But of course it is not easy of course to forget the electromagnetic chains of this special relativity.It is after our only basis in sciences,the photons.But they are not the primordial codes.They are not the only one piece of puzzle.That has no sense to consider only our standard model.Like if in less of 200 years of science we have understood this universe in its whole with these phtons.It is so reductor like principle whjen we analyse what is this gravitational universal sphere in spherisation of matter energy.The photons are just a fuel and a system of photonic encodings correlated with our gravitational earth.The soul is more than this simple analyse.The evolution of matters, bodies,minds, souls are more complex than we can imagine.

The evolution is universal and general everywhere inside this universal sphere 3D for me.The biology evolves everywhere like the geology, the minerals....,the complexification and optimisation improvement are foundamentals for all matter, bodies, souls,minds, consciousness.If a soul for example must nourrish its consciousness with universalism and altruism,so we can consider than we die electromagnetically but not gravitationally.So if the souls are ramdomly resynchronised in a being of a planet, so the consciousness and brains are correlated .The relevance and God has well made the things is that we are never on the same place.Interesting like evolution.You see that evolution and gravitation are more than we can imagine.Fascinatin,g isn't it ?

Dear George,

I have read your beautiful essay and concur with top down causation or realization process that you have laid out to explain how biological life drives evolution, what if we can extend this theory to levels of consciousness and see that a higher level of consciousness being responsible for manifestation of different lower levels of it self. A gene is a part of organism and there is no organism with out the gene, it's a singular system. So is consciousness a singularity and we are all a part of it. I request you to kindly read There are no goals as such it's all play

Love,

i.

    I have been down with influenza so have been slow and still am. Thanks for the link to Churchland's book. This get into philosophy, which was a minor I did in college, which is fun and helps to frame thinking. Roger Penrose goes on a track of sorts with physics, mathematics and the mental world all connected as joints in a paradoxical triangle.

    I tend to focus a bit more locally in my thinking in that if there is a duality between IR and UV physics, then maybe quantum hair on black hole horizons, such as what Strominger argues with BMS symmetry, has structure that appears in the more ordinary world. Black hole quantum or BPS hair is in the UV domain that appears by red shift in the IR range, think of a highly time dilated Planck mass oscillator. I think somehow this equivalency between UV and IR gives what might be called euphemistically a yin and yang relationship between bottom up and top down causal or correlations.

    Cheers LC

      Professor Ellis,

      A wonderfully written essay! Learnt a lot from it. I particularly enjoyed the sections on the differences between the logic of physics vs biology. I had the following question that I was hoping you would help me with:

      If we took the example of a bacteria detecting poison and moving away from it, the poison would correspond to context C; let us call the bacteria system S, and we can form the corresponding context dependent statement "If C,THEN S will move away, ELSE S will move toward." Would you agree that if I decided to redraw the 'boxes' differently and looked at the joint system (C,S) together, then the earlier context dependent statement can be restated as a statement one would expect under the logic of physics? If the global (C,S) joint system has to follow physical law and can be analyzed from it, we should then be able to understand the 'purpose' in the local relationship between C and S. Would you agree on that?

      Thanks.

      Natesh

      PS: I explore this C-S relationship in my submission 'Intention is Physical' which I have turned in, and should be up sometime next week. I would be happy if you could take a look at it, and any and all feedback is welcome.

        Dear Prof. Ellis,

        you've provided a cogent and well-argued essay. One point that---perhaps only to me---has some special significance is where you present Maxwell's equations: I remember very well the moment when I first understood them, which I guess a more religiously minded person might call 'revelatory'. As you note, those few, simple equations, together with gravity, govern essentially all that we encounter in everyday life---I don't think anybody who isn't awestruck by that has truly appreciated this lesson.

        I think it's that moment, more than anything, that makes me look at purported explanations of the mind appealing to supernatural or extra-physical powers somewhat askance: it would be profoundly dissatisfying if the simplicity of fundamental physics would have to be muddled by the addition of the essentially mysterious in order to give an account of mind.

