Goals emerge in macroscopic descriptions of the world by Stefan Keppeler

James Hoover

Stefan,

Clear and sensible connection between micro and macro worlds, a conclusion that "if the macroscopic entities under question are suп¬ѓciently п¬‚exible and suп¬ѓciently rigid,mindless mathematical laws can give rise to aims and intention"

In my essay I feature the mindless physical law of entropy operating at many levels in the universe with an interesting theory built on the second law of dynamics by Jeremy England. Without making your clear micro-macro connection I try to show that human decisions sometimes speculate theories putting together complex arrangements of life's elements.

Hope you can provide your ideas on my essay.

Regards,

Jim Hoover

Stefan Keppeler

Dear Jim, thanks for reading and pointing to the ideas of Jeremy England, which might eventually lead us to a better understanding of origin and characteristics of life and possibly other life-like phenomena. I also commented over at your page. Cheers, Stefan

James Hoover

Stefan,

Did you read my essay and give it a rating? During this contest, there are more partisan strikes piggy-backing on comments or providing no comments.

Jim

Stefan Keppeler

All of it. Didn't you see the comment over at your page?

James Hoover

You thought it was that bad.

Stefan Keppeler

No, I didn't. And I didn't give you a particularly bad rating either, if that's what you want to imply. Not everybody rates at the very same time they post, and I have also noticed a couple of strange movements in my rating, which I don't think were correlated with how the discussion here evolved. The rating system is somewhat strange, but the winners will be picked by expert judges and prizes are not all. However, I don't think that this is the kind of discussion we should be having here. The contest is fun with lots of good ideas coming up. I already learned some nice things.

Miles Mutka

I liked the discussion of rigidity, it is an interesting observation. Buckminster Fuller would say that you need both tension and integrity. In my essay I hinted at interactions between solidity and liquidity.

Stefan Keppeler

Dear Miles, thanks for reading and commenting. I have to admit that my definitions of rigidity and flexibility are rather vague -- essentially, I just discuss examples. Therefore, I wouldn't want to make strong claims about how these notions relate to solidity or fluidity -- although this is a valid suggestion of yours! As Inés pointed out above, it should be possible to frame those conditions in a substrate-independent fashion. Cheers, Stefan

Huy Van

hi Stefan,

Good article, I am very interesting and thank you for this article. Very happy to read this article.

thiet ke web ben tre

Stefan Keppeler

Thank you :-)

George Kirakosyan

Hi Dear Stefan,

I have opened your essay and start read it. My first impression is that your approach is surprisingly logic. After reading of you, everybody can think that is very simple to understand that all beautiful buildings are constructed from bricks. OK, it is, but there are many people, who do not like to start from such simplest truth, and they move to complications and making trouble for themselves! I am writing on this subject mainly in my essay, calling them to go on the comprehensible path ... I think we can find comprehension with each other on this. Hope you will look my work and we will continue talk in my page.

Best Regards

Stefan Keppeler

Dear George, thanks for the praise. As you suggest, I'll comment on the topics of your essay at your page. Cheers, Stefan

George Kirakosyan

Many thanks Stefan for your kindly comment (in my page.)

Unfortunately I cannot promise to read recommended books, I am not so well with english to read such serious works. But I am very thankful to you that you pointed on de Broglie - Bohm theory that is one most respected for me work in theoretic physics. Let me just say one remark on this. If we are agree with rightness and significance of this theory then we must to reject the accepted present interpretation of QM. Then you can imagine where we can reach by this way. I think this understand not only you and me, but our advanced leaders also. However they cannot say and do this because they will forced to recognise that more than 100 years we was on the wrong path! Particularly, for this now you and me are forced rethinking again on what is the purpose of natural science, of math. Or, on what purpose God or math (meaningless!) had made all things and on other such "actual" questions to got the prizes! That is why we going by different ways! (Because now there is not seen any reasonable direction at all!)

Whatever, let to wish successes each to other!

