Dear Michael,

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my essay. I've read your essay and found it VERY interesting... I will post my comments on your essay's thread soon.

IDAA makes a less interesting acronym than ISAAC, but I agree with you it's a better term. I like "domain", it's better than "set", that has a particular limited meaning in mathematics. And "computation" might be too restrictive. "Abstraction", as a generic term, is probably the best --- better than mathematics, better than computation, and I think better than "idea"... The term "idea", although it was used by Plato in a very abstract way, has the downside of being too tied, for most people, to a pre-existing mind that has an idea, while in your essay, minds are a particular type of ideas... The words we use are quite a challenge when we want to talk about philosophical/metaphysical issues that transcend our everyday experience, and it's probably why most people have a hard time understanding each other when dealing with these issues...

I also agree with you that completely chaotic areas within the Maxiverse of all abstractions are not perceivable and therefore do not have a meaningful existence. What I worry about when I think about the Hard Problem of Lawfulness are the PARTIALLY chaotic areas that could still contain minds, and in which those minds would experience partially chaotic dream-like shifting realities. For each mind that "activates" ideas that correspond to "reasonable and stable" worlds, there should be many more that activate ideas that correspond to partially reasonable and stable worlds. Why then is our (waking) experience so implacably ordered, why is the world so "robust"? I am looking towards some kind of "co-emergence" of physics and observers, but these are only rudimentary ideas, I still don't have a good answer to the Hard Problem of Lawfulness!

You mention that ideas that Mind/minds activate must "mesh" with other ideas, which is pretty much what co-emergence is all about. We certainly share very similar questionings and very similar tentative answers, and that's why I found your essay so interesting and thought-provoking. More to come (probably tomorrow) on your essay's thread!

Marc

Dear snp. gupta,

Thank you for taking a look at my essay and taking the time to highlight one of its sentences. I took a look at your essay, scanned for some key words, but didn't see anything that looked even remotely related to the topic of this year's essay contest. I respectfully suggest, as indicated in the sidebar of the FQXi Forum page, that you post your novel physics theory to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread, so that it can be discussed in an appropriate fashion with other FQXi members.

Sincerely,

Marc

Dear William,

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my essay. The way you describe the main argument of my essay (the working hypothesis of co-emergentism) is essentially correct! I will take a look at your essay and post my comments on your essay's thread.

Marc

Dear Laurence,

Thank you for your encouraging comments on my essay! I read yours on February 25th, shortly after it was posted. I had been waiting for all essays to be posted to start commenting and rating them, and I will be doing so this week. Expect comments soon on your essay's thread.

I am familiar with John Leslie's ideas, having read several chapters of his books. Your suggestion of adding a "Values first" column to the table in my essay is interesting: it would have some similarities with the "God first" column, since the "form of Good" could be seen as a high-level concept of God, but it would also have some specific attributes. In fact, it's probably my column "God first" which should be split, because different religions have quite different concepts of God -- the traditional Christian "personal" conception of God is far from the only one.

I agree with you that the Problem of Evil would certainly deserve a row of its own: it is certainly one of the major philosophical/metaphysical problems. In the original version of my paper (before I edited it to fit within the 25 000 characters limit), I didn't have a "Problem of evil" row, but I had two more rows, the "Problem of measure" (statistics in an infinite reality) and the "Hard Problem of Consciousness" of David Chalmers. If I ever write an expanded presentation of the co-emergence hypothesis, I will certainly take your suggestions into consideration!

Already in the last contest, it was clear that our personal approaches to the foundational questions of physics are related to each other, and it will certainly be interesting to continue this discussion beyond the conclusion of the contest.