        Consequently, I think I share your general approach to the matter: let's not throw in the towel and appeal to the ghost in the machine, but let's try and do some more science. Your essay is a welcome contribution to that.

        However, I'm not quite sure your essay really cuts to the heart of the matter---or perhaps, I just don't quite see how. You appeal to the 'logic' of ion channels; but I feel one must be a bit more careful not to conflate semantic, meaningful information with the essentially syntactic operations occurring at the physical ground level. One risks introducing what was meant to be derived into the basic assumptions, at least courting circularity.

        As an example, I would not say that an overflowing basin implements the logic 'if water level w > h, emit water' (where h is the depth). So even though the basic process can be brought into a 'if...then...else'-structure, I don't think that this automatically licenses us to attribute any genuine information-processing to a system.

        One always runs a great risk to import interpretations into one's models, only to then rediscover them---after all, to the human mind, almost everything appears meaningful. As an example, consider the lamp lit at Old North Church by Paul Revere: you might suppose it means 'the English will attack by land', but it does so only to a human mind, who knows how to 'decode' the information, i.e. who knows 'one if by land, two if by sea'. The lamp itself does not carry meaningful information---without the background knowledge, it's just a source of illumination. But this background knowledge itself depends on the semantic capacities of any onlooker.

        So I'm not sure I see how your example actually generates meaning and purpose. To me, it seems that these biomolecules are far more like the overflowing water basin than they are like an intentional organism choosing between alternatives, based on relevant information.

        It's possible that you intend to circumvent this difficulty by appeal to biological function, as introduced via evolution, in a similar manner to the 'biosemantics' of Ruth Millikan and others, perhaps utilizing the (effective) downward causation to get the 'evolved meaning' to the ground level of ion channels and the like. If so, then I think this line of argument may have merit, and would like to see it fleshed out some more.

        Anyway, thanks again for an intriguing contribution to the debate!

          This seems a very promising line of work. I will try to keep track of it.

          Thanks

          George Ellis

          Dear Lorraine

          > we seem to agree that the mutation issue is important, but we don't agree about how multiple theoretically possible outcomes could turn into actual outcomes. I maintain that physical structure is built on what amounts to rules/laws;

          -agreed

          > and so reality resolves multiple theoretically possible physical outcomes by in effect creating new, one-off local rules;

          - well I think that is a way of saying that higher level causality emerges from lower levels, through a combination of coarse-graining lower level physics and black-boxing lower level logic

          > and that models of systems show that rules can't emerge from complexity.

          - I think we disagree here

          > I too am very interested in the issue of what a model can tell you about reality, but I have a different take on it: I maintain that, unlike models, the actual universe is an isolated system that must therefore generate/create its own rules;

          - whereas I think it is subject to a priori given rules

          > and that the particles ("little parts" of the universe) are the generators and carriers of fundamental-level rules.

          - agreed

          > Re "Of course mutation is necessary. That won't get you a entity that fulfils a specific purpose unless it is then selected for": I think that an entity doesn't need to fulfil a purpose in order to exist - an entity only needs to fit into a niche, or create a niche.

          - This may be a question of language. Filling or creating a niche may amount to fulfilling a need, e.g. developing eyes in order to see fills a niche available only to animals who can see

          > The subjective experience of all sorts of information (consciousness) via interaction with the rest of reality (not necessarily people or animals) is what is fulfilling about life: purpose is not necessary.

          - That experience may or may not be fulfilling. It depends on circumstances and outcomes. Purpose in the sense of function is necessary for all physiological systems. For people as a whole, purpose or meaning can be claimed to be the key to a fulfilling life: see Viktor Frankl's book Man's Search For Meaning.

          > Re "Organisms exist to reproduce": I know that that is a quote, and not your assertion, but one might wonder about the many people who do not or cannot reproduce, or people who are past reproduction age: why do they still bother to exist?

          - I think that statement is meant for them as a group as a whole, but not necessarily for individuals. Indeed for example it is not true for worker ants.

