Hello Peter,

Glad you liked my essay. Thanks for that.

Re "did I miss anything else?":

If oneself is entirely of-a-continuous-lawful-piece with the rest of reality, then no amount of philosophical gymnastics can turn this topology into "free will". Free will requires that a thing possesses the lawful power (i.e. the same status as a law-of-nature) to move itself in relationship to the rest of reality. Clearly, this is a power that even fundamental particles have: these are the outcomes that look random to an observer. Free will also requires us to acknowledge that the power to make laws resides within the universe, not in a mythical Platonic realm.

Re AI:

My point is that AI doesn't actually generate rules, it generates models/representations of rules, and models/representations of learning, and it processes models/representations of information. This is as opposed to actual "living" rules (e.g. laws-of-nature), and "living" information (i.e. subjective experience).

Will read your essay as soon as I can.

Lorraine

Lorraine,

Thanks for an enjoyable read. I am in complete agreement with you regarding constraints affecting behavior. That is the basis of catalysts and enzymes and probably all biological functions.

I am puzzled by what you mean regarding "one-off" rules. A rule is something applied repeatedly. How can a rule be "one-off"? This may simply be a question of semantics. Saying "one-off" event might have the same general meaning that you intend.

Can you provide an example of such a "one-off" rule or event as it pertains to physics or chemistry?

Is there a measureable difference between a random event and a "one-off" rule or event? How can you know the difference between the two conceptions?

Your motivation seems to be as a means of explaining some of the oddities from QM. Can an individual particle make a choice? Can an electron choose to be either up-spin or down-spin for example. Can a photon choose its path through the two-slit experiment?

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    Gary,

    Thanks for taking a look at my essay.

    Re "one-off" local rules:

    One way of looking at the situation in the universe might be in terms of possibilities and constraints: existing "law-of-nature" rules have constrained almost all possibility, but there are still gaps which require local fixing with one-off local rules to constrain "quantum randomness". We would represent such a one-off local rule with an equation that resets the value of one of the "uncertain" system variables to a new numeric value. Up-spin/down-spin outcomes and photon path outcomes in the two-slit experiment are examples of possibility having been locally constrained.

    Atoms and molecules and living structure are also further local constraints on possibility, but it is these constraints on possibility that allows the development of the structure. As structure progresses, all further constraints on possibility seemingly require existing rules plus new rules.

    But where are the rules and knowledge of the rules coming from? I'm saying that it is the structure itself that knows and creates new rules, while the structure itself embodies existing rules. The structure "knows" because rules are in effect categories, i.e. categories of knowledge, i.e. concepts, subjective experience.

    Lorraine

    Lorraine,

    If you have not done so, you should take a look at the essay by Peter Punin. He presents the question of the first occurrence of a new event. The nomenclature is very formal.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

    Gary,

    I'll have a look at Peter Punin's essay.

    But why the belief that what drives reality lies in greener pastures far away in a Platonic realm? Why the belief that our universe has no inherent capability? Why the belief that it's all happening somewhere else? What does that mean about your attitude to our here and now situation? I fear that you are intellectually and emotionally attached to the wrong (hypothetical) place.

    See my above post entitled Numbers in a universe without a Platonic realm where I say: "Physics can be seen as the discovery of actual relationships that exist in the universe; but mathematics can be seen as the discovery of the properties and nature of all possible types of relationships that can be represented symbolically, where the vast majority of these potential relationships don't actually exist in the universe." Mathematics merely symbolically represents possible relationships; but the actual universe has generated "living" relationships, not symbols of relationships.

    Lorraine

    Lorraine,

    If you have not read Punin's essay, how do you know he argues for Platonism? Or do you simply remember he is a Platonist from the last essay contest?

    For me personally, I don't necessarily believe in a Platonist universe but I do think that whatever laws exist already exist. They might be discovered but I don't think new laws are created. Having stated that, that does not exclude randomness from being a part of a law or a limit to information as being a part of a law. For example, my thinking regarding the uncertainty principle is fairly simple ... when a measurement is taken, some energy is exchanged between what is measured and whatever does the measuring. If the thing that is measured is very small, the energy that is exchanged is large enough to change the thing that was measured ... so, you can know where a small something was, but you cannot know where it now is because the act of measurement changed the thing that was measured.

    I agree with your post .... math represents all kinds of abstractions .... physics is a subset of mathematics that represents things that we observe in our universe. That was the essence of the last essay contest.

    As for me personally, I decide what to believe based upon two things ... what is observed and what is the simplest explanation for what is observed?

    I have a hard time believing that a single electron or a single photon has agency simply because they do not have any known internal structure. For me, I need some kind of empirical evidence that they are capable of making a choice and the evidence must be distinct from randomness. What I mean by this is that randomness and agency must make different predictions and the observed behavior must agree with the hypothesis of agency. If they make the same prediction then I go with the more simple hypothesis i.e., randomness.

    Best Regards and Good Luck,

    Gary Simpson

    PS - I scored your essay several days ago ... somewhere between a 5 and 10. No one bombing here.

    Gary,

    I didn't think that you would be one of the "bombers", so thanks for that.

