• [deleted]

  • Post #44

Hi Ulla,

Your essay is to THE point: -Is Life fundamental or "emergent"-?

To answer your question: "Am I too bold to give it a try?" In my opinion: Low aim is a crime! Also in my opinion: This is the most ambitious essay in the contest. And I rate it very highly.

1. life in terms of mathematics? ...not a chance, it is toothless! My analysis: Life is a whole, mathematics needs parts.

2. You say "A property cannot be diminished to fundamental bits". I believe you mean to say: qualia (the quality redness) cannot be put in terms of information. I could be wrong here ...?

3. TGD: OK I give up! It is probably not: Teenage Girl Dramatization? (I got that from the web)

4. "The ability to measure, so environment "pay" the entropic cost of the measurement, for some time, is one fundamental of Life. If anything, Life speed up the entropy in universe." I take this to mean: Life and the universe are in cahoots.

But what I liked the most: "Life is experienced as an entity. We ask where is "consciousness", with no answer - not even from our brains, if we look to our experience. Mysterious I is also the Selfie - no answer. This is the subjective I. It cannot be localized, but it can be changed. And even if the flesh is reduced, it saves its character, until it cannot be more reduced, then Life vanish. LIFE MUST BE FUNDAMENTAL, like the experience itself?"

Question: Have you any opinions on why Roger Penrose (my hero) is locked onto micro-tubules as the source of consciousness ?

Yours was a tough read. Way to much information for a non biology person.

And yet I appreciate it very much.

Don Limuti

PS: Do take a look at my (simple, and easy) essay :)

    Hi, Don Limuti.

    Thanks for the vote.

    I wanted to more dwell on the fundamentality, but considered this text as more valueable, as an intro into the problem. Yes, it is dense, but I could not remove more, sorry. It is very scaled-off in this form.

    The problem with math is its uncriticality, I Think. Its Possibilities. Life is very critical and 'On the Edge', finetuned.

    "A property cannot be diminished to fundamental bits". - This is from bandcharachters and chirality. As the bands change also the properties change, and we get complexity, variability. One chiral form of a molecule does not have the same properties as its antagonist. This also highlights the meaning of information, actually, and I did not Think of qualia here.

    TGD is Topological Geometro Dynamics, theory of Matti Pitkänen.

    Life is generally seen as opposed to ordinary matter, and I Think this view is wrong. If I would say anything, it looks more like Life has found some criticality, like an own niche (complexity of carbon-chains and mainly H, O N, P-interactions, in the molecular World and is parallell to ordinary matter. In Universe the entropy grows and Life help it to grow.

    Question: Have you any opinions on why Roger Penrose (my hero) is locked onto micro-tubules as the source of consciousness ?

    It was Stuart Hameroff who took contact with Penrose, Hameroff thought that the microtubulis would fit very well as localization for consciousness. Microtubulis are everywhere, in every cell, so why not?

    Penrose showed how gravitation might give the state function reduction, and he related it to Equivalence theory in a good manner. The main objection is that gravitation is too weak, it is a controversial theory. But it is an interesting one.

    My next work is actually an interpretation of mitosis simulation, with microtubulis, on physical basis. It seems it is a good approach, yes. But maybe Life has not just ONE way to consciousness? In all other aspects it has a multiparite approach, so why not with consciousness?

    Penrose is also my 'hero' :)

    See my essay last year, The www of Life.

    Many smiles...

    Ulla Mattfolk

    Thanks.

    Seemed my answer wass 'eaten' by the net. I try again.

    toroidal gravitational waves is an interesting note. "Orbital bodies are in potential pits of stability of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie" - What is stability is a fundamental question too. Stability is only found within limits, and I would say it is symmetry protected states. Gravity as the weakest force is also the most longrange one, and in that way the most powerful. It is continous, but also chaotic, give rise to fractals, hence it has forms, often interpreted as Lie Groups etc.

    Toroidal forces can also be other than gravitational. They Point to asymmetry, I Think.

    The question of a varying G has some evidence. Also g varies on our Earth. The interesting question is what happens in the vacuum, or at its boundary, and what forms our space time.

    I have sometimes thought Newtonian gravity might be a quantum version :) Who knows?

    Ulla Mattfolk.

    Ulla,

    Thanks for a detailed and enlightening reply. Matti Pitkänen ... interesting... consciousness comes in quanta, forget about multi-worlds. Did I get that right?

    I found your many FQXi.org essays (where was I?...unconscious). I am beginning to love deep biology!

    Best of luck in your new project,

    Don Limuti

    Hi Ulla

    Thank you for dropping by my page and considering reading of my essay. I will certainly read yours.

