Wandering Towards a Goal: The Key Role of Biomolecules by George F. R. 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 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 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 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

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 George, thanks for your reply.

How do the lower level physical processes, like electrostatic attractions, or higher level selection from the population, know/decide what is not yet but is needed and so should be formed? I think they don't.

The outcome of a change can provide an advantage without there having been prior identification of need or design for a purpose. E.g. a mutation providing better flight feathers, allowing better flight rather than fluttering, can lead to these types having greater chances of survival and reproductive success. It is only in hindsight that it can be argued that the better feathers were intended for better flight. Tomasso Bolognesi talks about the this issue of linguistics in his essay.

Dear George,

This is a really lucidly written and interesting essay - thank you such an enjoyable read from which I learned greatly. As a particle physicist in training, many of the more biological concepts I learned in writing our essay with my coauthor were new but therefore fascinating, especially drawing similarities and contrasting differences with fundamental physics. I particularly enjoyed you making the logical formalism of contextual decisions and selection process so accessible. I'd have to read more about your biological example of ion channels, but your argument that protein structures provide a key link between the micro and macro is very interesting.

Our submission also tries to reconcile how fundamental physics could be reconciled with emergence of goal-oriented phenomena, but from a slightly bigger picture view and examining the role of information. While we could not do justice to top-down causation due to our scope and essay constraints, I'd like to extend my gratitude for your influential work in the subject when we were doing our literature survey. It is certainly an idea largely absent from my world of collider physics, which as you've argue probably should not be so. We took a good deal of inspiration from Walker and Davies for addressing the essay question, which of course contains top-down causation at its fundamental level.

I thoroughly enjoyed learning a lot about the scientific literature written in this field about the origin of life from your work, and look forward to reading further in the future.

Best,

Jesse

>>> george, i would be interested to hear how you arrive at this conclusion.

>>> are you in effect saying that particles or larger objects cannot

>>> *by definition* have either aims or intentions?

> In effect, yes.

ah. i have to admit to being confused and... saddened, on hearing that.

perhaps it is my fault, having asked the wrong question.

the better question would be, how could particles or larger systems *appear*

to have either aims or intentions? in trying to re-word the main question

of the contest i may have overdone it.

perhaps another way to ask the question is: if we observe the behaviour

of particles within our universe, is there anything that may be deduced

from their behaviour that implies the emergence of intelligence in

some capacity either of the universe or of the particles, or other

variations of this question along the same theme?

>>> if so i would be interested to know why you would believe that to be the case.

> Look in any physics textbook.

any standard physics textbook by definition of its primary focus and purpose being to educate the reader on the empirically-derived (human-derived) "laws

of physics" will be based on linear equations, excluding all mention and discussion of the nature of intelligence, which is, by definition, non-linear.

i trust that you would agree that it would be ridiculous to propose to any student reading a standard physics textbook that they first must learn the fundamentals of what intelligence *is* before looking up the definition and explanation of the formula KE = 1/2mv^2 or v^2 = U^2 2as.

it is a fundamental tenet of learning that you answer the question that the student has asked. if you answer a different question from the one that they asked, they will simply find a different teacher.

> Please find me a discussion of the purpose of the Moon

> or of an electron or of a collision between two gas particles.

such a discussion which would fit within the criteria of your request has indeed taken place under the essay questions that arose out of the essay that i wrote.

to answer here would require both duplication and a comprehensive discussion. i would be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter at http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2854

> How can the Moon have intentions? It has no brain.

indeed it does not, which is why i mentioned in my essay that it is the underlying fabric of the universe that has the "brain" or more accurately the "intelligence", not the actual object itself.

> The whole point about physical laws is that purpose does not

> enter into them. They just describe how physical systems interact.

indeed they do not. the purpose of the human-derived (empirical) laws

of physics are to deliberately exclude intelligence from consideration.

would you agree that newton's law "KE=1/2 mv^2" is an approximation

that works, for the majority of intents and purposes, when v of an electron collision or the intention of a proton.

i begin to hint at some of this in the responses to my essay.

i believe you are correct that a proton cannot have the same

type of "intent" to which i believe you are referring. the "intent"

of a human is operating at a completely different systemic scope and

scale from a proton's "intent".

however even that answer misses the point that it is the universe itself

which provides the means and method for intelligent behaviour - even

at the scale of protons and electrons - to "emerge"... just on a completely

different level from that of "human" intelligence.

i go into some detail within my essay and further clarify in the

questions.

> Energy minimisation will not do the job:

indeed. it turns out that only through energy and resource starvation

of chaotic (high entropy) areas of space surrounding the low-entropy

areas does "intention" or "aims" start to emerge... *EVEN* for particles.

however it's more complicated than that: i go into detail in my response

to rajiv, just today: there has to be a feedback mechanism on top of

the entropy-beating / balancing act. osmosis is a classic example

(within the context/scope of cells and no other context). electron

shells is another (within the context/scope of atoms and no other

context).

> physical systems just do it,

> they do not intend to do it. If it was an intention, they could decide

> not to do it. That option is not open to them.

indeed it is not - thus, paradoxically, we have *defined* their scope

of interaction, and thus their purpose. from there the next logical

step in the chain emerges, leading to answers of the contest's

fundamental questions.

> The key point here is that biological processes at the micro level

> are not deterministic, in practice because of randomness at that

> level (the molecular storm which envelopes biomolecules), and in

> principle because physics at the quantum level is not deterministic

> (one of the great discoveries of the last century).

george, are you aware of the purpose of adding in noise into a

neural net, that it allows for a much greater detection capacity

for low-occurrence, low-rate signals?

also have you encountered dr alex hankey's work, which extends

quantum mechanics to cover non-linear systems that operate at

critical instability points?