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

            Dear Lorraine,

            Many thanks for your encouraging comment in support of my ideas.

            Best regards,

            Vladimir

            Thanks very much Vladimir.

            I am looking at your essay now.

            Cheers,

            Lorraine

            Lorraine,

            Isn't 'living' itself just an emergent concept from the trillions of trillions of particles and interactions we're built from? Take those away and what's left? The only other option seems to be the metaphysical concept of a 'soul'. We can't rule that out of course, same as a God, but I think we should be scientifically honest about it if we invoke it.

            So unless we properly redefine 'living' in some other way I don't tend to agree that your last sentence, though the normal human response, is a true objective scientific statement.

            Another response most make, which I think is in error, is allowing subjective responses to content and 'agreement' with hypotheses of essays to affect our assessment of the quality of the essay. The scoring criteria don't include; 'degree of agreement' and quite rightly! All points of view should be argued, and as well as possible, which you've done. So our different take on things doesn't detract from the value of your delightfully written and presented essay. Well done. Scoring it now.

            Very best

            Peter

            (now returning to the negative charged hemisphere - though as I wrote in 2014 'there is no 'UP' in space'!)

            Dear Lorraine,

            I very much enjoyed your essay. I read it before and felt that you perhaps over-stated your case. After reading again, I'm re-thinking this. I believe I got hung up on terminology, while your concept is good.

            Either there is free will or not, and I do believe in free will; I'm not sure if there's a better example of the universe "generating its own rules". This must somehow begin with "fine-tuning" and proceed at the level of every living thing. It is my basic assumption, but the one I have the least explanation for.

            As usual, your essay is chock full of things I agree with, from computers deterministically processing symbolic representation of higher-level subjectively experienced information, etc., and computer's inability to achieve self-awareness (which I've expanded on with Natesh Ganesh) to "no deep understanding of emergence", and the view of it as progressive restrictions on degrees of freedom.

            As one who believes information comes into existence when an energy threshold triggers a structural change ('in'-forming the system) , I agree with you about "must derive from local physical structures".

            I tend to depart some from your views of quantum mechanics, but that does not detract from your essential points; it only changes the way in which your points are achieved. It is hard (impossible?) to argue with your point that "the universe is all there is ... that necessarily generates its own rules." If there is free will, this must, in some way, be an ongoing process.

            I'm glad I re-read your essay! I will rate it tonite.

            Also, I'm sure your living with and loving your local nature-life does not hurt your thinking about these things. The wildlife diversity on our ranch is soul-refreshing, making it easier to see into the nature of things.

            My very best wishes,

            Edwin Eugene Klingman

              Lorraine, I'm so sorry -- I didn't see that rating ended yesterday. I love your essay. Your clarity on several points that we both share is very refreshing.

              I'm traveling right now, but will get back to you later (if they let me).

              Jim

              Thanks Edwin. Our views about the nature of reality have so much in common. And I think it is true that living amongst nature, letting nature speak to us, makes it "easier to see into the nature of things."

              Congratulations on coming first in the community ratings! I sincerely hope that this translates into winning a prize. I hope that this is not a "Foundational Questions" Institute in name only!

              Regards,

              Lorraine

              8 days later

              You are welcome,

              It is a beautiful plant.At this moment I see the acer palamatums growing and the leaves are beautiful also in my small garden.

              Friendly