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

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

Dear Marc,

The idea of " "God or Absolute mind emerging out of chaos" is incompatible with the trust to God as a foundation of fundamental science as we tried to show quoting Descartes and Einstein.

All the best,

Alexey Burov.

Hi Marc,

You've done a remarkable job here. The scope of the essay is amazing; you touch on every idea I've ever come across on cosmic foundations and give us an insightful assessment in each case, and it's wonderfully readable. Unfortunately, the ideas you settle on are hard for me to appreciate philosophically.

First, the notion of a Maxiverse of all possible abstract structures doesn't seem relevant to me, because our universe is the opposite of abstract. It evidently instantiates many different kinds of mathematical structures, at many levels. But as I wrote in a comment to Cristi Stoica's fine essay, while mathematical abstraction lets us make explicit the general patterns in the way things operate, it's the unique instances of these patterns that constitute our empirical universe.

In a previous FQXi essay, I tried to make clear that there's even an essentially non-mathematical aspect in the language of physical equations. A quantity of energy is different from a quantity of momentum, or mass or electric charge. The fact that all the dozens of distinct observable parameters in physics can be represented by abstract symbols in equations doesn't make physics equivalent to pure mathematics.

My own interpretation of the fine-tuning of our fundamental physics is that it serves specifically to support the possibility of measurement. Gravity and electromagnetism and nuclear physics all help make possible the existence of stable material structures, without which there would be no "clocks and measuring rods," nor any way to measure any physical parameter. Without the finely-tuned cooperation of all these different mathematical structures, the universe would indeed be "nothing" - nothing observable or physically determinable.

In my current essay, I describe measurement as a form of random natural selection, creating new facts that help set up other situations in which new facts can become determinate. But my point here is that however the so-called "collapse" occurs, the particular result of a quantum measurement is not mathematically determined. To me, this seems to make the concrete facts established by accidental events more basic than the mathematical structures that arise from their statistics.

So that's one issue I have with your argument. The other is that I don't like treating "consciousness" in the old Cartesian fashion, imagining it as somehow emerging separately from the material universe... or even co-emerging with it. There is no doubt something that transcends materiality in human consciousness, but as my essay shows, I think it can be understood well enough through evolutionary processes. And again, I don't think the concept of "abstract structure" captures what's essential to the uniqueness of each person's mind, any more than it does what's essential to our unique universe.

But though I disagree with your philosophical preferences, I admit that the scheme of co-emergence is an ingenious and imaginative solution to a "hard" problem you've considered carefully from many angles - so it ranks high above the general trend of speculation in these contest essays.

I think you came closest to the truth at the beginning, with the idea of a "strange loop" approach to foundations, as an alternative to "straight chain" explanation. This captures the recursive character that I take as the key to foundational processes in physics, as well as in biology and the human mind... none of which seem to be built on a "self-evident, rock-bottom" kind of foundation.

Also at the end, you make a nice statement - "It is as if physics is trying to tell us that the world arises out of the point of view of single observers, even if they do in the end form a community that observes a single unified reality." This also relates to my discussion of human consciousness. If I may quote myself: "Each human consciousness evolves its own universe... I emphasize this, because unless we recognize how isolated we are, in our own minds, we can't appreciate what our communication software does, or how remarkably it works."

Thanks for an excellent and well thought-out contribution -

Conrad

Dear Marc,

i just read your essay and it is quite interesting, since you name the main problems when trying to identify the fundamental level of reality.

An additional problem is to explain where the necessity of logic does come from. Surely, in the MUH, it comes from maths - or the other way round i would say. Since logic's main ingredient is consistence, the main relation between mathematical relationships being able to facilitate conscious observers and the ability of these observers to contemplate abstract concepts such as 'consistency' at all, should be again, consistence. Is this a strange loop or just a tautology? It seems to me that it could be both, if we only could identify which mathematical relationships that are consistent, must necessarily lead to conscious observers.