          > My opinion about aim or purpose is that, like everything, it develops from existing proto-aspects of reality, but only single- or multi-celled organisms have the molecules, structure and molecular interactions to have significant capital "P" Purposes. So, an electron could have proto-purpose (proto-consciousness), but the moon or a computer does not have the structure, the molecules or the interactions to have purpose.

          - This seems to be a form of Whitehead's Process Philosophy

          > We exist for our own purposes, but through love or other reasons, we can dedicate ourselves to what we consider to be a higher purpose than ourselves.

          - Yes indeed

          > The higher purpose might be the good of the whole of which we are an individual subjective part.

          - agreed

          > Not just human beings, but animals like hens with baby chicks can have higher purposes.

          - well maybe. I see full consciouness as being necessary: that is a possibility to make responsible decisions.

          Dear Branko,

          > if we just want to find the cause derived from physics, it's the attractions and repulsion.

          - Indeed: particularly those between protons and electrons. But causes derived from physics are not the only causes (see my discussion above of Aristotle's 4 causes )

          > This physical process is common and essential to all levels of structures and phenomena.

          - Yes agreed

          > For adaptive selection too.

          Well that link is not so clear. Attractions and repulsions may be key to selection, but I can't see a direct relation to the deletions that are a crucial part of adaptive selection

          Regards

          George

          Dear i.,

          > what if we can extend this theory to levels of consciousness and see that a higher level of consciousness being responsible for manifestation of different lower levels of it self.

          - that may well be possible

          > A gene is a part of organism and there is no organism with out the gene, it's a singular system.

          - It's an integrated system. Not sure what is intended by `singular'

          > So is consciousness a singularity and we are all a part of it

          - I don't understand that. I know what a singularity is in mathematics or physics. I don't know what is mean here.

          Best

          George

          Dear LC

          > have been down with influenza so have been slow and still am.

          I hope it is better

          > Roger Penrose goes on a track of sorts with physics, mathematics and the mental world all connected as joints in a paradoxical triangle.

          Indeed. We do not understand that link yet.

          > I tend to focus a bit more locally in my thinking in that if there is a duality between IR and UV physics, then maybe quantum hair on black hole horizons, such as what Strominger argues with BMS symmetry, has structure that appears in the more ordinary world.

          - I can't see how that would work. Black hole horizons are far removed from the everyday world.

          > I think somehow this equivalency between UV and IR gives what might be called euphemistically a yin and yang relationship between bottom up and top down causal or correlations.

          - an interesting idea. maybe so.

          Cheers GE

          Dear Natesh

          > If we took the example of a bacteria detecting poison and moving away from it, the poison would correspond to context C; let us call the bacteria system S, and we can form the corresponding context dependent statement "If C,THEN S will move away, ELSE S will move toward."

          - Right

          > Would you agree that if I decided to redraw the 'boxes' differently and looked at the joint system (C,S) together, then the earlier context dependent statement can be restated as a statement one would expect under the logic of physics?

          - Interesting idea. You may be expressing the idea of supervenience in a new way. But I think l I disagree, because the joint system J := (C,S) is not guaranteed to have only physics style causal relations.

          > If the global (C,S) joint system has to follow physical law and can be analyzed from it, we should then be able to understand the 'purpose' in the local relationship between C and S. Would you agree on that?

          - I think I disagree as per above, but it is a good question that I'll need to consider further

          Dear Jochen

          Thanks for that thoughtful comment.

          > you appeal to the 'logic' of ion channels; but I feel one must be a bit more careful not to conflate semantic, meaningful information with the essentially syntactic operations occurring at the physical ground level. One risks introducing what was meant to be derived into the basic assumptions, at least courting circularity.

          - I agree completely with you on the difference between those two kinds of information. semantic information only comes into being at higher levels. But that occurs through combining lower level logical elements capable of syntactic operations into higher level logical circuits such as neural networks that can do the higher level work. That is only possible if the lower level elements are there, ready to be incorporated into interaction networks. That is why they are the key link between physics and logic.

          > As an example, I would not say that an overflowing basin implements the logic 'if water level w > h, emit water' (where h is the depth). So even though the basic process can be brought into a 'if...then...else'-structure, I don't think that this automatically licenses us to attribute any genuine information-processing to a system.