    Yes, the equality between Guv and Tuv is something interesting to reflect upon. Physical interactions are usually energy conversions, from one type to another. It is interesting to ask the question, which is cause and which follows as an effect? between Guv and Tuv.

    I think Clocks are relevant in terms of the forces that drive their function. Force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force. My essay explains the details

    Talk soon

    Steve

      Ulla

      you present a deep analysis on life and how physical processes of the world relate to life's processes, and life's processes to physics. You are inventive of new terms and description and originality is something I rate highly. There is so much content and information within your essay, I'm going to have to come back and read it again. I will do so when I return from a well deserved surfing holiday. The essay contest is about to be concluded, and so its time for me to break away.

      I give you a ten and hope to talk with you more in the days that follow the contest. Very well done, ten from me.

      I hope you judge original concept as highly as I do :)

      Steve

      Dear Ulla,

      (copy to yours and mine)

      Your essay and comments allowed to consider us like-minded people.

      Like me, you think about very interesting questions «The interesting question is what happens in the vacuum, or at its boundary, and what forms our space + time».

      In my essay it is shown that all the force interactions of the elements of matter are carried out at resonance frequencies of toroidal gravitational waves. In the universe, there is a general grid of resonant frequencies of limiting elements (such as an electron), which synchronizes all quantum parametric processes), so time is a derivative of the period of synchronous resonance frequencies and cannot be distorted.

      It is known that on the surface of the flat bodies there is Casimir effect, which, as I explain, is associated with the presence of turbulent gravitational shell and large gradient of the gravitational potential.

      The bodies are attracted to each other on the Earth because there is a turbulent gravitational shell near the surface of the Earth.

      I wish you happiness in your scientific work in search of truth.

      Vladimir Fedorov

      https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

        I would be happy to talk.

        Someone gave me a low vote last night, so I dropped much. This is a bad game.

        Ulla.

        Thanks,

        Thoroidal force give very interesting results in simulations. It also leads to the wobbling of spheres or wavefunctions. The state function reduction change it.

        Thanks again, Ulla.

        Dear Ulla Marianne Mattfolk,

        I very much enjoyed your essay. Thank you for reading my essay and for your gracious comments.

        Discovering Schrödinger's "What is life?" (circa 1965) was a great excitement for me. I put Schrödinger at the top of the genius stack. His 'aperiodic' crystal was genius at the time. He knew maximum order was required, but not the total order of the crystal. His was the intuition, and he spurred all of the DNA pioneers, many of whom credited his 'What is life?' for their entry into the field of molecular biology.

        But you say, "we often assume the ideal to be a periodic symmetric structure, so symmetry is 'fault' or 'error'."

        My opinion is that all real symmetries we apply to physics today are approximate. I discuss this in comments around this contest, so do not repeat it here. For physicists, symmetry is 'easy', as it has a group representation, so if we can find elements that seem to be groupable, we can apply matrix math. And it works, even when the symmetry is broken. This is probably because the group elements can be transformed into each other, but require something other than the pure symmetry that the math relies on.

        You say 'information is distortion'. Yes, when energy exceeds a system threshold it 'distorts' the system, causing a transition to a different state; the structure is 'in'-formed, and information is 'recorded'. However it is not useful information unless a code-book or context is available to interpret it. As you say "information is about something." How could information travel through space, not knowing what ultimate system will be 'in'-formed? Energy travels through space, and sometimes leaves a meaningful record. And yes, "unlearning is hard." [See my essay.]

        In your essay you say "Logic longs for a unified picture, but logic may fool us." In my schema, consciousness is awareness plus volition, while intelligence is consciousness plus logic [where logic is structural.] Logic is piecemeal, local, and based on hardware: silicon logic gates, protein/DNA/RNA, axons and synaptic gaps, etc. I believe it is consciousness, above and beyond logic that longs for a unified picture, i.e., wants all of the logical pieces to coexist without contradicting each other.

        If consciousness arises separately with each life form, it must be 'easy', that is simple - easy to achieve, because life forms are almost without limit. But all such 'simple' models have failed. This (and experience) tells me that consciousness is inherent in the universe and must have a field character. Many of my essays, particularly my last one, address this point: The Nature of Mind

        Your bio addresses the real miracle (also supporting a consciousness field): Self-healing.

        My very best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Thanks.

          Your essay is very information dense, and I don't have enough knowledge to right understand it, but it contains some very interesting ideas. I have myself spent some amount of time searching for an asymmetric approach on the fields. The results are very meager. In condensed matter it is maybe easier. I have been one part of some simulations using asymmetry, with astonishing results, I now write some of it up.