I liked your remark that all of maths has zero informational content. This surely must be understood as an epistemological statement, since conscious observers aren't able to contemplate all of maths - they are finite entities. So it seems to me that the notion of zero informational content hinges on the use of infinities. Moreover, if physical worlds and conscious observers co-emerge, so has maths (towards infinity?). If maths is an atemporal realm of all abstractions, it leaves the question open of how its main ingredient, namely consistency can be defined globally as its main ingredient, but not only locally. Surely, not all of maths must necessarily be consistent, but if so, how can we call these inconsistent parts of ultimate reality furthermore 'maths'?

"Could it be that, when we worry about the proliferation of deluded observers, we try to push our reasoning too far away from our observed reality, into a realm where it no longer applies? 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 point of view, one that i myself adopt in my essay. Furthermore in several comments of mine i emphasize that although we are nearing the edge of our patch of lawfullness, due to principal considerations on consistency, logic and the assumed rationality of nature we should not conclude that right beyond these edges the most fundamental level of reality is revealed. One has to ask further where chaos and randomness comes from. If it exists, did it spring into existence 'randomly' from nothing - thereby self-confirming itself as the ultimate reality? This can't be the case, since this would presuppose logic and its main ingredient - namely consistency. So, if we assume randomness, coming from nothing, as the ultimate level of reality, we end up with the exact opposite, namely not randomness, but the necessity of consistence (and therefore logic). Furthermore, there has to be some law that determines what can be possible and not (to at all speak about the full space of possibilities).

I prefer a picture of ultimate reality where our known logic is just a subset of other meaning-producing realms. In plain text, one could describe the main realm there as God, equating him with zero information, since epistemologically *and* ontologically, there could well exist things about we even do not know that we do not know them.

I'll give you a high rating for having mentioned several hard problems instead of ignoring them and instead just facilitating a consistent explanation scheme without the latter having the property of necessarily meeting reality.

Best wishes,

Stefan Weckbach

Hi, Marc,

I have read your essay (twice by now) and feel truly grateful. I am not sure I see the connection with the topic of "goal oriented behavior", other than conceiving intentionality as one out of many properties of conscious observers. But I got a wonderful ontological view of the world, that gives me a lot of substance to entertain my thoughts - which is even better! I have been cogitating about these ideas for a few days now. I would like to share my thoughts with you, so you can tell me whether I got something wrong.

1) I tend to think that our minds evolved in a world that obeys the laws of physics. The co-emergent hypothesis is compatible with such a picture in which minds and the laws of physics evolved together. It seems, however, that it does not require evolution, at least, not as an indispensable necessity. Out of all the possible ensembles of computations, co-emergence postulates that it is possible to cut out a system that can give rise to a compatible pair of observer(s)+physical laws. The existence of this pair, however, is not obliged to emerge through a gradual build-up process, like Darwinian evolution. In fact, Darwinian evolution postulates first the laws of physics (be them our laws, or different ones), and only after (if possible) the emergence of observers. I cannot help imagining, however, that within the co-emergent hypothesis almost all pairs of observer(s) + physical environment are closed loops with no build up history. They can well exist right from the start (with no evolution), as Escher's mutually drawing hands. Does this make sense?

2) Let us assume that we (as we are) and our physical world (with the specific laws we are familiar with) co-emerged throughout evolution. The emergence process could well have happened at a given level, which is fairly macroscopic, and could be, up to a certain degree, independent of the details of what happens at truly microscopic levels. Could this be an explanation why quantum mechanics is so weird? Could one argue that it does not really matter how things behave down there, we can still emerge as observers, and our perceived world can still emerge as the observed reality? Under this premise, the blurryness of the quantum level would reflect the fact that our existence does not depend on decisions taken so far beneath us, so it is ok if just anything happens down there (within certain bounds, of course, because we need to ensure the emergence of the proper macroscopic level). This is probably the same thing you state at the end of page 7, I just rephrase it here... because I would like to know whether I got you right.

