Dear Torsten,

Thank you for the welcome! I am glad to see your essay here, and I look forward to read it!

Best wishes,

Cristi

Dear Stefan,

Thank you for your annotations, they bring some useful alternatives.

> "Even if mathematics would be the bottom layer of ultimate reality, i doubt that mathematics would be able to explain why this set of mathematical laws should be reserved to correlate with some physical stuff, or stated more precisely, be that physical stuff."

It is true that there is no known reason why a particular mathematical structure corresponds to our universe. Tegmark tries a sort of anthropic reasoning, which I explain why I didn't find convincing here.

About MUH, I avocate a similar position as Tegmark, but with less restrictions. I would include any mathematical structure.

> "Why not include all inconsistent mathematical descriptions and let there be an inconsistent (chaotic) universe (or infinitely many of them)?".

In my previous essays The Tao of It and Bit and And the math will set you free I advocate to include only a simple contradiction, and use it to derive all possibilities out of it. I add a condition of logical consistency to select the consistent universes. For some reason, I think that one should try first to find a mathematical structure, hence consistent description, for our universe. If it will turn out that only an inconsistent description can work, then that would be strange, and would include all other possibilities, including the consistent ones, into an all-inconsistent mix.

> "there are enough people out there who would say no, reality is absurd and irrational"

It clearly appears irrational to us, at least for the moment. In fact, I think we are irrational as a species. We are easily fooled by visual illusions and cognitive biases. But even if we would be perfect, it may take us long time to fully make sense of the universe. But I wouldn't blame the universe for irrationality yet, given that our brains are not so optimized to rationality as we would like to think.

I think the only chance we have to make sense of the universe is if it is consistent. It is a bit like Dr. Gregory House choosing the only diagnostics that is curable, and apply that treatment, and ignore the other possibilities with the same symptoms, because they can't be cured. We choose consistency because it is the only hope to understand the laws and the metalaws.

Best regards,

Cristi

Dear Christinel,

Your paper is interesting. It reminds me of an idea I had years ago of their being this levels or a hierarchy of being. I also thought is had some basis with the Godel-Turing thesis. I am not quite so concerned with these questions any more. It is not clear to me how something like Tegmarks mathematical universe hypothesis can ever be tested.

I do delve into issues of Godel's theorem in my essay. I used this essay contest as a way of displaying something I had worked on. This does involve spacetime singularities, but as you see the singularity is physically a monodromy more than anything. I remember you were quite concerned about showing that spacetime singularities do not exist as such.

Anyway, good job here. Your paper is better than most. I will score this to raise it out of the doldrums.

Cheers LC

    Dear Lawrence,

    Thank you for your comment. I look forward to read your essay, I think it contains some stuff that I am interested in.

    Best wishes,

    Cristi

    Dear Christi;

    Good to meet again here and thank you for a very understandable and informing piece of work, I have read it with great pleasure.

    You say : "The universe knows how to build atoms", if atoms a constructions of an architect, this why you mention perhaps that "Because of our limitations (compared to the architect), it is possible that some phenomena are not comprehensible to us".

    Of course he title architect is aiming at a power outside of ourselves, in my perception I argue that this is not a "power" or "personality" but a timeless and spaceless Hilbert space that I call Total Simultaneity.

    I very agree with you that "The tablet of the metalaw includes emergence, metatheorems, the relative interdependence and independence of various levels of reality"

    So I hope that you will find some time to read and comment on my "subjective experience" The Purpose of Life. I should be glad if gave it also the rating you think it deserves.(yours deserves for me an 8)

    best regards and good luck

    Wilhelmus

      Dear Wilhelmus,

      Thank you for your feedback. I didn't have in mind an architect when I wrote that "The universe knows how to build atoms", rather that the universe behaves like doing difficult calculations, which we are unable to do. And if we want to say the universe has a purpose, then the purpose seems to be that of behaving according to its own physical laws. If we want to see this as something like a primitive form of information processing or even thinking, this is also what builds us. Maybe there are no fundamental differences, even if you look at it as physical law or following a goal in a primitive way. I think what you said about the spaceless and timeless Hilbert space captures something very interesting, and I look forward to read your essay.

