On the Fundamentality of Meaning by Brian D. Josephson

Satyavarapu Gupta

Prof Brian D. Josephson

"I argue that the organisation of this fundamental level is already to a considerable extent understood by biosemioticians, who have fruitfully integrated Peirce's sign theory into biology; things will happen there resembling what happens with familiar life, but the agencies involved will differ in ways reflecting their fundamentality, in other words they will be less complex, but still have structures complex enough for what they have to do. According to one approach involving a collaboration with which I have been involved, a part of what they have to do, along with the need to survive and reproduce, is to stop situations becoming too chaotic, a concept that accords with familiar 'edge of chaos' ideas..... "wonderful idea sir

Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay and hope for reciprocity ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Brian Josephson

Maybe, but I can't see its relevance. Perhaps you meant this to go to a different thread.

Lawrence Crowell

What you write here is fairly close to what I was referring to. It is a case of QM having some semantic soundness. Read Olaf Dreyson's paper. I wrote a long comment on his blog site as well. This concerns the possible Turing/Godel implications of QM. My comments I posted a number of times failed to appear right.

I am not certain whether QM is absolutely fundamental or not. So far there are no evidences which suggest QM is some effective theory of wave dynamics.

Cheers LC

Conrad Johnson

Brian -

I was quite interested in your essay, and took a look also at your slide presentation and Hoffmeyer's "Semiotic Scaffolding". I have some familiarity with this line of thought going back to Gregory Bateson, whom I had pleasure of studying with in my grad school days. I've also written about meaning as fundamental in physics, making some analogies with biology (the links are below). -- --

So I agree with your general perspective - to quote one of your slides, "Reality resembles an orchestrated dance, more than it does something constrained by the rigid equations that are the norm in the physics paradigm." But I don't think semiotics gives us a deep enough concept of meaning to make the connection with physics, or to explain why we have these particular equations rather than others. -- --

At a basic level, what makes something meaningful is not that it signifies something else - rather, what's needed is a context in which it can make a difference to something else - which also makes a difference, in some other context. The physical world obviously provides such contexts, that make all the various parameters of physics meaningfully definable and observable. The context in which any one thing gets measured always consists of other things, measured in other contexts. And when it comes to quantum systems, these contexts clearly play a key role: the determinacy of any given parameter of a system depends on there being a physical context that can measure it. -- --

We usually think of measurement only at the level of signification - in that our measurement results tell us something about the system being measured. But that implies that the system was already in some well-defined state prior to the measurement. While that makes sense for classical physics, it's evidently not the case in the quantum realm - so I think we need to understand measurement at a deeper level. My my current essay discusses what's needed in the structure of physics to make any kind of information meaningful or measurable. I also explored the kinds of meaning built into the mathematical language of physics in an earlier FQXi essay. In The Accidental Origins of Meaning I compared the different ways in which meaning arises in physics, biology and human interaction. -- --

Thanks for contributing this essay - I appreciate your bringing this kind of perspective into the mix. -- --

Best regards, Conrad

John-Erik Persson

Josephson

You asked about the relevance if h is an electron property. The important consequence is that there is no longer evidence for light quanta, quantization is produced in the electron.

Regards from ____________ John-Erik Persson

Andrew Beckwith

Dear Dr. Josephson,

I am going to suggest an addendum, which is that biological processes, help physical systems cohere and have a complete information conservation process, from beginning to end of their evolution and that biological/ mind processes are part of a way to use self organizing criticality as a way to have completeness and conservation of INFORMATION, from beginning to end of physical system evolution

I.e. the physical system is complemented by biological processes, for the same of information conservation in physical processes.

If one takes this analogy, what I tried to do in my paper was to ascertain a similar dynamic as to the cosmological constant as initially formed.

I did that via Klauders quantization of the inflaton field.

In my paper, the Enhanced quantization plays a role very similar to what you are doing with biological processes.

I would welcome you critiquing my essay as of December 21st, with this in mind

THank you for your conversations in FFP 15, they were a gem

Andrew

Mozibur Ullah

Dear Professor Josephson

An interesting and thought-provoking essay especially with the analogy between biology and physics which is very different from the way biology is usually reduced to physics. I just wanted to note that one of the earliest thinkers on Physics, Aristotle, considered the universe more like an organism.

Best Wishes

Mozibur Ullah

Flavio Del Santo

Dear Prof. Josephson,

thank you for this cleverly argued essay. If you have a bit of time, I would be glad if you can also go through my essay. I look forward to discuss our works.

Good luck,

Flavio

Brian Josephson

Gee! So many people want my opinion on their own essays! I can't really spare much time for this as I'm working on an update to my own.

Brian Josephson

I've just been looking at your essay. The ideas sound similar to mine but my way of introducing them may be simpler. I hope to have a coherent presentation before too long, but need to slot the pieces clearly together (which my main critic in this thread seems to be notably unable to do in the way he presents his own rival picture!).

Narendra Nath

It intrigues me to note that you mention terms like 'edge of chaos'. Please elabortae for my clarity if we can differentiate between chaos of different degrees. Also, we may follow with similar procedure to consider Order and its degrees of less and more! We conducted an experiment where we mixed random events being sensed with different lower and lower degree of regular or ordered events. Chi square test clearly indicated such a mix taking place even at extremely low mixing % of regular pulses!