          - Right. They have to be built into the right kind of higher level structure. You can use that basin as part of a Turing Machine, if you do it right.

          > It's possible that you intend to circumvent this difficulty by appeal to biological function, as introduced via evolution, in a similar manner to the 'biosemantics' of Ruth Millikan and others, perhaps utilizing the (effective) downward causation to get the 'evolved meaning' to the ground level of ion channels and the like. If so, then I think this line of argument may have merit, and would like to see it fleshed out some more.

          - Indeed. I only had 9 pages to work in. And as I have said elsewhere, that downward causation is essential to this kind of emergence.

          Professor Ellis,

          Interesting point on J=(C,S) not necessarily following physics style causal relations. I should have stated myself better. Perhaps the following might clear it up with where I am going.

          Let us redraw the boxes as the following. For every system S, we will divide the universe into an observable domain O and the rest as B. O is not fixed and can change in time, thus changing the O-B boundary. Any context system C has to be in the observable domain O of S to be able to affect it at that time, and S also has to be in its own observable domain. If O only comprised of C and S in a particular case, then (O,B) or specifically the time evolution (C,S,B) would fall under the physics category now I think. Hope this helps make my argument clearer.

          Interestingly if we were to study the correlations between C and S even under the physics category, we can show that energy dissipation minimization under finite complexity constraints (alone) is a sufficient condition for emergence of inference and prediction in such systems. The learning/inference dynamics is in a very particular manner that the implementation requires an hierarchical feedforward feedback model, the type we see in the brain.

          It gets even more interesting when you allow for S to have agency (the ability to act but not necessarily with intent or purpose). The optimal solutions to constrained optimization of dissipation for C-S correlations will involve a very nice 'exploitation-exploration' tradeoff. Not to mention an hierarchical model that realizes these dynamics will necessitate the 'sense of agency' in the system, and we might be able to identify the source of intention in the agency of the system S.

          In addition to the above, I have shown an interesting way to unify individual learning with England's dissipation driven adaptation and how we could explain the brain as a system exhibiting self-organized criticality and its implications of cognition as input mappings. I would be very interested in your thoughts if you have the chance to read my submission 'Intention is Physical'.

          Thanks

          Natesh

          Dear Steve

          > "All this to tell you that your work considers themro and photons, not the gravitation which is the main causality."

          - gravity is important in creating galaxies, stars, and planets, that are the habitats for life. It also provides an important aspect of the environment in which we live (animals must be designed to function in a context where gravity may make them fall). But as far as I know, it plays a minor role in how life functions: it does not directly affect flows of electrons in our bodies, which is rather governed by electromagnetism and quantum theory. That is where the molecular behavior that I discuss comes from. Thermodynamics is important for our functioning at a macro level (e.g. we have to ear food), as are the properties of photons (e.g. in how sight works).

          Regards

          George

          Dear Ganesh,

          thanks for that.

          1. > Let us redraw the boxes as the following. For every system S, we will divide the universe into an observable domain O and the rest as B. O is not fixed and can change in time, thus changing the O-B boundary. Any context system C has to be in the observable domain O of S to be able to affect it at that time, and S also has to be in its own observable domain.

          - You seem to be talking of the causal domains investigated in relativity theory.

          > If O only comprised of C and S in a particular case, then (O,B) or specifically the time evolution (C,S,B) would fall under the physics category now I think. Hope this helps make my argument clearer.

          - Not really. How does this work out for (a) sand grains in a desert, (b) rocks on a planet, (c) biomolecules in a cell, (d) cells in a body.

          2. Interestingly if we were to study the correlations between C and S even under the physics category, we can show that energy dissipation minimization under finite complexity constraints (alone) is a sufficient condition for emergence of inference and prediction in such systems.

          - What is a finite complexity constraint? if you mean existence of complex entities such as biomolecules, I might believe you. The heavy lifting has already been done in creating those molecules, which cannot be brought in to existence by such principles alone, see e.g. the minimal total energy principle.

