Three Technologies: On the Accidental Origins of Meaning by Conrad Dale Johnson

Dear Mr. Johnson

Your essay has been excellent. Part of physics is in domain of my interests. You say: any two molecules of the same type are identical. I'm not sure that even the two protons are identical. The reason is that in physics we are dealing with irrational numbers. The physical constants are all somehow related to the mathematical constants e, pi. So it is better to say that the molecules are equal. This may mean that they have the same mass, for example, to 1000 decimals but are not identical. More complex structures of the molecules are less identical so we say they are similar. The same type of galaxies, are similar but differ greatly among them.

You say: To illustrate this problem, suppose it were up to you and me to create a universe ex nihilo. In my Essay, proton is created ex nihilo (non-extended points per RuÄ'er BoÅ¡ković); try to understand my equation (17). The next step may be to create a hydrogen molecule.

Best regards,

Branko Zivlak

Dear Johnson,

Thank you for the nice essay on "understanding meaning "

You are observations are excellent, like...

...There are three stages " human communication, biological reproduction, and quantum measurement ..... In each of these processes, something that would otherwise be nearly impossible can happen over and over again, all the time. For example, ideas pass from one human brain to another. In biology, finely-tuned systems of complex molecules make near-exact copies of themselves. In physics, the random interaction of largely indeterminate quantum states generates well-defined events obeying strict mathematical laws."

And you have nicely told about them like... "None of this is magic - in biology, at least, we have a clear understanding of the underlying process and how it evolved. My goal here is to explain a bit about how the other two technologies work, and why they've been so much harder for us to comprehend"

We have tried to understand reproduction in Biology. You are correct. Now a question comes how initially these biological life forms tried reproduction... From where these concepts came into them from those different non-life forms of masses like Galaxies, Sun, Earth etc... This is exactly the same point I discussed a possibility in my essay..... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe"

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other. Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

The sentiments of Branko here echo my own - Mark Pharoah

I have enjoyed your writing before and believe your ideas share parallels with mine, which is always pleasing. This passage:

"Even gigantic molecular structures can last indefinitely, if before the molecule gets broken down by its environment, copies of it get made. But the copies must also get copied before they break, and this has to keep on happening. If somehow that can be done, the rules of the game are radically changed; complexity can increase almost without limit."

in particular has relevance to my writing.

However, while I understand much of what you say, I think that you do not really tackle the meat of the question which concerns the derivation of goal-driven agents that possess purpose and intention. What mindless physical law tells us that creatures must evolve with subjective experiences and actions driven by purpose and what might such goals be leading to in the grand scheme of the universe and its evolution?

A clearer conclusion, even if just a restatement of mysteries, would have helped (or would have helped me, at least).

Dale Conrad Johnson,

Congratulations on a first-class essay. You speak well, you explain well, and you integrate concepts. Most significantly, you qualify your statements, pointing out in several places that equations can only be solved approximately, and that aspects of the problem are too hard to define. Thus, logical proof being impossible in this situation, you weave a narrative, and quite a narrative it is.

Your conclusion, that all this could not have been invented on purpose - it's too finely tuned, seems plausible. But I believe that if one masters the 1400 pages of Albert's 'Molecular Biology of the Cell' and any good book on embryology, and then a couple of books on immunology, that your conclusion

"It could only have come about by accident"

does not hold up.

And nowhere, that I saw, do you explain how, from dead matter, conscious awareness arose. I think it more likely that, at every step of the way, there was a hand on the local scale. This 'hand' could take the form of a primordial consciousness field, as ubiquitous as gravity, that embodies awareness plus volition, and pushed the system to succeed where random statistics would prevent success.

The outcome is the same, but the meaning is vastly different.

I hope you will read my essay and comment.

Best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Conrad Dale Johnson,

I want to thank you for your wonderful essay. I found much of your essay resonated with thoughts I've been kicking around in my own head for quite some time, though I doubt I could have articulated them quite as well as you have.

Parts that particularly struck me:

The distinction you made between living and nonliving systems:

"The thing is, there's almost no way to do this, in physics. Though we sometimes hear that our universe is finely-tuned to support the existence of life, in fact almost nothing in the non-living world ever makes copies of anything, let alone of itself. "

The gap between the physical world and our mathematical models:

"Each nanosecond in each atomic nucleus in the universe, incredibly complex interactions go on that we can barely begin to approximate. "

The difference between brains and computers:

"So brain software is nothing like computer software, that gets installed just by copying it to another machine. Rather, the human mind has to get itself reinvented itself in every baby's brain. Each new version of this software is unique, and will never be repeated."