Brian Josephson

You can look up the term on the internet if you want more, but the situation essentially is that chaos refers to 'sensitivity to initial conditions', with differences between two adjacent situations increasing exponentially over time. There is a definite edge between this increase over time and stable situations where differences decrease over time. Biology seems to make use of this because being near the edge supports the possibility of favourable mutations. But you are right in saying that there are varying distances from the edge and this may also be important.

Narendra Nath

Thanks, Brain for your pertinent response. I hope Biologista along with Physicist colleagues may investigate such border line situations experimentally in order to clarify the siyuation. My youngdr colleague researches inmicro biology and your suggestion can be persued further!

Michael Popov

Dear Brian,

I made similar assumption on central role of biology and I attempted to investigate such fundamental biological fact as Homochirality. I had found that Homochirality could be used also as heuristic in Number theory ( an existence of odd perfect numbers, fundamental theorem of arithmetic and ABC conjecture ) - please see my essay " Fundamentalness of Homochirality ". I suspect that fundamentalness of biological Homochirality also could be connected with an idea of violation of symmetry in physics.

Generally,a central role of biology is easy deduced from my Quantum Idealism ( article published in Russian Uspekhi Physics in English in 2003,12 with support of Vitaly L.Ginsburg Nobel Prizer in physics 2004). I think your idealistic attitude is also important in understanding your biosemantics.

With the best wishes

Michael A.Popov

Thomas Ray

Brian,

I like the idea of mathematics as 'something that life does' because it makes no value judgment. After all, rape is something life does, too. Makes it possible for me to separate mathematics from mathematician, and accept Bieberbach's results without imposing my own prejudice against Nazis and rape. I take it, that you mean that meaning is an objectified thing--a higher meaning than any one person can impose. After all, some deem Nazis and rape 'something that life does' and are proud of it besides. One is reminded that philosophy was once known as moral science.

" ... something that sufficiently evolved life does because in the appropriate context so doing is of value to life." Ultimately. The jury is out on the context for 'sufficiently evolved'. And no research mathematician proves theorems because she thinks it will add value to life--though it does, in the long run. Theorem-proving is 'something that life does' and it gets the mathematician through life. Perhaps its value is just that.

There is no doubt in my mind, though, that meaning precedes the construction of a mathematical object. I embrace your premise.

All Best,

Tom https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3124

Thomas Ray

Brian,

Are you familiar with Brian Rotman's "Toward a Semiotics of Mathematics"?

Brian Josephson

I'm not, actually. Can you give a reference?

Thomas Ray

*Mathematics as Sign*, Rotman, B., Stanford University Press, 2000.

Brian Josephson

Thanks -- I've found it on the web now, at https://brianrotman.wordpress.com/articles/toward-a-semiotics-of-mathematics/. Pretty complicated and he seems uncertain of what to conclude in the end. I've written something on a similar theme, at https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.6707.

"We Think That We Think Clearly, But That's Only Because We Don't Think Clearly": Mathematics, Mind, and the Human World.

It could be that the idea of semiotic scaffolding which I refer to in this essay is relevant to the issue that you raise, but it is worth more detailed analysis.

Thomas Ray

It is, if semiotic scaffolding is a mathematical object.

Thomas Ray

Wow. I opened your arXiv article and fell in love at first skim. The Mathematical Experience is probably my favorite book. I had a hard time locating it on the bookshelf because the spine was so worn. Will return for an enjoyable read as soon as I am out from under an imminent deadline.

Brian Josephson

More likely to be metamathematical, I'd have thought.

Thomas Ray

In Chaitin's sense? "(Godel's proof) is not a result within any field of mathematics, it stands outside looking down at mathematics, which is itself a field called metamathematics!" (Meta Math! pp.26-27)

Brian Josephson

I expect so.

Thomas Ray

Then, might we take a dynamical view toward mathematics? Just as the Zen master is said to be "In the world, but not of it," can't metamath be "In the world of mathematics but not of it"?

That suggests to me that mathematics (at the level of complex analysis) is self-organizing.

Brian Josephson

That could be so. Biosemiotics has a concept 'code duality' which is roughly the idea that codes and their references generate each other. Perhaps the Platonic world is partly generated by observers doing maths!

This reminds me of my paper with a colleague on Platonism and music, which again reminds me of cymatics, which apparently shows water responding to music with patterns, in a way that may also involve self-organisation.

Thomas Ray

Brian,

Obviously, this is a subject dear to my heart. I've imposed on your time long enough, though I hope we can have a discussion later. I wrote a conference paper 12 years ago titled "Self Organization in real and complex analysis", and I aim to have a complete description in another conference paper this year. Thanks for your references. I appreciate it.

Thomas Ray

Brian,

I read all your linked papers, and delighted in them. Sorry I hadn't read more of your work before, aside of course from technical work on superconductors and Josephson junction. I'll do my best to correct that.

Anyway, the notion that "Biosemiotics has a concept 'code duality' which is roughly the idea that codes and their references generate each other" resonates. And I think it goes deeper than organic life.

Avtar Singh

Hi Brian:

I fully agree with your statement - "... there are intriguing parallels between

the quantum and biological domains, suggesting that there may be a more fundamental level underlying both."

I would like to draw your attention to the missing fundamental physics governing - "What causes a photon to accelerate to the speed of light?" My paper - "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The manuscript not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

« Previous Page Next Page »