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

sorry, it was me up there (hopefully logged in this time). Inés Samengo.

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

Dear Marc

Thank you for your kind and measured response to what must have seemed to you an outrageous essay. The riverboat floating in the sky is a rather imaginative way to convey compression of space in a moving frame. Artistic license!

Everything you said is reasonable except your claim that I think everybody in the world is wrong. Not really, perhaps only the point-photon concept I consider 'wrong'. That has been experimentally proven by my friend Eric Reiter but in his case too neglect and doubts have been his lot instead of people simply repeating his experiments to see if his claims are true and he deserves a Nobel Prize.

The other things I find fault with are "right, but for the wrong reasons" and they often contradict each other. Take SR for example its mathematics 'works' and people use it to calculate GPS, and it is exact - but flexible space and time depending on a passing observer taken as a fundamental fact of nature billions of years before intelligent observers existed? I do not think so.

QM too 'works' and is exact - it is used to design lasers that obey theory to many decimal points but the convenience of accepting mathematical probability should not be interpreted as a fundamental of nature itself, and for reasons I have explained in my various essays and writings.

GR 'works' in predicting black holes and gravitational lensing - but since it is based on SR it becomes much more unwieldy than it needs be. I proposed a local density of the ether, and if that 'works' equally well why not adopt that instead of GR? I have calculated that in a dipole's gravitational field light bends just as Newton and others before Einstein said it would.. so why hold GR as absolutely sacred and cannot be replaced by something simpler and physically more reasonable?

Bell's Theorem has been attacked by much more qualified people than I have - the literature is full of their papers. I think that the hole in the Bell's argument (ditto in Einstein's assumed 'hidden variables') is to suppose that probability exists in the entangled photons or particle to start with. The probability that appears in Aspect et al's measurements is simply the random phases in the sensing atoms and nothing else. I cannot prove that but that is what I think.

Of course I may be wrong but I did not write anything that I have not thought about long and hard. As long as my essay makes people think it is successful as far as I am concerned. Physics is broken and needs to be fixed. If a tiny fraction of effort and expenditure that is spent buttressing old theories that have reached virtual dead-ends is spent developing, testing and simulating new approaches, perhaps physics can proceed to unification and new discoveries that are impossible now.

I am trying to simulate my model, but I do not have much energy or time at my age (74) and state of health (chemotherapy). Knowing that perhaps in my anxiousness to convince people to take up my ideas I panicked and was rather less diplomatic in phrasing my objections than I should have. If so apologies!

Good luck in your work and in the contest

Vladimir

Marc, thanks.

Despite my critical comments above, I very much hoped you would read my essay, and now I have more than I could have asked for. It means a lot, coming from someone who knows the whole range of "big picture" ideas and can think so clearly at that level.

Looking forward to your comments -- if not by Friday, my email address in in the essay.

Conrad

Hi -- May I add a comment on Inés' point (2) above? She wrote:

>> 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).

I think something like this is right. That is, at the quantum level it usually doesn't matter to anything just what the position or momentum of some electron is, and in that case QM says these values are indeterminate. There get to be determinate values just insofar as there's a context of interactions that measures them. Defining that context in physical terms is hard, though, for reasons I focus on in my essay. But I don't think the answer is to jump up to the level of our perception.

The thing is, quantum indeterminacy is not just blurriness... there are many levels of structure in the statistical wave-function. All that a measurement adds is a random selection. That's important, just as natural selection is important in biology. But random events are only "selection" if there's something useful to select. The "collapse" of the wave function can only support a macroscopic world because it's selecting from a set of possibilities that are somehow highly structured - evolved? - to help other measurements happen, in the macroscopic environment.

In any case, the basic idea of "co-emergence" is certainly relevant. In biology, the organism co-evolves with its living environment, and as Inés' essay points out, the line between the two disappears when we take an objective view. In physics, measuring any variable depends on other measurements of other variables. And I think simplest explanation for the Born rule - why probabilities are squared, in computing the outcome of a measurement - is that at bottom, every "collapse" is a mutual selection between a thing and its context, so the same outcome has to be randomly chosen from each side of the interaction.