Marc

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

Dear Peter,

Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. It is true I didn't comment on your "Red/Green socks" essay last time, but it's not for lack of trying. I did read your essay back then, I even had gone back to read your previous FQXi essays, as well as your 2011 "Subjugation of Scepticism in Science" essay. I REALLY tried to find an angle of approach between your ideas and mine, but I ultimately was unable to. I get the general intent of your research: you have a multi-faceted non-conventional model of pretty much all of fundamental physics. I get that one of the things you are trying to do is to bring back "classicality", by finding a local, realist, geometrical model based on a spinning sphere to account for a classical interpretation of spin and of the correlations in EPR-type experiments. I also get it that you have written a lot on the subject, and exchanged ideas with many others, many of which also regularly submit essays to the FQXi contests: as much is clearly evident by the healthy interaction you get with them on your essay's threads, the number of ratings you get AND their impressive average. Unfortunately, from the viewpoint of someone who has not followed your research since the beginning, I find your essays somewhat hard to follow and understand --- they are very dense and, in my humble opinion, not very "reader-friendly". I don't want to seem too nitpicky, but, for instance, look at the abstract for this year's essay. I re-read it 3 times and I still have a lot of difficulty seeing the relationship between one sentence and the next. In the second sentence, I had to look up OAM in the main body of your essay to realize what it meant, because I had no idea that the sentence was leading up to orbital angular momentum. Then, in rapid succession, we get to John Bell, fractals, a computer the size of a brain (in cubic centimeters or operations per second?), photonics, DNA, and an hypothesis about a cosmic architect! As for you essay itself, I think it is the most dense and perplexing one yet (from my point of view).

In your message about my essay, you tell me you will outright reject "abstract structure"... I am not sure what it means, but probably that you do not believe it makes sense to say that the fundamental level of reality is purely abstract. I am not really surprised: this makes sense if you don't even think that non-locality has a place in a reasonable physical theory of our universe... By the way, by reading you essay last time, about mathematics and physics, I never had any idea of what you thought about the relationship between the two --- math as a product of human theorizing, vs math as something that exists in its own right. Which is essentially why I didn't know how to comment your essay last time.

Sadly, the same is once again true this time. I read your essay for clues about how you respond to this year's essay question... all I can say is that I seem to detect that you don't think it's a question that should have been asked, since you write somewhat enigmatically: "Mathematical laws can only give rise to aims and intentions insofar as they may help motivate intelligent beings to resolve to understand more."

By the way, I just watched your videos on YouTube, and I didn't find they were easier to follow than your essays. As a cosmologist by training, I should have at least understood the general ideas behind your alternative theory of redshift. Instead, after watching your video, I don't understand what your model actually means in practice. Does it apply to everything in the universe (nearby clusters to the CMB) or only to some things? Does it have any predictions about the spectrum of the CMB? Can it even accommodate itself with the existence of the CMB? Is there a Hubble constant in your model?

So I won't rate your essay, since I basically am unable to form an opinion on it. That being said, I respect your commitment to the advancement of knowledge, and I wish your ideas get a fair hearing. You have original ideas that would completely revolutionize fundamental physics as it is known today, but the burden of proof is on you. YOU have to make your views accessible: you have to make the effort to make them understandable to those who are not already familiar with them. Good luck in the contest, and in your ongoing research program. I am sure we will meet again in future FQXi contests!

Sincerely,

Marc

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 Vladimir,

    Thanks for reading and commenting on my essay. I am familiar with your work, having read your essay from the previous contest on math vs physics, and now I just read your new essay. Right off the bat, I must admit that I found your opening picture absolutely striking --- with the riverboat's doppelganger floating above the forest. I have no idea what it means, but its sheer weirdness compelled me to read the rest of your essay. What can I say? You must realize that for someone who is not already familiar with your work, your essay seems absolutely unbelievable --- you would have us believe that the entire worldwide community of physicists is somehow completely deluded and that you have found the way to make everything right. You must realize that you are not the only participant in this contest who believes he alone has solved the problems that everyone else have been unable to solve for the past one hundred years or so.

    Let's suppose for one instant that you're right. It means, for one thing, that everyone else is wrong about the EPR experiment and Aspect's results that makes it impossible to have an explanation in terms of local hidden variables, and even more so in terms of classical physics. Yet, you do claim that:

    "The two photons are entangled, but not due to hidden variables, as he [Einstein] proposed. There is no spooky action at a distance, simply because there is no probability to start with. The particles have opposite polarization from the very start and their angle does not change when it is measured."

    Forget for one moment about the rest of your theory. First, explain CLEARLY how you plan to reproduce Aspect's results with "photons that have opposite polarization from the very start". In other words, explain why Bell's analysis is wrong and the worldwide community of physics is wrong on this particular issue. If you can do that, you will be taken seriously, and MAYBE people will start paying attention to the rest of your theory.