    Randomness is not a "simple hypothesis", far from it. I'm hypothesising that the outcome of quantum randomness is due to a one-off local rule, in the same way that all fundamental-level outcomes are due to law-of-nature rules/relationships. Randomness is completely out of character, but a one-off local rule is not.

    As you will appreciate, new rules are never the result of a deterministic process: rules are the start of a deterministic process; the advent of rules in a universe is a non-deterministic event. My essay looks at a universe that generates/causes its own rules. Given the same set of rules, different hypotheses about the causes of the rules in the universe, will lead to different conclusions about the nature of reality in the universe.

    The trouble with "randomness" as a solution, is that it has the same effect as if a one-off local rule has been enacted, and therefore this "randomness" has the same status as a one-off local law-of-nature rule i.e. a genuine force of nature. And yet when you look at lists of the laws of physics, you will never see "random outcomes" as one of the items in the list. "Randomness" is not a cause: the word "randomness" when applied to quantum outcomes merely means that no hypothesis about the actual cause of the outcome has been ventured.

    Neither quantum "random" outcomes nor outcomes due to human agency can be fully deterministically predicted (naturally, most but not all variable numbers representing these physical outcomes will be fully determined). It is only pseudo randomness that can be deterministically produced, and will always produce the same results if the same input numbers are given. I'm saying that you can't distinguish an essential difference between quantum "random" outcomes and outcomes due to human agency.

    Regards,

    Lorraine

    Lorraine,

    Thanks. But another question, on 'subjectivity'. What would you say the difference is between these pairs;

    A; Two advanced & complex 'fluid learning' AI Android brains, (a&b) getting different experiences, then categorising cross referencing and storing them, then accessing the data to inform 'test run' decisions, then again when the 'feedback' comes back, (ether from internal or external response mechanisms) maybe many times, to 'refine' to a final choice of decision. The decision (or it's neural switch pattern) may then be retained as a reference guide, so becomes what we call and an 'aim'.

    and B) Two humans given exactly the same two sets of different inputs, remembering them, then evaluating choices by imagining possible outcomes before reaching a decision which may become an 'aim'?

    Sop the question is; Are A (a&b) inputs and processes less 'subjective' that the two humans? If so; what do you see as the key difference/s?

    Best

    Peter

    Dear Lorraine,

    I read with great interest your essay with ideas and conclusions that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists, lyricists, poets and musicians filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

    I completely agree with you:

    ﾂｫThe universe as an isolated system has necessarily generated, and continues to generate, all its own lower-level rules, both long-term law-of-nature rules, and simple one-off local rules to resolve quantum possibilities.ﾂｻ

    ﾂｫ...the actual universe has generated "living" relationships, not symbols of relationships.ﾂｻ

    Hence, the problem of the ontological basification (foundation / justification ) of mathematics (knowledge) today is the problem 邃-1 for fundamental knowledge and philosophy, taking into account all the "troubles with physics"(Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") and "loss of certainty" (Morris Kline in "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty"). . I give my highest rating.

    I believe, that only extremely constructive metaphysics, and the global "brain storm" will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation.

    I invite you to read my ontological ideas .

    Best regards,

    Vladimir

      Peter,

      Re What I think are "key differences":

      1. Lawful relationship.

      Subjectivity is information/knowledge/subjective experience that derives from lawful relationship, not from representations of relationship.

      E.g. you can represent the lawful mass-energy equivalence relationship on paper, or in a computer, but the computer components that symbolise m and the separate computer components that symbolise E are not themselves related by the lawful mass-energy equivalence relationship: they only represent the lawful relationship. Obviously, the representation does not have the power of the law.

      Similarly, the computer/ robot/ "AI" components that represent supposed brain processes are merely representations of inputs to brains, representations of physical brain components, representations of lawful causal relationship via representations of algorithms (e.g. logic gates represent an IF/THEN part-algorithm), representations of supposed connections linking brain components, and representations of outcomes.

      The representation does not have the power of the living/lawful relationships embodied in advanced molecules. It is the co-opting of law-of-nature rules, and their further lawful constraining, within the structure of advanced molecules, cells and organs that distinguishes higher-level information in living things from the lower-level particular-, atomic- and molecular-level information in non-living things like robots. In a computer/ robot/ "AI", it is actually lower-level information that is being processed, while at the same time representations of higher-level information are in effect being processed.

      Advanced information can maybe be seen as advanced lawful constraints on possibilities via laws/rules embodied in molecules (that can only exist within an appropriate environment): it is not about the representation of these rules by physically separated components in a robot.

      2. Subjective experience.

      Subjectivity is information/knowledge/subjective experience that derives from lawful relationship, not from representations of relationship.

      The similarity between law-of-nature rules and subjective experience is that they both consist of categories of information, and relationships between existing categories making new categories of information. Categories are merely transposed rules/relationships. Note that what are called "initial values" are also rules: simple rules involving information categories.

      I'm saying that categories are concepts are subjective experience.

      Dear Vladimir,

      Thanks. Good to see you back in this contest.

      I think that what you say is correct: "...only extremely constructive metaphysics, and the global "brain storm" will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation."