          3. The learning/inference dynamics is in a very particular manner that the implementation requires an hierarchical feedforward feedback model, the type we see in the brain.

          - So that complex system must already exist (at the macro level) and be based in appropriate structures such as neurons and biomolecules (at the micro level). They do not come into existence simply via energy minimisation, which is happier with Boltmann gases and salt crystals.

          4. It gets even more interesting when you allow for S to have agency (the ability to act but not necessarily with intent or purpose). The optimal solutions to constrained optimization of dissipation for C-S correlations will involve a very nice 'exploitation-exploration' tradeoff.

          - is not "agency" as defined here a biological trait? Neither an electron nor the Moon has agency in that sense. This is like what Hartwell et al talk about.

          > Not to mention an hierarchical model that realizes these dynamics will necessitate the 'sense of agency' in the system, and we might be able to identify the source of intention in the agency of the system S.

          The Earth and the Sun are hierarchical systems. They have no agency. To realise agency you need physiological systems.

          5. In addition to the above, I have shown an interesting way to unify individual learning with England's dissipation driven adaptation and how we could explain the brain as a system exhibiting self-organized criticality and its implications of cognition as input mappings.

          - I have not understood this idea of dissipative driven adapation. If it is adaptation, there is some selection principle in action which cannot be captured simply by the idea of dissipation. How does dissipation know that a set of eyes or a pair of wings is a good idea? The need is driven top-down, as I discuss in my essay. That is what is missing in England's proposal, as far as I can see. Incidentally Friston has a similar but perhaps more developed proposal, see A theory of cortical responses

          6. I would be very interested in your thoughts if you have the chance to read my submission 'Intention is Physical'.

          I will take a look.

          George

          Hi Professor Ellis,

          It is well said ,But I spoke about this weakest quant force, the quant gravity.Not G or g,of course this gravity is everywhere because all mass is Under this force respecting newton and the fact that it exists za force between all, m1 m2 ,r ,G ....give this force.Now about thermo,I love so much, I have several books of Zemansky ,Heat and thermodynamics.One of my favorite équations is this PV=nRT ,fascinating equation.But the problem is not about these lectromagnetic thermodynamic interactions implying our standard model and our biology, mineralogy,....if the photons are not the main piece of puzzle, that implies that we must consider this dark matter, the BHs,the quant BHs,the quantum gravitation together in a road resopecting the principle of equivalence;We had a problem for this gravity because we consider only photons.Now if we consider that the cold and the heat are more than we can imagine and that this gravitation is in fact the realchief orchestra, so that implies that we can explain this quantum gravity with determinism and objectivity with this cold and heat.If the stanbdard model is encircled at all scales by this gravitation.So it implies that photons are in fact a serie of spherical volumes having the entire entropy.Paradoxal but that implies that a photon is a spheron coded ,like if I said that this cold gave the properties to photon.The gravitation is fascinatin,g and seems to be the main primordial gravitationa aether implyin,g properties to thermo.Thermodynamics is important indeeed and foundamental but we must rethought our interpretation of this gravitation and this cold to better encircle this infinite entropical gravitational evolution spherisation.It is fascinating this universe and its 3D sphères, quant and cosm.We are Inside a wondertful project of optimisation,a kind of mechanic of improvement.I liked your papper.I am wishing you all the best in this contest.Best resgards.

          Dear George,

          I think the word "purpose" is being used in at least 3 senses: 1) a somewhat vague subjective goal or intention which is held in conscious awareness; 2) an ostensibly-objective evaluation of the place/ usefulness/ necessity of organisms/ organs/ molecules in an ecosystem or part-ecosystem; and 3) a hypothetically-existing higher-level external-to-the-universe master-plan that somehow guides outcomes in the universe, in addition to laws-of-nature. I think that there is no evidence of 3).

          Re "Purpose in the sense of function is necessary for all physiological systems":

          I wouldn't say that purpose (in the above 3 senses) is the same as function. The then meaning of the word "function" ("power of acting in a specific proper way") was appropriated by Leibniz in 1673 to refer to mathematical functions, seemingly because the function ("power of acting in a specific proper way") of a mathematical model is completely determined by its mathematical function.