Thanks to you both -- Conrad

Marc,

Disappointed with your essay because I expected it to be more QBist. Page 1 and most of page 2 were OK. Sorry, but from then on, my opinion is that the essay descended into illogic e.g.:

Well, there might be a way to make "nothing" into a suitable foundation, by considering something that is equivalent to nothing: the infinite ensemble of all abstractions. An abstraction is something, like a circle or the number 42, that exists without having to be embodied in a concrete way.

...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.

Suppose that the ISAAC is the basis of all existence, and that it generates the Maxiverse. The hard problem of foundations is solved...

Consciousness, with its power of agency and volition, emerges out of a physical level of description where interactions take place according to "mindless" laws...

Dear Marc Seguin,

I must confess that your essay is one of the most provocative ones in this contest, there are a few others as well, one in particular by Weckbach. Your statements are in double quotes below.

I see infinity lingering in several expressions, such as: "the MUH implies an infinite multiverse that contains every possible physical reality and generates every possible conscious experience.", "Infinite Set of All Abstract Computation (ISAAC)" etc. Infinity as a concept helps in many awkward situations while constructing such theories as you attempt. But infinite number of any reality, or object, even infinite computations (running in parallel), that is expected to be realized or realizable, places the argument in serious jeopardy. And I am not talking only about lack of our mental abilities to conceive them. As we know, even values like sum of all integers, or even sum of infinite sequences of 1, and -1, can result in indeterminate territory, depending on how we arrange them. Constructing a mathematical argument leading to indeterminate contexts, and leaving at that does not pose a problem. But as I said, if that is expected to be realized in any manner, I do not know how one can get around such conceptual vacuity in reality. Moreover, the moment we allow indeterminism of any kind at any level, mathematics loses its absolute position to be the most fundamental cause of everything.

One may arrive at this conclusion in several other ways. In brief, an universe based entirely on absolute determinism of mathematics cannot come into existence, since a deterministic universe allows back tracing, and at no point of time an universe could emerge from null reality. On the other hand, if it always existed, then the definition of eternity demands that there could be nothing that has not happened in the past. Such an universe could only be cyclic or non-deterministic. The moment we accept indeterminacy in the consequence, mathematics gets displaced from being the ultimate cause of all reality.

A computation necessarily means processing of information. Information and even processing (computation) requires a physical basis. Information has not existence if not associated with physical states, such as bits, or neural states, or for that matter any state. Similarly, no processing can occur without interactions that result in change of states. A computation without such an association can only be imagined as a reference to the logical steps in mathematics. But then, there is no time element to control the steps, the steps can be thought of as having executed all at once. I am unable to fathom the statement, "Even though the ISAAC is atemporal, in the physical universes that exist within it, conscious observers perceive the flow of time: the concepts of causation and causality can be applied." On the other hand, if such a physical basis is provided for computation to take place, then the physical basis already exists, we do not have to create one. It must have a degree of determinacy to execute information.

Of course, one may allow mathematics to step down a bit from its high pedestal of absolute determinism / specificity / predictability, by allowing a limited indeterminism, then two points immediately emerge. First, mathematics does not remain the sole determinator, an element of some other reality must also be included at the root of all creation as you too have attempted to include. Second, we will have no forceful need for maxiverse, as an Universe is logically complete within its limits of indeterminism.

As I have attempted to work out the emergence of all elements related to perception and purposes from the fundamental reality of information that is a natural outcome of natural causation, the consciousness does not remain the most fundamental element of creation. But since natural causation, even with limited determinism, still remains a required element of the physical reality, we may only have to work out a possibility of emergence of causality. The process suggested by you, co-emergence of a cycle of A enforcing / supporting B, B supporting C, C supporting A, does resonate with me, but without consciousness being one of the elements. I suggest, evolving determinism from non-determinism should be used to the maximum, which has no problems with origin, time, and several other constraints. All one has to achieve is that unless sustainable level of determinism originates, it does not sustain by definition.