    I don't want to seem too harsh or demeaning. If you have an unusual theory, the burden of proof IS ON YOU. Contrary to what you may think, most physicists that work on foundational questions would be more than happy to stumble upon a new way of looking at things that opens up new vistas. But you cannot overthrow everything at once and hope that people will follow you. Start with your stronger objection about consensus physics, and make a strong case for your alternative theory. One step at a time.. Good luck, sincerely.

    Marc

    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

    Dear Marc,

    Vey good essay! Perhaps I am biased by the fact that we share some common points of view, but I enjoyed it very much. Among the things I liked are: the creative reasoning along Wheeler's ideas and Tegmark's MUH, the emphasis of mathematics, of subjective experience associated to consciousness (in a way far from being understood yet), the "strange loop", the "hard problem of foundations", the attempt to found everything on "nothing", the further development of your theme of the "maxiverse", "ISAAC". I liked the "co-emergence hypothesis", and I think that maybe because this and other parts resonate to some of my own views. Long time ago I tried to understand how different parts of the universe, which apparently should not care about one another, manage to be part of the same universe. I imagined a very large set of sheafs, in fact the set of all local sheaves (as in sheaf theory), and a consistency principle which connects the sheaves in global sheaves which are of course consistent. Any two random sheaves are usually inconsistent with one another, but for each sheaf, there are other sheaves with which it is consistent, and which are mutually consistent, and together they patch into an universe. This universe is thus selected out of the "chaos" of all sheaves. This was the starting point of my essay World Theory, where I explained that any kind of mathematical structure that may be used to described our universe can be described in terms of sheaves. It is also at the basis of my "Zero axiom" and the idea of global consistency as a puzzle in my essays The Tao of It and Bit, and And the math will set you free. I think what you wrote resoneates with these. I had much fun with your "plurisoloverse"! I wish you good luck in the contest!

    Best regards,

    Cristi Stoica

    The Tablet of the Metalaw

      Dear Marc,

      I think your essay contains a unique accomplishment, and not only in this contest. I mean your Table 1, which is definitely a seed of a great book! Its bird view on the hard problems of philosophy motivates to resolve them in a coherent way, implying also that this might be impossible. Of course, Lev and I have our favorite column, which is God or Absolute Mind. Following great philosophical traditions, we do not consider God complex as you are suggesting; on the contrary, He is the Unity, the One, where everything specific and complex is rooted. Emergence of good and beautiful things, by the creative power of mind, is mysterious, which is true both for its divine and human aspects. Creativity is inexplicable in principle; any theory attempting its explanation either explains nothing or leads to an inner contradiction. Co-emergentism is not an exception in this respect. In principle, co-emergentism, as we see it, is a variant of what we call chaosogenesis; it has all the drawbacks of the latter, and is refuted by the same arguments. One of these arguments you clearly expressed in your essay with the reference on our "Pythagorean Universe"; many thanks! Notwithstanding this disagreement and criticism, I am rating your composition high for its unique good points.

      Good luck in the contest,

      Alexey Burov.

        Hello Marc,

        Wow thank you for such a lively, insightful and interesting read - I really enjoyed it and learned a lot. Your essay touches the foundations of physics, which is always fun to read. Since I first heard about the mathematical universe hypothesis, I've been intrigued but hesitant (maybe by lack of understanding) by to what extent (mathematical) abstractions could be considered physical.

        When preparing our essay with my coauthor, we were intrigued by Wheeler's participatory realism that you mention when trying to figure out why we don't say a particle flying from a collider that I study by day has any goals. The second component of what you call 'co-emergentism' touches on the reality of fundamental structures, which resonated with a question we mentioned (but sadly decided not to tackle) in ours about to what extent we consider (simplifying/emergent) abstractions we use as scientists such as atoms to trees to social classes as real. It was really interesting to read how you put those two ideas together that we mused on.

        Our work stays relatively clear of addressing these foundational, even metaphysical questions, as we chose a different stance of the natural sciences. But as you have thought about this with great clarity, I wonder what your thoughts are as to why we usually say a living organism as a collection of particles is a physical 'real' entity, whereas a political factions as an abstraction of many individuals' thoughts might not be considered real in the same sense?

        Best,

        Jesse

          Dear Cristi,

          Thank you for your encouraging comments on my essay. Thank you also for the link to your World Theory paper, that I didn't know about. I've skimmed through it, and it looks very interesting. I will take a deeper look when I finished reading as many essays as I can in this contest!