          Nothing has changed: despite the visual appearance of some complex system models, no new function evolves out of a deterministic modelled system because the mathematical function completely defines the function ("power of acting in a specific proper way") of the modelled system. By analogy with models, for new function to emerge in the universe, the equivalent of new mathematical functions/rules have to be added to the complex universe-system.

          Human beings can add new rules to a model system, but the actual universe is not a model. Seemingly by definition, there is nothing external to the universe. That is why I contend that the universe must generate its own rules.

          Dear Lorraine

          > I think the word "purpose" is being used in at least 3 senses:

          - yes I agree

          1) a somewhat vague subjective goal or intention which is held in conscious awareness;

          - well it may not be at all vague, but it is subjective in the sense that it is in the mind of a conscious agent

          2) an ostensibly-objective evaluation of the place/ usefulness/ necessity of organisms/ organs/ molecules in an ecosystem or part-ecosystem;

          - yes: eyes have the function/purpose of enabling vision, hemoglobin has the function/purpose of transporting oxygen in the blood stream, wings enable flight, and so on;

          3) a hypothetically-existing higher-level external-to-the-universe master-plan that somehow guides outcomes in the universe, in addition to laws-of-nature. I think that there is no evidence of 3).

          - I have not entered that discussion at all here. It plays no role in my essay.

          > Re "Purpose in the sense of function is necessary for all physiological systems": I wouldn't say that purpose (in the above 3 senses) is the same as function. The then meaning of the word "function" ("power of acting in a specific proper way") was appropriated by Leibniz in 1673 to refer to mathematical functions, seemingly because the function ("power of acting in a specific proper way") of a mathematical model is completely determined by its mathematical function.

          - well mathematical functions only operate in abstract spaces, unless human minds use them for say engineering purposes, when they do indeed cause change in the real world (see Seventeen Equations that Changed the World).

          - This is however different from what Hartwell et al talk about

          > Nothing has changed: despite the visual appearance of some complex system models, no new function evolves out of a deterministic modelled system because the mathematical function completely defines the function ("power of acting in a specific proper way") of the modelled system.

          - agreed

          > By analogy with models, for new function to emerge in the universe, the equivalent of new mathematical functions/rules have to be added to the complex universe-system.

          - It is key to separate ontology from epistemology here. As a mathematical Platonist, I believe that maths per se is timeless and unchanging. However what we know about maths is culture dependent and changes with time. No new functions or rules can be added to the Platonic reality; they are what they are. We can however learn more about them and use more of them in engineering applications through the operations of our minds. In that sense new functions/rules have to be added to the system.

          > Human beings can add new rules to a model system, but the actual universe is not a model.

          - yes

          > Seemingly by definition, there is nothing external to the universe. That is why I contend that the universe must generate its own rules.

          - As the universe is not conscious, I don't know what that means. Whatever happens in the universe is governed by a set of unchanging eternal rules ("Laws of Nature", as described by the standard model of particle physics together with general relativity). The universe has no option but to obey them (whatever that means).

          Hi George, thanks for your encouraging comments on my essay. I particularly appreciated your words:

          "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."

          They excited me because the goal of FQXI is to identify important ideas that are not recognised because they are unpopular.

          I think I am seeing a pattern in the submissions.

          Starting from generally accepted premises, one is able to make steady progress towards explaining how goal-oriented systems arise, as you do brilliantly. But there seems to be a barrier that is hard to cross, to get to aims and ambitions, which are properties of minds.

          In order to cross that barrier, a different starting point is required, which is the theme of my "Reality Envisaged". One needs a new framework in which minds and thoughts are given a physical description. Then one can begin to build the mathematics.

          In that sense, I would suggest our essays are complementary, rather than congruent.

          best regards, and thanks again, ...george simpson...

          George, in your comments on my essay, 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."

          I am quite comfortable with this - the symmetries are at an abstract level. I think you will agree that such symmetries could in principle be measured in artificial minds.