.

Best regards

Gavin

Hi Gavin

>>> ""How did the universe begin? Even before we ask this question we should perhaps ask - did it, indeed, have a beginning? Multiple lines of evidence strongly suggest that it did, and since 1965, when Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background radiation, most have considered the evidence to be overwhelming. It appears as if the universe began in an explosion (the "Big Bang") approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since."

The use of nomenclature is confusing here. We believe that very early on, the universe underwent a period of `inflation', a rapidly accelerating expansion when the universe expanded a huge amount. This epoch lasted an incredibly short time; at its end, ordinary matter and radiation came into being through the decay of the field that drove inflation, giving rise to a very hot mixture of matter and radiation. Nowadays cosmologists refer to the Hot Big Bang as the era after inflation, up to the time of decoupling of matter and radiation. This is indeed about 13.7 billion years ago, and we have very good evidence for existence of this epoch. However we have no solid evidence as to what happened before inflation - when quantum gravity would have ruled supreme. Some quantum gravity theories suggest the universe had no beginning, but this is subject to dispute: others claim the universe must have had a singular start. We do not know which is correct.

So the evidence for the hot big bang era is very strong. This is not the same as evidence the Universe had a beginning, which refers to a earlier time. And even if we had such evidence, that would not necessarily mean the universe "came from nothing", whatever that paradoxical statement means.

Regards

George Ellis

Hi George

Yes I am talking cosmic origin - pre inflation, first moment. There are a lot of assumptions in the standard discourse here, and the focus is too narrow, too driven by theoretical physicists. "Quantum gravity would have reigned supreme" - who knows whether there even IS such a thing as quantum gravity. Quantum gravity "theories" are not theories in the proper sense. They are mathematical playgrounds for theoretical physicists and they tend to create more unsolved problems rather than solve problems. String theory itself assumes supersymmetry, which is basically dead in the water thanks to the negative results of supercollider experiments. For all we know quantum and gravity may be separate entities created in those first moments. To ASSUME that we have the right kind of models here may be a mistake.

Regards

Gavin

Hi Gavin

yes the discussion is driven by theoretical physicists because they deal with the mechanisms that are relevant. I agree it is possible there is no such thing as quantum gravity - but that is a theoretical physics discussion.

I stated "I can't agree that multiple lines of evidence suggest universe began from nothing. I don't know what such evidence would be." That remains my position. Your discussion is interesting but is a philosophical discussion that does not provide such evidence.

>> " But I hope to demonstrate that thinking metaphysically from a cosmic origin ex nihilo is worthwhile"

- I don't dispute that. But precisely because its a metaphysical argument, it is not *evidence* as to whether it happened or did not happen. It's an argument about what the outcome would be *if* it did happen. That can give philosophical reasons for preferring that option to others. It's still philosophical reasoning.

Regards

George

    • [deleted]

    • Post #244

    Hi George

    In the abstract of my essay, I say "Foundational problems are often approached from the point of view of the current theoretical framework. That is, taking our current understanding of the universe, and attempting to rework that framework to satisfy the gaps in our understanding. I propose that many foundational problems would be better approached by starting with the origin of the universe and finding a process that results in our observed reality. As a part of this process, we would need to be open to questioning our assumptions."

    Here is an example of working forward from a very simple state (and it needn't be nothingness).

    Theoretical physicists are looking for a framework that includes both quantum physics and gravity. Lets look at this problem but also simplify things a bit by paring the quantum side of the problem back, because it inevitably brings in problems like the fine tuning of the laws and constants, and wave function collapse. To my thinking, these properties pertain to the complexity side of things and i just want to illustrate some principles regarding space and time.

    Quantum physics is the detailed understanding that emerges from the study of energy. So a less ambitious target would be an energy-gravity unification (where energy is gravitational potential energy plus kinetic energy - because we want to stay away from complexity for now). So what kind of unification scheme would encompass both energy and gravity?

    Lets assume that space and time are emergent properties of the universe. When these properties emerge, conservation of energy principles may dictate that some kind of opposite anti-space and anti-time properties will also emerge. To create Space and Time they need to expand and speed up respectively. So Anti-space and Anti-time would entail a contracting of space and a slowing of time. The end point of such a process would be a spacetime singularity i.e. gravity. Energy could be the positive pole of such a process, but for reasons of brevity I won't go into this side of the argument. It may be no coincidence, however, that the universe is spatially flat, suggesting that positive energy and negative gravity balance out. i.e. we live in a zero energy universe.

    This is a taste of the type of reasoning that can develop when one reasons forward from the cosmic origin, rather than backwards from the rather messy state of contemporary physics.

    I hope this makes sense, and thank you for your patience!

    Regards

    Gavin

    George, I see you will be one of the winers of this first essay contest... congratulations, I already read your essay and rated it.