          Sincerely,

          Marc

          Dear Alexey and Lev,

          Thank you for your comments on my essay. "Chaosgenesis", as you call it, does have its issues --- but so does every other hypothesis for a "starting point", "ground of existence" or "first mover". Who knows... maybe, in the end, what you call "God" or "Absolute mind" can be understood as "emerging out" of chaos, so chaos would still be the ultimate ground level! ;)

          Sincerely,

          Marc

          Dear Jesse,

          Thank you for reading and commenting on my essay. It is true I've taken a fundamental metaphysical approach to the question, tying it to the fundamental interrogation about the "ground of existence" or fundamental level of reality. You ask a question about reality --- what is the reality of a political faction compared to that of a physical thing, like a living organism. It all depends, of course, on what you mean by "real". If all that exists is real, then I would say that a political faction is a real thing. It is not, properly speaking, material --- it is, first and foremost, an abstract structure made of many individual's thoughts --- but I would say that EVERYTHING, deep down, is fundamentally a structure, so in this sense it is as real as a physical object.

          I have read and quite enjoyed your essay, and I will leave comments on your essay's thread.

          Good luck in the contest!

          Marc

          Marc,

          Thanks for an interesting read. QBism is new to me. It sounds like a form of art like Dadaism or something. The co-emergence stuff is interesting too. The figures you present are useful in getting across your meaning. They helped me at least. The table you present is a nice summary of the pros and cons of the major ideas ... or at least it gave me some thoughts I had not previously had.

          So, if I understand you correctly, the physical universe did whatever it did to be like it is ... and we observers did whatever we did to get here. The only reason we are here and aware is because we can resonate with the universe as it presently is. The temporal paths taken by the physical universe and the observers within it could have been totally different. The universe might have even been waiting on us to catch up to it to observe it as it was. Or maybe the universe cannot advance until it is observed ....

          BTW, have you read Dr. Klingman's essay:-)

          The variation on 20 questions is clever ... it allows the solution to emerge as a result of the answers provided but not as a result of the questions asked. What would happen if someone misremembered what was previously stated or if one of the people answering the questions could not think of a word that satisfied the question history? It seems to me that this analogy requires an intelligence outside of the observer. Since you mention the number 42 in your essay, I will assume that you have read "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". So you are familiar with the mice and the bias they put into experimental science. Damn clever those mice.

          I will ask a couple of questions here ... is there any way to test such a hypothesis? Does this hypothesis make any predictions? If so, how do they compare to the predictions of other hypotheses? I'll bet that the hypothesis makes no predictions and is not falsifiable.

          BTW, ISAAC is a clever acronym.

          Solipsism gives me a headache. Besides ... I'm the only one in the universe.

          Having read some of the comments above in your forum, would you care to revisit your observation regarding delusional physicists? If there are an infinite number of both delusional and non-delusional physicists, can you determine the ratio between them? If you don't have a falsifiable hypothesis, how can you tell the two groups apart?

          Since you made a small reference to a work of literature, I will do so too ... "Check your premises Mr. Rearden." It is very possible that homo-sapiens does not have the necessary structure to comprehend the universe. We could simply be a failed experiment waiting for an extinction event. Or we might simply be waiting for the right mutation to give us that next little bit of structure so that we can more completely resonate with the universe.

          I noticed your post in another forum regarding scoring ... You presently have a score of 4.7 with 14 votes. Frankly, from where I sit you don't have much to complain about. FYI, I have received 8 one-bombs and 3 two votes ... all as down votes with no comment. You have 14 votes total. I have almost that many (11) down votes. You are correct in a sense though, the one-bombs hit when you break the 5.0 mark.

          Now we will conduct a little experiment. It is 1:58 AM 3/31/17 Houston time. I am about to score you with a 10. Let's see how long it takes for you to be one-bombed.

          Best Regards and Good Luck,

          Gary Simpson

            Dear Marc,

            While I certainly have not nearly thought about these issues as much as you have, it is really interesting hearing your stance on the reality and physicality of structures, including what I may intuit as abstract such as political factions or the like.

            Thank you for you very kind comments on our essay - my coauthor and I really appreciate it.

            Best of luck to you too,

            Jesse