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

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.

Oh, I just found Marc's note saying that indeed, we can continue talking afterwards. This is great, I was forcing myself to condense my thoughts into something understandable, and it seemed difficult with so little time - you burn my brains out guys! I'll be happy to respond (here and in my forum) to all your comments. Looking forward!

Inés

Dear Marc,

glad you could make some use of my vague gesticulation in Nagarjuna's direction! I think it's truly not so far away from the general conception that seems to gain traction at the moment: everything is empty of 'ultimate' nature---deep down, the world contains exactly zero information. Definite structures only arise in mutual dependence---it's only if you 'cleave' the set (class, whatever) of 'everything' in two that any information emerges (along the crack, so to speak). So maybe you have to partition the infinite ensemble into observer and observed to have a 'world' as we conceive of it emerge, complete with goals, warts and all.

In a sense, it's a bit like a rainbow: the physical conditions---light hitting rain in the right way---don't fix the rainbow completely; rather, it's only once you introduce observers into the mix that any of the 'possible' rainbows becomes actual; and then, every observer sees their own rainbow.

Cheers,

Jochen

Marc, well done again. This is another excellent contribution. If you take first prize I would find that completely satisfying.

The hardest problem in this area is how to explain a difficult point of view in a way that others will understand. You are excellent at doing that. For example, it is very hard to justify to some people that the ensemble of mathematical possibilities is not some realm whose existence still needs justification. I like your solution of thinking in terms of information. If someone asks me "tell em something about your experience of existence" and I rely "It belongs in the collection of all mathematical possibilities" then I have given them precisely zero information. It is a perfect tautology.

Your concept of co-emergence is another good idea. It is possible to describe emergence from logical possibilities as if it is a reductionist argument, starting from mathematics and ending with consciousness as a causal chain of explanations. However, there is a sense that consciousness itself is an alternative starting point which leads to possibilities. There is a "strange loop", or co-emergence. I talked about a bootstrap which is an analogy with two sides to it. On the one hand it describes a process by which a computer starts up by using a short piece of code to load in a longer bit of code, but it also conveys the idea of a system that pulls itself up by its own bootstraps.

At the end you express a hope that some way to calculate from these ideas will come about soon. I hope so too. It would be ideal if some analysis of the relationships between abstractions in terms of category theory could bring us to something like a physical master theory. If these ideas are right then such an analysis should be possible.

Dear Marc, I finally managed to come back to you. I also left (quite a lengthy!) response in my entry.

> I would be satisfied if we could just show that our type of universe can be shown to be "reasonably likely"

But that is precisely what puzzles me. Why do I live in such an ordered universe if all possible universes exist? I tend to think that there are many more weird universes than lawful ones, although I must admit that such a belief is grounded in a specific way of weighing the probability distribution defined in the set of all possible universes. Of course, not all weird universes are compatible with the co-emergence hypothesis. But the hypothesis still appears to be too lax to explain the ordered environment I perceive. Even if we restrict ourselves to the subset of universes that produce at a certain instant a subject like me right now, how come I continue to view a coherent universe the following instant? And the following one? And the next too? It is hard for me to believe that out of the many versions of me living in parallel universes that are all equal to each other up to a certain point, from that point on, I constantly happen to be the lucky one that continues to perceive sensible facts all the time. I do understand that many of my parallel versions simply cease to exist, if their universes are too chaotic. But should there not be more of the semi-chaotic universes, ordered enough for consciousness to continue, and yet weird enough to surprise their conscious observers?

I am fully aware of the fact that this argument relies on a prior hypothesis that it should be possible to have observers observing weird universes. That hypothesis may be wrong. But in any case, if your aim is to show that our universe is "reasonably likely" (an aim I am willing to embrace, by the way), then I guess we should work on determining more stringently which are the requirements that consciousness imposes on the regularities governing the universe, right? I have the feeling that inner-time is one such requirement (see below), but I may we wrong here. Ideas are welcome!

> Since ISAAC simply is, in a timeless/atemporal way, the coherent worlds within it can have a structure that can be described as an evolutionary story within time, but of course they also simply exist "right from the start" as self-defined lawful observers/physical world systems.

I myself cannot disentangle the notion of consciousness with the feeling that time flows. That is, if time were to freeze, I have the impression that my self-awareness would disappear. I tend to believe that only differences (changes) are perceivable. If I understand you correctly, however, in you view observers-from-within may or may not have a feeling of time flowing. Time from within is an option for you, but not a necessity. If you are right, then either I am mistaken to believe that my self-awareness disappears in the absence of (inner) time, or else, what holds for me may not hold for other pairs of universe + observer. That is, there may be other observers which have a type of self-awareness that differs from mine in some fundamental way, because theirs does not require the notion of change.

Resolving whether time-from-within is or is not a requirement for co-emergence to take place would be an example of the requirements I believe we should work on. Can you think of other similar requirements? I guess it's not easy to be too specific, not at least without a clear idea of how consciousness emerges. Or even more broadly, how consciousness can emerge (in our universe, or in others!).

Ok, I'll send this right now. And will try to nail down the thoughts that Conrad's ideas about QM have triggered in me - slowly.

Best wishes to you both!

inés.

ok, and now I reply to Conrad's comment (which I'll replicate in his forum, so that he notices it).

> 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.

Let me try to rephrase this idea, adding more redundancy, so you can assess whether I get you correctly - or not. I am trying to parallel this sentence made in the realm of physics to some other statement in biological evolution. In biology, a mutation progresses only if it gives rise to an organism that is at least as fit as its parent. Out of the many branches of the wavefunction, the ones that progress are the ones that give rise to a world that can still progress. Or, if we want to link it with Marc's idea, to a world that still contains the observer that was observing the universe an instant before.

If this is what you meant... it makes full sense to me. We should, however, make an effort to try to derive why the permanence of observers requires the laws of quantum mechanics to be the way they are. Because as you well say: quantum mechanics is not just blurriness, it's blurriness with a very specific structure. If we manage to derive some property of the physical world out of the hypothesis of co-emergence, the hypothesis becomes plausible in an Occam's razor context. That is, the world with the co-emergence hypothesis is simpler to understand than without it. Until we manage that feat, it is just an interesting idea, right?

> 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.

Wow, this is truly interesting. I do understand the part that the outcome of the random choice has to be compatible for both sides of the system. That's what entanglement is about, right? Once an interaction develops, subsystems become coupled. Now, how do you derive Born's rule from here? I always thought it was a starting point, not something to be derived. Can you point me to some textbook to follow this idea?

So nice to keep thinking of the ideas triggered by the two of you. And I still have a lot to read in my agenda. By the way, forgot to mention. I have now read "Theory of nothing", excellent book! The style is a bit messy, which I guess is natural if it emerged from a discussion list. But still, there's a lot of good original stuff in there, providing raw material to start thinking from a new perspective. I guess this combination (messy, and yet still providing good input) is valid for "The user illusion", which seemed to interest you both. Moreover, "Theory of nothing" helped me to put a context to Marc's co-emergence.

Best!

inés.