Wandering Towards Physics: Participatory Realism and the Co-Emergence of Lawfulness by Marc Séguin

Marc . . .

Thank you for a very excellent and easy-to-read essay. Your explanations were clear and reasonable. I have been thinking along very similar lines.

I especially like your ISAAC (Infinite Set of All Abstract Computations), although I would leave out the Computations and see it as IDAA, the Infinite Domain of All Abstractions. This is because I don't see why everything has to be a computation. (Not as keen an acronym I will admit. I'm a fan of Asimov!)

I do believe that mathematical structures can form the physical universe, but there is no need to try and force intentionality out of computations. Mathematical structures are a subset of a greater abstract entity, one which includes all other non-computational structures. This abstract entity I would call the Ideaverse, which is the infinite domain of all Ideas, or Abstractions. Human qualities such as awareness, intentionality and other attributes of a mind, such as desire, imagination, curiosity, goal-seeking and love, that seem to be difficult to obtain from mathematical laws are still ideas, just as mathematical structures are. So just as mathematical ideas are the physical universe, abstract ideas like intentionality are intentionality.

You brought up the HPL, Hard Problem of Lawfulness. "If every possibility exists within the Maxiverse, irregular and chaotic worlds should greatly outnumber regular and predictable worlds like ours." One explanation is that the "Maxiverse" (or Ideaverse, as I called it) is an abstract reality. It does not have existence in the sense of being perceivable, so those chaotic worlds remain only abstractions.

But within the Ideaverse is the idea of Mind, which is the idea of an activating agent of ideas. Mind is that which activates ideas, including mathematical ideas, and makes them existent and perceptible. This is equivalent to the opposite of abstract, that is to say, "concrete." So the mind is what activates ideas that are reasonable and at least somewhat stable. This includes the ideas of a physical spacetime universe, intentionality and goals.

You say, "In the same way, could the dead-ends we have been encountering over the past decades in fundamental physics (the failure to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, the proliferation of solutions in the landscape of M-theory) be interpreted as signs that we are nearing the edge of our patch of lawfulness in the space of all possibilities?"

Interesting, as this is the interpretation I made in my essay. Not all ideas the mind activates will mesh with other ideas that it's already accepted.

Thank you for the great references you gave, which will serve me well in my further study and contemplation.

Michael Z. Tyree

Nice essay Seguin,

Your ideas and knowledge are excellent about history of Physics, for eg...

Consciousness, with its power of agency and volition, emerges out of a physical level of description where interactions take place according to "mindless" laws, while the rigid laws that obey the physical interactions are, in some real sense, an emerging consequence of the existence of a community of conscious observers that share between themselves a coherent story about a lawful and stable world

A Good idea, I fully agree with you probably the Universe also had a mind and consciousness of its own ............

..................... At this point I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

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

Dear Marc,

Thanks for the insightful and well written essay. It helped be understand the Q-bist approach a bit better and I'm interpreting your essay as a way to build upon that approach. It seems to me that Q-bism is essentially a double-down on the many-worlds approach. That is, not only are alternative universes created from each quantum level collapse, they are also produced at the macro-level...including collapses brought about through measurement/observation. Are you are suggesting that our physical reality somehow arises as a kind of a shared "structure" created through the Q-bist-like collapse between over-lapping fields of interaction? That is, as we are collapsing all possibilities into particular events, we are co-collapsing all manner of other things along with it, and the totality of that co-collapse is the universe we experience at each moment together with all the stuff that has co-collapsed with us. Is that sort-of correct? If not, can you summarize in a few sentences what you mean?

Also, if you find time, i'd love your thoughts on my own essay.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2790

Good luck in the competition!

Cheers,

William

Dear Marc,

It is good to see your entry in this contest. I learned from, and enjoyed, your essay last year. I think I like this one better, although perhaps part of the reason for this is that I am now somewhat more familiar with some of the relevant ideas.

However that may be, I find Table 1 especially helpful. It systematizes and co-ordinates topics in a way that I have not seen before.

Obviously, because we are discussing ontology of the most fundamental and comprehensive sort, there are many things to say. I will suggest only that you might want to add both a column and a row to your table. The column should be for "Values first." This would accommodate John Leslie's proposal that ethical requiredness is the basis for existence. An important ancestor of Leslie's theory is Plato's system in which the Form of the Good is both the highest form and the organizing principle for the realm of forms. The forms, in turn, are the basis of order in the temporal world. I believe that Leslie cites Plato on this point. Some other thinkers who might be categorized as holding theories of the other kinds (God first, Mind first, Physics first, and so on) to some extent also advocate Values first, because these thinkers contend that their first principle is good.