      Hope to read your essay as soon as possible.

      Regards,

      Lorraine

      Lorraine,

      Thanks for clarifying. I entirely agree re maths, algorithms and computers, and tend to agree but have had nagging doubts about how far that can go. i.e. Deep & fluid learning in AI is now based very closely on our own neural networks, so may be created by us but are they significantly more more 'representations' than the children we also create? Who says who the law applies to or not?

      That leads to; Can we prove that our OWN brains are not 'representations' of something? - simply more complex than the ones WE can create so far. So I'm really questioning the assumption that there's a clear 'lawfulness' line, so asking; if there is the 'separation' you invoke, what specifically defines it?

      I can't see subjectivity can be it as both humans and AI can now have exactly the same direct range of input data range similar sensors.

      The only answer I can find (as the feedback loops and layered logic can now be recreated) is in the Kolgorov complexity and uncertainty of and from the smallest quantum interactions, which is a reason I focused on 'decoding' what we call 'noise'. So the question would then be, and you may be the girl to answer this; are computers systems not subject to the same uncertainty rules that we are? Why do our computers often have glitches and throw up random abnormal behaviours? (or even crash for no obvious reason!)

      So IS there any way of proving we're not a 'hologram', or that there's no god?

      Lastly; You may know Elon Musk has been well involved in AI, and has said once we have a real AI it's be lethal to us, even with a 'kill switch' it'd kill us first or disable it. Valid point?

      Very best

      Peter

      Bravissimo Ms. Eord! I give a standing ovation to you. Excellent work. Only so it is necessary to write an essay. Of course i'll give high score.

      Best regards and good luck,

      Vladimir A. Rodin

      http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2752

        Dear Lorraine,

        Our essay suggests some criticism on panpsychism and anti-platonism. I rated your composition high for its seriousness and your will to truth, so I am curious to see your reflection on our objections. In case you did not yet rate our essay, I would appreciate you will do it.

        Cheers,

        Alexey Burov.

          Dear Lorraine,

          Many thanks for your post on our page! I just answered you there.

          All the best,

          Alexey Burov.

          Peter,

          This is my assessment of the situation:

          From the point of view of the universe (i.e. the things of the universe: particles, atoms, molecules and living things), the essence of information is law-of-nature rules and initial-value rules for the system variables. Information derives from a structure of lawful relationships that interconnect everything. From the point of view of the universe, information is not zeroes and ones. Unrelated-to-anything-else sets of zeroes and ones can signify information only from the human point of view.

          The essence of rules is that they restrict existing possibility. In addition to law-of-nature rules, living things embody new rules in their molecules, which restrict possibility in the living system. These amazing molecules originally derive from quantum "randomness/possibility". The properties of living things are built out of this inbuilt higher-level restriction of possibility, and also the continuing ability to restrict quantum possibility via the generation of local initial-value rules.

          Computers, robots, and "AIs" embody law-of-nature rules, but they don't have the structure which would allow this higher-level restriction of possibility. Autonomous machines can be designed to kill, but the only possible higher-level intelligences are living things.

          Regards,

          Lorraine

          Lorraine,

          I have commented on your essay above. But I need to let you know that you got it right when you commented on Brendan's blog.

          It is so spot on that I repeat it here:

          *****************************************************************************************

          Re ethics:

          My impression is that the only thing that ever shook human complacency, self-centredness and hubris is various forms of disaster: personal, financial, ecological, war etc. I'm probably talking about you and me, not just everyone else. Mere words, logic, or ethics rarely ever pricked the bubble of complacency, self-centredness and human hubris.

          To ever look beyond one's own little life, logic, ethics, knowledge and experience is required to evaluate the situation, and to find solutions for problems identified. Then various vested interests in the status quo battle to stop solutions being implemented. Not that the situation is really quite that simple.

          Another problem is deluded over-confident illogical men (it's mainly men): you'll see plenty of them in this essay contest. They will try to tell you that the machines are going to take over the world, or that the universe itself is in effect a machine, or that the universe is a mathematical space, or that reality is a computer simulation. The latest manifestation is the brave new emergenteers who miraculously make consciousness and free will emerge out of complexity. These are the brave new illogical religions and the new illogical "miracles".

          ****************************************************************************************

          I invite you to visit my essay (as you said you would). And remember that my goal is to win this contest :)

          Don Limuti

            Dear Lorraine,

            With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating. Excellently written.

            I share your aspiration to seek the truth

            «Our universe is both constrained by law-of-nature rules, and free to make new short-term local rules.»

            «But the issue is not "how does structure emerge?". The issue is "how do rules (representable by mathematical equations) emerge?". The answer is that rules that control the system in question don't emerge: rules are ex nihilo introductions to the system.»

            «the essay doesn't give examples of simple emergence which might help to explain more complex emergence.»

            I wish you success in the contest.

            Kind regards,

            Vladimir

              Lorraine,

              Thanks for visiting my essay. And for providing some needed balance in this essay contest with your essay and your confronting the bozos.

              Appreciate your contribution!

              Don Limuti

              Dear Sirs!

              Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

              New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

              New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

              Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

              Sincerely,

              Dizhechko Boris