The uniqueness of each human person:

"Each human consciousness evolves its own universe. The world as seen with your eyes and imagined in your brain is a world no one else will ever see."

The observation that constraints are the source of possibility:

"Pure unconstrained possibility - as in the deep quantum vacuum - provides no context in which anything can make a meaningful difference."

I have judged your essay in accordance with its excellent merits. Please be kind enough to check out my own essay in the contest entitled "From Athena to AI" when you get the chance.

Best of luck,

Rick Searle

Hi Conrad,

I read your essay with interest.

In particular I liked "That's how the software gets itself reseeded in each new brain, through daily emotional contact with others whose software is already highly evolved." This resonates with me. I have the notion that emotion is a key to intention and meaning.

Thanks for your essay,

Don Limuti

Hi, Conrad, thanks for the good read! In the context of your essay, the comments you made about mine acquire even more meaning. Which, by the way, is a good way to stress that I truly valued your idea that context is crucial for meaning. Among the many interesting topics that you touched, one that has really captured me (biased by the ideas of my own essay) is to try to find a meaning (or should I say a context?) in which to understand the difference between replication and noise. Following you, and Dawkins, and Dennet and many others, I agree that self-replication plays a central role, and that so do copying mistakes. But the distinction between the two (between self replication and mistakes) requires a context. What do we mean by self replication? Specially when talking for example of ideas. What is a perfect copy of an idea? And a copy with Variations? Surely if you change too little, there is no mistake at all, otherwise nothing would be a copy. Even when DNA replicates the issue arises, though less dramatically. For example, we say there is a copying error when one base is mistaken, but not when one atom inside one base is replaced by an isotope. So before distinguishing what is a mistake and what is a perfect copy, we need a notion of equality, which is, in a sense, a context. And the context is defined not by what has happened so far, but by what is to happen next, right?

Ok, not truly sure of what I am saying, but by all means, your thoughts (replicated in my head with or without variations) are very useful to me. Thanks!

inés.

> The distinction is whether or not this new version works to make more copies.

Sure, but in order to decide whether something succeeded or not in producing copies, I need a notion of equality, or similarity.. don't you?

> So if I succeed here, it's because fortuitously I manage to set off something that makes sense for you

Sure, but again, I need the notion of similarity. Imagine I read your essay, so I get delayed, miss my normal bus, and take the next one. And there I happen to find an old school friend I had not seen for many years. Your essay will have set off something that makes sense to me, but not in the way we are intending it here. Any other thing dealying me would have had the same effect. There is still a causal link between me getting caught by your ideas and me meeting my friend. But the two events are too different from one another to state that one gives meaning to the other, are they not?

So this is the issue I am still trying to work out in my head. You have a recursive definition of meaning. But when I try to make it work, I always fall back on the need to try to define "copy" and "mistake", otherwise the recursive definition seems to dilute away in "something affecting something else", which is no more than to say that in the whole universe, all particles interact with all others. I truly like the your idea that something has meaning if it can produce more meaning. But I cannot separate it from "produce more meaning *of the same kind*".

am I missing something?

Note: In spite of my example of the bus above, I think that I do carry some copy of your ideas, modified to a sufficiently modest extent as to still be recognizable as daughter ideas - at least by me!

best,

ines.

Conrad,

I like the clear classification of the studied dimensions of meaning. Your changing context sounds somewhat like Aristotle's perception of human goals. Recursive functionality of meaning as common element for the three categories. I noted the comments on differences in molecules, but you said "In biology, finely-tuned systems of complex molecules make near-exact copies of themselves," which I thought accurate, not saying that bonding is the same.

I like the way you separate your dimensions of meaning: in everything we experience - human, biological and physical, and compare the recursive functionality, the brain sw installed and reinstalled not like computer sw.

You clearly distinguish the varied elements of the universe but perhaps focus less on the specific function of so-called mindless laws while I emphasize the broader universal scope of such laws, especially entropy.

Well done. I would like to hear your ideas on my essay.

Jim Hoover