The row I would suggest would be for "Evil." Even without adding the column for values, I think this row should be seriously considered. Evil, like delusion and solipsism, is a problem that any ontological theory needs to address. Indeed, a "Values first" ontology will have more difficulty than the other kinds of theories with explaining the facts of evil. Thus, I suggest adding a column for a type of ontology and a row for the chief difficulty with theories of that type.

Thanks for a stimulating and challenging essay. I look forward to discussing these ideas further, here in the FQXi contest pages and perhaps in other ways after the conclusion of the contest.

Laurence Hitterdale

Dear Marc . . .

Thank you for your reply to my comment. I read your essay again to try and understand your idea of co-emergentism better. I also studied again your table of the problems that arise in thinking about these things, and the different approaches that answer them. The Co-emergentism column is similar to my approach and other ideas are similar. This line from your essay in particular is how I have felt for most of my life:

". . . an extreme rationalist should believe in the existence of all possible worlds, because in this case the whole of reality is less arbitrary than if only some worlds exist and others don't."

And in reading many books, articles and essays that address this question of the ultimate reality, I have to say I do get a sense of arbitrariness in most of them. That is why this line in your essay caught my eye:

". . . the fact that abstractions are the most fundamental thing you can possibly imagine, and that the ensemble of all of them contains no information, makes them the ideal foundation for a theory of the Universe."

I completely agree with the thought that abstractions are the most fundamental thing there is. So any hypothesis that depends upon many specifics seems to be arbitrary, or the opposite of abstract. It also must explain where those specifics came from.

I am not familiar with information theory, so I am not sure how the ensemble of all abstractions contains no information. I wonder if you might clarify that for me?

Thanks again and good fortune with the contest!

Michael

Marc,

A high quality essay, giving me at least a fresh view on how we're 'wandering around' a fundamental solution. On the question 'Do I agree with 'co-emergence'? I like QBism so half agree, but 'unreal' abstract structure I reject outright. I was disappointed that as a top 3 neighbour you didn't comment on my last essay on that subject. To save an essay here you'll find an alternative 'real structure' described in mine this year, with real 'participatory realism! (Bohr and von Neuman ALSO stressed the meter/observer role). I'd greatly value your views. We do have language (history and cosmology) in common. On history; wasn't it 'Isaac' that means 'laugh', and him who moved to the Philistine lands? Is that a wise acronym?! - but he did last 180 years!

On 'strange loops' I agree that as a basis of 'quantum' intelligence if not QM. Does not the ability to set up neural 'feedback loops' surely define the 'consciousness' topics? One we can use information stored to 'imagine' scenario's and trigger biochemical release and motor neurone responses which then inform further scenario's, do learning and decisions on choices or 'aims' then not emerge of necessity? Is that not a better application of a loop than loopy 'backward causality'? answering; "The problem of free will and effective intention".?

I did like the; "infinite number of deluded observers, and an infinite number of non-deluded ones" similar to an earlier essay of mine, however I haven't yet located many of the latter so hope you may point me to some!?

Do you not think that the problem of a "rock-bottom" foundation is really that in our present evolutionary state we won't recognise it when we see it? In other words; we haven't recognised it in front of our eyes?

Finally, to pick just one (No4) from your chart; "How does the quantum wave-function "transition" to the observed classical world?" Is 'the wave-function' not just an unreal assumption? You wrote yourself it's an abstraction of reality. If we ask; "How does the observed classical world produce QM's predictions from exchanges of momentum on interactions" Might not the answer suddenly emerge from the mists were wandering in? Do you not think we may be fighting to get round the trees in the search for the wood?

Anyway. Great essay and food for thought on current doctrine(s) and 'reports from expeditions' into the dark (& misty!) Ly-a forest.

Very Best

Peter

Dr Seguin,

Your comments indicate that you have not read my essay, but have only extracted brief passages that you then misrepresent.

I never said "the problem of consciousness will actually turn out to be irrelevant." Nor did I say that I find "analysis of 'information, emergence, or teleology' quite 'tedious'" (even if it often is!).

Why do you put words in my mouth and twist what I say to suit your own agenda?

As for the Rotonian conception of gravity, the whole point is that this hypothetical civilization sees fit to QUESTION the "Earthian" concept of potential. They emphasize the fact that, with regard to gravity-induced motion through the CENTERS of gravitating bodies, this concept has never been TESTED.