          Living molecules are of some reason almost Always asymmetric, the symmetric ones are few. I got the idea it meant a bifurcation, something creating new stuff. I thought of how the quantization works in the oscillations and scatterings. It is an effect from fading em-fields.

          It looks like Life use the strategy to widen the gap of properties, possibilites, using asymmetry. It gives much more than simply symmetry, and is also an information-theoretic approch of Life, to gain more information, maybe? Also more possible information, seen as quantum complexity, and negentropy. Here also the Self-healing dwelves, partly. We must stay integrated to keep our homeostatic function working. The question of cancer relates much to this.

          I have aslo searched for a tripartite entanglement, and logic, in fact entanglement can be multipartite, I Think. This comes when looking at things from a many-body approach and a lattice. Usually it is claimed to be only bipartite, and the superposition would be total, but it is not what I have found. I have began to doubt the common theories about the collapse and decoherence too. Decoherence is simply the gathering of information, a temporal scenario. Many-body states have the charachter to 'lock' the quantum fluctuations through the bondings made, like flux-ropes. Macrostates can sometimes be seen to fluctuate, the border is not totally rigid between QM and GR states.

          At least I strongly dislike the dual logic as on/off states, and I want a third or fourth alternative :)

          Information is distortion, also support this. We need the entanglement and interactions to get new information. This is a classical scenario, the quantum dito is the complexity/negentropy, almost like a reversible Arrow at work, like a check-system. In an earlier essay I tried to describe this, Life as an interplay between coherence and decoherence. Also see my The www of Life, the wet, warm, womb...

          I have read some of your papers today, I especially like the way you use hbar, reminds much of TGD. I am eager to see your Mind-paper, thanks.

          Regards, Ulla Mattfolk.

          Dear Ulla,

          Thank you for drawing my attention to your interesting discussion of Life-force.

          It cetainly deserves sufficiently high rating

          With the best regards

          M.Yu.Khlopov

            Thanks,

            I have replied twice on your essay, but FQXI eat much...

            Regards.

            Ulla Mattfolk.

            Dear Ulla,

            Thanks for visiting my Essay page.

            Your wrote a nice Essay. I particularly appreciated your original explanation about the fundamental of life. In addition, reading Schroedinger's clever statements has been pleasant. I have also found interesting some connections between physics and biology.

            In general, you wrote an entertaining Essay, deserving my high score.

            Good luck in the Contest.

            Cheers, Ch.

              Thanks, Christian Chorda.

              This essay Contest has big fluxes, hope to stay alive...

              It was a pity you did not read the Unification solution, but maybe what you said hints at there is none, or there is a duality.

              Jarmo Mäkelä btw, does not live far from me, but I have not met him. You took a similar approach, maybe the future here?

              Ulla Mattfolk.

              This essay is very interesting Ulla...

              You have a very innovative approach to making sense of how to incorporate consciousness into the picture of Physics. I will likely have many more comments once the ratings have ended, but I am still trying to do my due diligence, by reading one or two more before time is called.

              All the Best,

              Jonathan

                Ulla

                Yes I'm a Finn as well

                I love your paper and its emphasis on LIFE -- which all the other writers didn't really consider at all. Well done.

                Sorry for the short reply but I have so many other essay to read and rate -- I will come back after the competition closes and leave more detailed reflections on your paper.

                Yours Harri

                  Thanks Jonathan.

                  You had written about carbon, something, which is interesting. Hope we can continue where we ended once.

                  Thanks Harri.

                  I have thought about imaginary numbers quite a bit. A wonderful essay, I have downloaded to read again.

                  Ulla.

                  Ulla

                  I know the feeling. I started in the middle, then moved to number one position for one day, then slammed back to the middle, only to rise to fith place again, then slammed back to the middle for contest conclusion. There was one point when I reached out, asking people if they would read my essay. Bad idea. They punished me for it.

                  Its not a pure contest. There is plenty of strategising beyond merely writing of a good essay.

                  The FQXi system wouldnt let me rate other peoples essays in the final days of the contest. This also happened to me last year. it became clear to me this year, that if I was unable to give people what they prospectively wanted, that is to say "a reciprocal read and rate of each others essays" then they were much less likely to read my essay. I was handicapped in my ability to engage with others in a fashion that could draw traffic and votes to my essay. Frustrating to go to all that work, then be disadvantaged by FQXi's system failure in the final days.

                  I sent them a letter about it both years, but havent had a response to date.

                  Steve