      Best wishes,

      Cristi

      Dear Cristinel,

      I always look forward to your entries and greatly enjoyed your latest.

      I especially liked the section comparing physics to negative theology:

      "We can only find out what the laws are not, through the no-go theorems - similar to apophatic theology.."

      Please be so kind to check out my own much more literary essay entitled "From Athena to AI" when you get the chance.

      Best of luck,

      Rick Searle

        Dear Cristinel,

        Thanks for a very nice essay. It was enjoyable to read and understand. I was hoping to clarify a few things.

        "Science is by definition objective - all definitions and inferences are objective, and the experiments have to be reproducible by anyone who follows the specifications. All easy problems of consciousness fall within the objective nature of science. But the very notion of subjective experience seems to escape any objective definition."

        I was curious if you have come across John Searle talking about the fallacy of ambiguity and what you think about it. He contends that it is possible to have an epistemically objective science of something that is ontologically subjective, like conscious experience. Here is a youtube link to a talk he gave at google discussing these ideas in greater detail.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHKwIYsPXLg&t=1393s

        "Maybe subjective experience emerges from the organization of matter, or as a property of information, like integration. Then, since matter is always structured and always processes information, we arrive at a kind of panpsychism reducible to the structure and information of matter."

        Do you think it is possible to avoid this type of panpsychism, if there is good reason that constrains the type of matter organization and external conditions, under which the matter might have a subjective experience.

        Looking forward to your thoughts and comments on this.

        Cheers

        Natesh

          Hi Christi ,

          Happy also to see you again on FQXI.

          I liked also your papper like the papper of Don Limuti.The free will and this determinism.How can we rank the importance of informations.How to consider this determinism and antideterminism and the encodings.It is about the reductionism also and the roads towards our singumlarities after all.Hilbert indeed was very relevant and Nother also.The works of Mr Van Leunen are interesting also.The AI could appear with determinism.

          Good luck in this contest

          Best from Belgium

            Dear Rick,

            I am glad to meet you again at this contest, and that you liked my essay. I plan to read your essay as soon as possible, it seems very appealing judging by the title and abstract.

            Best wishes,

            Cristi

            Dear Natesh,

            Thank you for the comments, and for the interesting questions.

            I didn't come across John Searle talking about the fallacy of ambiguity. I just started watching the video you sent me and I watched so far 30', and I like the idea of having an epistemically objective science of something that is ontologically subjective. It definitely is something to think about, thank yopu for sending me the link. Regarding the question about panpsychism, I think that if there is a way to see what is the level where subjective experience emerges, we may be able to decide it. I am not sure if this would be possible. I will read your essay, I feel there may be some connections.

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            Hi Steve,

            I'm glad to see you too again. Thanks for the comments and the recommended lectures. Hilbert and Noether rock! Have fun at this contest!

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            Dear Cristi,

            Very profound essay and ideas that show the real direction of the output from the crisis of understanding in the fundamental science.

            This is strong: «The Tablet of the Metalaw»!

            I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas.

            Kind regards,

            Vladimir

              Dear Vladimir,

              I am glad you liked the essay. I am looking forward to read your essay, which I think is interesting judging by the title and the provocative abstract.

              Best wishes,

              Cristi

              Dear Natesh,

              I finished watching John Searles' video. I like it, and there are many points in which I agree with him. I hoped that I can cast my arguments for a subjective science in terms of Searles' epistemically objective science of ontologically subjective things like consciousness, but I think it doesn't improve them. His idea of epistemic/ontological subjective/objective fit well with his view that what is something special about subjective experience is reducible to the biology (idea which I don't think is enough to explain subjective experience).

              Best regards,

              Cristi

              Hello Cristi

              Your essay reveals an open and inquisitive mind, which is most enjoyable to read.

              To the question about "nothing" I don't think you go far enough. Any sort of universe is a "something." Vacuum fluctuations, the string landscape, etc., are all something. Nothing = no universe. No universe = no mathematics.

              I believe you were on track when considering how profound subjectivity is than with "we are just substructures of ... a mathematical structure."