Instead of rolling with the Rotonians' inquisitive, playful spirit, your remarks seem to reflect a closed-minded smugness in the ASSUMED correctness of standard ideas about gravity even in the unexplored, yet accessible regime right under our noses where these ideas have not yet been TESTED.

Surely the spirit of Galileo would have us conduct the experiment before pretending to know its result. Surely Galileo would have at least had a sense of humor about exploring the nature of gravity.

Richard Benish

Marc,

Those are brilliant comments and I really thank you for delving so deeply. What you haven't seen is my cosmological paper presenting comprehensive predictions of the model, answering your questions above and coherently resolving a tranche of unknowns and anomalous findings, i.e. It causally shows precisely how complex galaxy bars can be produced, which emerges from the first actual temporal cycle of galaxy 'type' evolution, producing satellites 'dwarfs' etc, the halo 'counter rotations' still not otherwise explained, the role & mechanisms of AGNs', ALL the major asymmetries in the CMB found in WMAP and Planck, mass growth, even 'dark matter' (nothing exotic required), pre 'BigBang' condition, and a whole host of other things that all just 'appeared' like when a great jigsaw puzzle suddenly comes together. It's not something I've 'tried' to do, it just all started emerging on cracking SR and trying to falsify that solution. I've been desperately trying to falsify an ever bigger model ever since but it just keeps throwing solutions back at me!

Sure much of it demands fundamental re-thinking of some long held assumptions (though nothing that's proven) which is why it took me so long (40 years!) and why so many in cosmology will struggle to penetrate it. It's a slightly 'different language'! It also seems to cover ALL physics

I now struggle to refer back to 'current beliefs' so desperately need help if it's to be presented and understood by those with old doctrine embedded. On QM, I have a good dialogue going with Stefan on my blog that better explains the detail, but perhaps you may look closer at the cosmology and destroy or help with that?

The main 'Cyclic Model' paper now needs some updating. Of course the MNRAS and AJ ran a mile but it's published in the HJ; DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4540.5603 or; Academia archive link

I have done a bit of 'drip feeding' DFM solutions in manageable morsels in many papers on arXiv, viXra and Academia. Pick your favourite anomaly and I'll tell you in my own words what the model has to say on it!

I see I hadn't applied a score to yours so have now done so as it seemed to be languishing far too low. Very many thanks yet again.

Peter

Dear Marc

I rather enjoyed the first part of your essay where you present the hard problem of lawfulness, but I got lost in the second half with all the possibilities you presented as solutions. Too much philosophy based on physics I find fault with. Let me explain: in my intuitive naive way I have come to believe that an observer-based physics, although great for computing actual experimental results, prevents a fundamental understanding of our Universe and complicates physics as we know it today.

The issue is further complicated by quantum probability and the whole bizarre question of collapse of wave equation, leading as it does to multiverses etc. In order to clear the board a lot of Einstein's and QM premises have to be abandoned, and for reasons I give in my fqxi essay. I would be honored if you have a look.

In my Beautiful Universe Model I have outlined a physics based on an absolute universe made up of self-assembling nodes that need no observer whatsoever to do their thing and perhaps the HPL will be swept away of its own accord. Or perhaps that is my solipsist dream in my old age, driving by your green billboard!

With best wishes,

Vladimir

Dear Marc,

I think that in an expanded version of your essay both the "Problem of measure" and the "Hard problem of consciousness" should be included. Like the other problems that you list, they are both difficult and systematically important. You probably are aware that Max Tegmark in his book "Our Mathematical Universe" refers to the measure problem as "the greatest crisis in physics today." And it's not just a problem for physics, but for epistemology and ontology as well. I don't know that it is the greatest problem, but it is surely no less a problem than the others.

As you point out, it is difficult to know how to organize and classify the basic positions (which appear in your columns). In my view, positions like the modal realism of David Lewis and the principle of fecundity discussed by Robert Nozick stand apart from the rest. According to these positions, all possibilities are actualized. All other systems try to establish some principle which differentiates actualities from unactualized mere possibilities. Ideally, this principle might in some way explain actuality, but it could at least delimit actuality. I think that even the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis and Computational Universe Hypothesis try to limit actuality in this way, because many possibilities are not computable and not even mathematical.

There certainly is a lot to discuss, and perhaps we will be able to continue the discussion.

Laurence Hitterdale