    Please, consider to have into account my essay which main proposal is:

    "A essay that could revolutionize the future of Cosmological Physics: Aristotle, Newton, Einstein,..."

    The Dynamic Laws of Physics (and Universal Gravitation) have varied over time, and even Einstein had already proposed that they still has to evolve:

    ARISTOTLE: F = m.v

    NEWTON: F = m.a

    EINSTEIN. E = m.c2 (*)

    MOND: F = m.a.(A/A0)

    FRACTAL RAINBOW: F = f (scale) = m.a.(scale factor)

    Or better G (Gravity Constant) vary with the scale/distance due to fractal space-time: G = f ( Scale/distance factor)

    (*) This equation does not correspond to the same dynamic concept but has many similarities.

    Dear Gavin

    To make it fly, you'd need to show what mathematical laws express this progression, and then suggest how we might test them.

    Regards

    george

    Dear David

    thanks for that. However I can't see how it relates to the essay topic.

    Dear George,

    I enjoyed reading your essay, which is well written and very logical in proposing an answer to the question "How can a universe that is ruled by natural laws give rise to aims and intentions?" in terms of voltage gated ion channel. I liked how you identified logical processes in living systems, and give examples from real life, and resumed these to "biomolecules perform logical operations". If I understand well, this makes possible to identify into living beings computations similar to those taking place into a computer, and propose explanations of how these came into being. While quantum interactions are involved, this seems to be limited to classical logic. Do you believe it is possible to also have biological equivalents of quantum gates in the living beings? Also, do you think it is possible that biomolecules computations can make an important breakthrough in computation? Also, may I suggest a reference that may be of interest to you (more at chemlambda project).

    Best regards,

    Cristi Stoica

    The Tablet of the Metalaw

    Dear Cristi

    many thanks for that.

    >> Do you believe it is possible to also have biological equivalents of quantum gates in the living beings?

    It is perhaps within the bounds of possibility, give the evidence for quantum effects e.g. in the way birds detect magnetic fields

    >> Also, do you think it is possible that biomolecules computations can make an important breakthrough in computation?

    An interesting question. It is not so much the individual molecules that perform complex computations, but the networks in which they are imbedded, which do indeed do very complex logical computation; but the question is how programmable they are. I'd be open minded about this; they are certainly contextually controlled. The key point is how robust these bio-operations are, in contrast to digital computers that crash if a single full stop is out of place. So you are pointing out a very interesting question.

    >> Also, may I suggest a reference that may be of interest to you (more at chemlambda project).

    Thank you - that is indeed interesting.

    Best regards

    George Ellis

    Hi George, there is, in biology, a difference between function (what something does ) and purpose (the prior why something does what it does.) I'm not sure whether you are differentiating them. It does seem that people sometimes use the terms in general parlance and imprecise discussion of biology as if they are synonymous. It doesn't help when dictionaries give a definition of 'function' using the word 'purpose'. In biology, if teleology is avoided, the function is the outcome, not the prior 'reason' for something.

    There is a big difference between birds have wings so that they can fly and birds can fly because they have wings. This also applies to your argument about hemoglobin. Kind regards Georgina

    Hi Christi

    I have now looked at your chemlab example, and it is right on target except for one thing:

    "We present chemlambda (or the chemical concrete machine), an artificial chemistry with the following properties: (a) is Turing complete, (b) has a model of decentralized, distributed computing associated to it, (c) works at the level of individual (artificial) molecules, subject of reversible, but otherwise deterministic interactions with a small number of enzymes, (d) encodes information in the geometrical structure of the molecules and not in their numbers, (e) all interactions are purely local in space and time."

    (e) is not true in biological modules such as a cell, because local interactions are influenced by signalling molecules coming from the larger context, see Figure 2 in my Essay. But the project could be broadened to include such top-down effects. Just one other thing: they express their project in terms of lambda-calculus. I wonder if there might not be a clearer way to express it?

    Best regards

    George Ellis

    Hi George,

    you have written a lot of great stuff. It is good that you have described how biology can arise from simple underlying physics and that emergence has a role to play too.

    I don't think selection is needs based though. Needs are for something not yet existing or certain. Instead it is based on advantage existing Now, in those life and death situations, and competition for resources, territory and mates. The peacock tail is a good example. There is no need for it for survival but it provides advantage in the Now of courtship of a peahen.

    Hi Georgina

    >>> I don't think selection is needs based though. Needs are for something not yet existing or certain. Instead it is based on advantage existing Now, in those life and death situations, and competition for resources, territory and mates. The peacock tail is a good example. There is no need for it for survival but it provides advantage in the Now of courtship of a peahen.

    - interesting thought. I think it can be either. "Needs are for something not yet existing or certain" - well in evolutionary history this applies to coming into being of sight and wings. But one also gets examples like the peacock tail. So I'll go for either being a possible driver.