The title of Fig.4 is, "The co-emergence of co-emergentism". This is nice, even co-emergentism is not a fundamental requirement, it also emerges from something. But then, its emergence requires co-emergence. Fantastic ! In Indian mythology, at one point, one of the incarnations of ultimate lord Vishnu, Krishna, was confronted with an argument, that one could understand that all of the universe was created by You, but how did 'You' happen? And He says, "I am, that happened on its own". But it can also be interpreted as, "I am creation of my own self". Finished, no further argument is required. The likable point is that the thinker, philosopher, writer, Ved Vyas, who articulated this argument, must have been tormented by the question of origin of everything, and having found no escape, created this fantastic argument to achieve closure. So, co-emergentism creates itself, and then everything is taken care of. In this contest, people do not seem to appreciate humor, therefore, I am making it upfront clear that relating the story from Bhagvad Gita was in plain humor, no other motive.

"Emergence is usually understood in terms of properties of a system that exist at a higher level of description and have no equivalent at a lower level:". I have discussed in my essay the specific logical construction of the emergence from the elemental properties (semantics), where the emerged property is not a part of any of the elements.

"The hard problem of foundations is solved, but we now run into another one: the hard problem of lawfulness." Let me presuppose the meaning of the term 'lawfulness' -- is it requirement of a system or an object to fall under certain physical laws?

"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."

I cannot imagine easily a more fine / thin line of an articulation that brings in the conscious element to share, exchange, participate, and effect changes in the physical world, while leaving the power of agency with volition to emerge from the 'rigid mindless laws'. Either, it brings out that remarkable missing distinction which resolves the intertwined complexity into straight forward clarity of understanding, or it indicates a path that must be avoided in the trust that Nature may not be so intertwined and mixed up ! Given two factors, 1) lack of any reliable proposal for the existence so far, and 2) the author's choice of co-emergence, such a proposal can be accepted.

"The tension between an objective, third-person description of the world, and a subjective, first-person description, is of course at the heart of the difficulties physicists have been having, for almost a century now." Could I suggest that if we take the 'information', in place of consciousness, naturally associated with each description of states of physical entities, then we can make clear distinction between the first person and third person world view? Unfortunately, it is not fully discussed in my essay submitted here.

In Table.1, the author's attempt seems to be to show the ease and readiness with which Co-emergentism nearly resolves most hard problems, but except the first hard problem, the God First has turned out to offer most simple resolutions! So, after all, that may be the reason for its such attractiveness among general masses. May be, the 'desire of justice to the self' should have been also added into the list of problems to convincingly exhibit, how miserably the God First solution fails, and how equipotent the rest of the solutions are.

Rajiv

Dear Marc,

I am simply impressed. You wrote a superb essay! Precisely of the type I enjoy reading. I think the weakest component of your work is ... the title! :-] All the rest flows magnificently, and achieves the highest levels in terms of contents, originality, presentation style, and even fun.

Both the opening quote by Wheeler, and the game of twenty questions by him, represent a perfect introduction and appetizer for what follows: very effective. The discussion about the hard problem of foundations (gods, mind, physical theories, up to ... nothing) is brilliant and amusing. You have a remarkable talent for assembling and exposing ideas, new or already known, in a crystal clear way.

(About the a possible unifying fundamental law, you write that this "law would have some arbitrary characteristics, unless somehow it turns out to be the only logically possible physical law, which is an outcome that almost no one still believes possible." I appreciate the 'almost'. Let's be open to the wildest conjectures.)

"For me, 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.": great, when solid ideas are expressed as if they were jokes, without affecting solidity! Maybe this idea is already present in Tegmark's work, but certainly not formulated with such an elegance!

Is then 'Maxiverse' a term you coined yourself? Cute!

Another aspect I appreciate much is the dense web of references that you deal with, and the effort you spent to relate your original construction to them. In particular, I am familiar with the work of Juergen Schmidhuber and Donald Hoffman, and I certainly see the links with your vision.

And so on...

I am left with a weak understanding of how you would define the relation between Mathematical and Computational Universe, but this is likely a weakness of my reading (that I could fix with a second reading), not of your writing.

Thank you and sincere congratulations!

Tommaso

Dear Marc and Conrad, thank you so much, this is fascinating! I am working on my answers to you both. Do you happen to know whether the possibility to discuss in this forum closes tomorrow, together with the rating process?

More soon!

inés.