Best Regards

Edwin Klingman

Dear Stefan,

You phrase the problem very well: goals characterize macroscopic systems [virus, bacteria, ...humans] but are absent from microscopic [atoms, molecules]. You use Boltzman's explanation of irreversibility to link macrostates to ensembles of microstates with varying distributions, the basis of the Partition function. You ask "could the explanation for emergent goal-oriented dynamics in the world which is, microscopically, governed by 'mindless mathematical laws' be similar to Boltzman's explanation of irreversibility?"

Your discussion of microstates of an arm was quite interesting, leading to the desirability of including new descriptive terms like goals and intentions, and this is "not automatically at variance with goal-free microscopic laws." I thought your examples of rigidity and flexibility were insightful and appropriate.

You've produced a well reasoned essay in which you conclude that "mindless mathematical laws can give rise to aims and intentions." But I believe this is because of the way in which you framed the argument. I believe rather than such 'emerging' from mindless math, you have instead 'imposed' such on mindless math.

Thanks for an interesting read, and thanks for reading and commenting on my essay.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Stefan Keppeler

Dear Edwin,

thank you for reading and commenting. I agree that my conclusion that "mindless mathematical laws can give rise to aims and intentions" heavily depends on how I interpreted FQXi's question. Many contributions fall into two categories corresponding to two different interpretations of the question "How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?"

Some essays interpret the "mindless mathematical laws" as elements of our theories about the world. Then the question gets the following meaning: (i) We use the notions of goals, aims or intention in some of our theories about the world. (ii) We do not use these notions in what we call our "fundamental" theories. (iii) How can that be? Can (i) even be consistent with (ii)? If yes, what happens somewhere on the way from (ii) to (i). My essay falls in this category.

Other essays interpret the "mindless mathematical laws" in an ontological way. Then the question presupposes that mathematics itself is the foundation of the world, not only as an element of a theory but as an element of the world itself. The task would then be to explain how the material world together with goals, aims or intentions arises from mathematics. Some essays embrace this idea and develop some kind of Platonism. Others reject it. Yours is of the latter kind.

Your conclusion "math is a formal byproduct, having nothing to do with giving rise to awareness, volition, or purpose" and my conclusion cited above sound mutually exclusive. But given that we answer different questions, I think that our conclusions do not even contradict each other.

Cheers, Stefan

Edwin Klingman

Dear Stefan,

"But given that we answer different questions, I think that our conclusions do not even contradict each other."

I agree,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear Stefan,

With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of the highest praise.

You are absolutely right that «macroscopic theories are necessary in order to describe the world on a larger scale, and that these theories, even when they display qualitatively new features, are fully compatible with microscopic descriptions from which the very same features are absent.»

I believe that it is provisions of yours that are the key to the answer about the self-organization of matter and to the question set by this contest.

In addition, I show that «The assertion of the existence of quantum phenomena only in the microcosm is not sufficiently substantiated the phenomenological generalizations.»

Stefan Keppeler

Dear Vladimir, thank you for the kind words. I'll have to read your essay carefully before I can reply to your comment. Cheers, Stefan

Natesh Ganesh

Hi Stefan,

An extremely well written essay and I have rated it accordingly. I find ourselves in agreement on most points. I especially like the discussion on the right mix of rigidity and flexibility. I usually refer to what we are as the Goldilocks zone of rigidity and flexibility. Also I think if you called the rock as too rigid and a gas as being too flexible, it might allow you to talk about us as liquid, the right amount of rigidity and fluidity...not a criticism, just an analogy to think about. I view our goal oriented agency as phase transitions in input mapping on a physical system. I go a little further along the line of ideas in your essay and present some thermodynamic constraints under which the macrostate might exhibit such behavior. I would be very interested in your thoughts on my submission "Intention is Physical".

Also have your read Erik Hoel's submission? He too discusses macro over micro using the idea of causal emergence. I would be interested in your thoughts on that.

Cheers

Natesh

Stefan Keppeler

Dear Natesh,

thank you for this positive review! Amusingly, your essay has been lying on my desk the whole day, but haven't found the time to read it, yet. I'll reply after I've read it.

Concerning your remark about Erik Hoel's contribution, I liked it and we had a short exchange on his page.

Cheers, Stefan

Stefan Keppeler

Dear Natesh, as you've hinted at details of your essay I'll reply on your page - makes probably more sense. Cheers, Stefan

« Previous Page Next Page »