3) At a certain point you state "our world is just too regular" for the maxiverse. I also have the feeling that it is too regular for the co-emergence hypothesis. All these theories have one truly elegant aspect: they are founded in irrefutable truths. And they also have a disappointing aspect: they explain little of the characteristics of our world. The co-emergence may explain more than the maxiverse, but at least as I get from your essay, the properties of our world do not seem to be a necessary consequence of co-emergence. Our world seems to rather be only one out of many worlds compatible with co-emergence, and the size of the compatible set of worlds is unclear. I guess that in order to make progress we need to

a) make up our minds on what we expect of a theory. Indisputable grounds, and generic properties of the derived worlds? Or capricious grounds, and narrow properties of the derived worlds?

b) work out the requirements that observers have on their universes, and universes have on observers, to determine more narrowly the characteristics of the pairs observer(s) + physics that can co-emerge. It would be fantastic if only our universe were possible, leaving only room for arbitrary things to happen at truly tiny or truly huge scales - explaining our confusion at these levels!

Thanks for the good read!

inés.

Dear Marc,

Thanks for reading and responding as you did.

My approach is essentially based on my analysis of experience. I believe your approach is based on the movement of physics toward the abstract, largely driven by confusion about the wave function. As you note in table 1: "it's been almost a century and we still don't know!" As I indicated, I believe this is due to errors of interpretation, and I am working to elucidate some of these errors, leaving only the "good stuff".

I see some confusion about consciousness, probably starting with "mind/minds". You say "Mind" might be too complex to be the fundamental level, while I think the field is universal, physically real, and simple. I do not think mind as conscious awareness is amenable to mathematical (or any other) description, but I do believe it's interaction with the material world is mathematically defined. In my view it switches the meaning of words to go from mind as "universal consciousness field" (with affinity to panpsychism) to "sane mind" versus "insane mind". The little-m 'mind' is a locally stable (or 'resonant') field awareness of local physical brain/neural net. The awareness is of local brain structures, some of which may be physically (organic) diseased and some of which are 'psychologically' diseased (mistreatment or misinformation). Each is undoubtedly unique! This is a different meaning from the big-M 'Mind' as universal field. I find the treatment of this somewhat inconsistent in your essay.

You say "for all we know, free will and the ability to act intentionally towards goals might be basic attributes of consciousness", whereas I define consciousness as "awareness plus volition/free will". In my model 'goals' arise from 'intelligence", which is the local interaction of the field with physical brains/dynamic logical structure. Goals have nothing to do with the fundamental consciousness field, only with local "resonances" or local 'minds'. When you say "maybe we're all one mind anyway", the "we" includes the local brains, while the "one mind" is the universal consciousness field. It may not be a category error, but it needs explanation.

As you noted, we both agree that mind/consciousness has an essential role to play in any ultimate theory of the fundamental nature of reality! From your excellent essay I believe your instincts are right on. I hope you continue to evolve your table 1. I've seen suggestions on your comments page for additional rows or columns.

Thanks for interacting with me. I enjoyed your essay and believe it should rank higher. This troll business of '1's is depressing.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Marc,

Quoting you out of context:

"most conscious observers that are sophisticated enough to RUN essay contests about the fundamental nature of reality find themselves in worlds that are surprisingly large, long-lived and extremely regular."

I would change this to:

"most conscious observers that are sophisticated enough to (COMPETE IN) essay contests about the fundamental nature of reality find themselves in worlds that are surprisingly large, long-lived and extremely regular."

You and I .... the most interesting construct :)

1. Your essay examined the universe of current physical theory and presented a compelling theory of emergence. And it was funnier than my essay Ha Ha. Amazing!

2. You categorized the most advanced and sometimes controversial thought and presented it so that it could be visualized. Putting Max in his place, so to speak :) You have my vote and more!