              You may be interested in my essay "Quantum spontaneity and the development of consciousness" where I try to validate our subjective experience without reducing it to matter or mathematics, or vice versa.

                I am pleased that you liked it. I know that you have worked to dethrone spacetime singularities. Of course in my essay they are really physically relevant of monodromies, which have topological consequences. This is in some ways a part of a program I have for understanding how we might renormalize quantum gravity.

                LC

                Hi James,

                I appreciate your comments.

                > Any sort of universe is a "something." Vacuum fluctuations, the string landscape, etc., are all something.

                This is exactly what I said.

                > Nothing = no universe. No universe = no mathematics.

                I take it that you refer to mathematics as a tool discovered/invented by humans. To see what I understand by mathematical structure, you can read my previous essay, and then read again my argument about something rather than nothing, and see if your syllogism still holds. In that essay I explained in more detail the logic behind the omnipresence of mathematical structures. This also answers the part related to mathematics from your other two comments. Of course, even then, you don't have to agree with me.

                > where I try to validate our subjective experience without reducing it to matter or mathematics, or vice versa

                To me, matter is nothing like classical physics matter, mathematical structures are nothing like a set of axioms and proof that fit in a human brain, and I don't think I try to reduce subjective experience to these or vice-versa. I compare different possible positions, including that there is only one stuff which is all three at the same time. I am satisfied without knowing the answers to unanswerable questions and without reducing things that we don't understand to other things that we also don't understand :)

                Best regards,

                Cristi

                Hi Cristi,

                I very much enjoyed your essay, and I have a couple of questions.

                The first is that you mention free will as being possibly "compatible with the determinism of the Schrödinger equation". This is an issue that I wish I had touched on more than the short paragraph it got in my essay, so I can't resist expanding a little bit here. Simply: I wonder if looking at free will in terms of determinism isn't by necessity an impasse, but if (as you seem to be leading towards as well) it would not be more fruitful to define it in terms of the specific nature of the determinism that is involved.

                If we accept that individuality can be characterised by information-theoretic relations (that make it possible to establish a clear but porous boundary between an organism and its environment), then an array of measurements for different aspects of this individualised organism's relationship with its environment becomes available. This provides a framework within which to define how and to what degree an organism's behaviour is controlled by its environment. Autonomy, openness, etc. could then lead to a satisfying description of free will.

                I wonder how you would see this view as relating to yours on this topic?

                The other is the classic question you bring up of "What breathes fire into the equations?" I wonder -- and this is way more speculative even than the previous part -- if mathematics doesn't admit a lower level of description that is entirely processual/functional, and that the static, timeless relations we have extracted above that are not "simply" special cases that happen to lend themselves to such static-oriented analysis. Notably I have been wondering how many paradoxes vanish if mathematical statements are taken to be transformative operations in which the output cannot conflict with the input since the world has changed by that very operation (eg. the barber shaves those who did not shave themselves in the current time step -- in the next step they will have shaved themselves and therefore will not do so again, etc.). In other words, the fire has always been there, we just took it out.

                Admittedly this notion is barely in its infancy and might require just a little bit more work ;-)

                Thanks a lot for sharing your essay!

                  Dear Christi

                  I found your essay very thought provoking. I like your open-mindedness, posing more questions than you provide answers to: "I am satisfied without knowing the answers to unanswerable questions and without reducing things that we don't understand to other things that we also don't understand." I also appreciate your point that mathematics as a tool may leave us short of a unified explanation of reality: "The lowest level of the pyramid of physics seems to be imperfectly rooted in the ground of mathematics" - and your use of the Hawking quote along similar lines.

                  The view, a la Tegmark, that mathematics can describe all would seem to lead us astray from the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. I say this because I think that the question is better posed as "why do we have THIS universe rather than nothing", and this universe has a set of laws which seem to be finely tuned to complexity. As the Hawking quote points out, why the universe would be inclined to create complexity is likely a question beyond maths. In my essay "From nothingness to value ethics" I try to explain why this tendency should be a fundamental consequence of existence from nothing - to create not only a when and a where, but also a WHAT. I would be interested in your opinion of this.

                  Best regards

                  Gavin