3. Thanks for visiting my essay and your encouraging remarks. (I ordered the book "How Physics Makes Us Free")

4. Changing the subject.... Judging from your background in astro-physics, I invite you to visit a calculation I made (straightforward math) that I should not have been able to make about Mercury's precession. If anyone can make sense of it I believe you can. http://prespacetime.com/index.php/pst/article/view/1188/1163

Appreciate your being a member of FQXi.org

Don Limuti

Dear Marc Séguin

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I inform all the participants that use the online translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of the materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

Dear Marc,

thank you for an interesting essay! Although your approach differs from mine very much in scale, there's a similarity in method: we both look to avoid the paradox of 'turtles all the way down' by positing a kind of self-referential (what some call 'autopoietic') element.

I find your attempt at deriving the existence of a lawful world from Tegmark's mathematical universe intriguing---although I ultimately disagree with Tegmark's ideas, I decided to not let that influence my rating of your essay, instead concentrating on what you do with the idea, how well you argue your case, and so on.

Your figure 4 is a very impressive collection of (at first blush) disparate ideas that nevertheless seem to point towards a common trend; if you've read the essay of Philip Gibbs in this contest, you'll note that he pulls along similar lines. I think perhaps the oldest progenitor of this sort of 'relativized existence' thinking is in the Buddhist concept of 'dependent origination'---in particular in Nagarjuna's writings. Everything is ultimately 'empty', that is, has no intrinsic nature; instead, its nature derives only from mutual relationships, as in that between the observer and the world (this is superficial, but I think a more detailed reading supports a deeper relationship between such ideas and modern algorithmic descriptions).

However, grand metaphysical speculation that it is, I'm not really sure I understand how your essay actually approaches the contest's main theme---namely, how goal-directed behavior emerges. Apologies if I missed something crucial, but as far as I can see, you briefly raise the problem in your 'hard problems'-table, but seem unsure of the answer ('Might be...') yourself. I'd be very grateful for some elaboration on this point!

Anyway, I wish you all the best for the contest.

Cheers,

Jochen

Marc -

This is by far the best essay I have yet read in this contest - a coherent and systematic effort that acknowledges the "hard problem of foundations" and the integral role of "strange loops."

An observation: Your table outlines how five different starting points answer six hard problems. The middle three (mind, physics and math) correspond to the Penrose three worlds. None of these can be comprehensive as they are (per Penrose) co-dependent. Only the far left and far right columns purport to offer a comprehensive response. Obviously, you are presenting the "co-emergentist" column in the most favorable light consistent with the thesis of your essay. I suggest that if you were to present the far left column in a similarly sympathetic and enthusiastic manner, we might find the two extremes to be equally effective in addressing the hard problems. These then might be seen as two related poles - linked in a strange loop. One drawing on nothing as its inspiration (the nothingness of "all-of-math"), the other drawing on everything (the infinity of a divine uncreated agent).

You have speculated, "one can argue that goals, intentions and free will, even if they are still globally meaningless, somehow acquire more significance." From the alternate pole, one could argue that the world is filled by goals, intention and free will - acting through a process that harnesses the mindlessness of mathematical laws.

As you have named your speculation "ISAAC", one might name the alternative "ISHMAEL" - Intentionally Specified Historical Meaningfulness Activated by Emergence from Love". Both are children of Abraham (which loosely means - the father is exalted). In my essay "The How and The Why of Emergence and Intention", I suggest that it is impossible rationally to determine which is the rightful heir to the truth.

I do, however, believe that one's choice of nothing or everything as a source of inspiration can have a radical influence on one's view of life. Over the past century, the "nothing" inspiration has been in the ascendent. A does of everything would be helpful, perhaps....

Sincere regards - George Gantz

Correction: You presented a compelling theory of co-emergence (not emergence).....

I am delighted that many FQXi.org essayists discovered your diamond of an essay essay and lifted it out of the coal bin. ....About time!

Don Limuti

Dear Marc,

I would just like to congratulate you for your very interesting essay. But I would also like to congratulate you on your approach to this contest. Indeed, I like the way you are genuinely involved in replying to other contestants in a sincere and direct way.

I thank you for your time and I wish you all the best.

Cheers,

Patrick