Fundamentality Here, Fundamentality There, Fundamentality Everywhere by Marc Séguin

Hi Marc, clearly written and nicely illustrated essay.

About combining 3. and 4. take care not to muddle map and territory when doing that.

Dynamic emptiness is a nice idea but to be dynamic it can not be utter emptiness, nothing alone can not move, it seems to me. I think I can equate it to the idea of the base medium from which all kinds of existent things and phenomena are differentiated. I don't think everything physical can come from nothing at all. Though I have read Max Tegmark's argument.

Good question at the end. I think we can still have awe without mystery. Such as for the scale, and the complexity and diversity of the universe. There is another saying, "ignorance is bliss," but does that make it desirable?

Dear Marc,

the Matrix trilogy is, in fact, exactly what I had in mind when I made that comparison. And yes, I suppose I have a somewhat analogical style of thinking---which I often have to reign in, as one tends to see spurious connections; on occasion, I have been so taken in by a (superficially) fitting analogy that I didn't notice where it breaks down. I always feel the danger of succumbing to crankdom in that area: I get so taken in by my own associations that I forget to stop and check them against hard data, or, failing that, the hardest arguments I can find against my own views.

This is why discussion, such as that generated by these contests, is so important to me: here, I get the chance to have other people look at my stuff, and hopefully tell me if I've left all solid ground behind and analogized myself into some fantasy cloud-cuckoo-land.

That said, I am admittedly somewhat fond of the rainbow analogy, I have to admit: it goes to show (well, suggest) that whether the world is just as it is in an objective way, or whether the observer creates what they observe, is not necessarily a cut-and-dried dichotomy, but rather, that the two may complement each other to give rise to observed phenomenology.

This is the sort of thing that I also see at work in your thinking: it's not just the tower of turtles or the chain of monkeys, both have their part to play. A point that one might also make in this regard is how we know of the (current) 'bottom layer' of the tower of turtles only via mediation of the 'top layer'---i.e. ultimately, the entire tower is, of course, presented to us only via our experience within the world, and hence, as much a part of the mind as it can claim to be objective reality.

So again, idealism's insistence that 'all is thought' and materialist reduction to fundamental particles may not be the opposite poles of the spectrum of metaphysical options, but may both be valid views of the world, with different emphasis.

And yes, I do agree---a lot of valuable thought has emerged in the essay discussions, and I would be very interested in seeing how this might have impacted individual views. Perhaps make the next essay question, "what's the most important insight to emerge from FQXi contests"?

Cheers,

Jochen

Dear Marc,

I was very pleased to read your essay! It was very well explained, honest, taking into account multiple views about what is fundamental, and at the same time entertaining. I like the idea to use the Zen symbol ensЕЌ to symbolize "dynamic emptiness", whether it is at the top or at the bottom. And the proposal that maybe the top and the bottom was the same ensЕЌ. I had much fun seeing the "fog of metaphysical handwaving" as the missing link with the bottom fundamental abstract structure, and at the same time the missing link to consciousness. This was even funnier considering how true it is :) Excellent essay, I wish you success!

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica, Indra's net

Hello Mr Seguin,

I liked a lot your essay.It is one of my favorites.

I have an explaination for this dark matter and this dark energy and I have correlated with the quantum gravitation in my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm sphères Inside an universal spheres.It is the meaning of my equation E=m'b)c²+m(nb)l² with m(nb) this dark matter this matter non baryonic.I have encircled the model standard mith these particles and correlated fields , with forces weaker than electrmagntic forces of photons.I have also inserted a serie of quantum Bhs farer than nuclear forces, this standard model is encrcled by this gravitation.If this DM exists so it is produced by something and also encoded in nuclei.For the dark en,ergy I cnsider it like an anti gravitational spherical push and I consider that aether is gravitational also.They turn so they are these soherical volumes ....

Your essay was a pleasure to read , I learn in the same time,

Best Regards

Marc, yes and no. I think a more complex structure is needed. For analogy; The story in a book is something different from the ink on the pages. When the printed characters are interpreted by a mind the story can be of another world, not the world the book, (ink on pages), is in. The 'things and events of the mind are not the same things and events as external reality independent of the mind, There is a categorical difference.That is to say the map has to be within the terrain, as that is all that exists, but that does not make the map the terrain itself. That's how I see it.

I liked indeed your essay.

Each year I don't make this essay's contest, my English is not good and also I have my mind occupied by problems in Belgium.But what is foundamental, I beleive that many things are foundamentals, the sphères of course lol, the geometrical algebras , the waves, the maths, the physics, the philosophy, the hamiltonian, the lagrangian, the QFT, LOL.....so many things, in fact there are many foundamentals and it is difficult to choose one road, but the spherisation with quant and cosm sphères Inside this universal sphere and their motions for me are the most foundamental things :) they turn so they are ....

Best Regards

Dear Marc Séguin,

I enjoyed your essay, and I think it helps that you point out how disparate and disjointed physics is at present. And the general overview of the questions about fundamental makes one think about how it all might be linked up.

I found some similarities with my essay. Some of these are superficial, and some run deeper. But perhaps they all show we share a bit of a similar mindset. They can be listed, we both:

Distinguish between ontological and epistemic uses of the word fundamental

Talk about explanation as a key aspect of what links the layers of description

Look at the boundary between chemistry and particle physics

Compare the periodic table with the standard model

Quote Einstein in relation to what might be at the deepest level

Mention putting a theory of everything on a t-shirt

I'd like your opinion on a point of mine about emergent time, which I've never seen made anywhere else. No-one had refuted it so far, but several people have said it's a good point. It's near the top of page 2 of my essay, and boils down to the need to explain a coincidence - if a real or apparent 'flow of time' emerged somehow, then why was it so appropriate that it allowed physical laws (such as laws of motion), which were already pre-implied in the sequence of the time slices in the block, to function? And what were the laws doing, sitting there in the block in this 'just add water' sort of way, as if waiting for something to emerge?

I'd appreciate it if you'd rate my essay, it has only had four ratings so far, and in some situations that isn't enough for the average to be taken seriously.

Thank you, best regards,

Jonathan Kerr

PS we also both mention that we don't yet know how the chemistry to biology transition is made.

PPS. I was very surprised to find an idea that I used as an analogy in the '80s and '90s about QM on your page, in a conversation you had with Georgina. At the time I was looking for an analogy for what Paul Davies used to call the 'software/hardware entanglement', and what Jaynes called an omelette: "A peculiar mixture describing in part realities of Nature, in part incomplete human information about Nature - all scrambled up by Heisenberg and Bohr into an omelette that nobody has seen how to unscramble"[i/].

I thought about a map which is at the same scale at the territory it describes, and is drawn onto it. And then one day you don't bother to draw it on, you just use the territory as the map. This idea didn't help much at the time, but it helped to understand that something, somehow, was doubling as its own description. Anyway, it seems that you and I have similar ideas! Best wishes, Jonathan

Dear Marc

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

Marc,

Yours was easily the most enjoyable essay I've read in this contest!

It is lucid, learned, well-stated, well-ordered, and covers the topic in an interesting and engaging way. It as also spot-on for the question that FQXi asked, and your sly and often self-deprecating sense of humor had me chuckling multiple times.

In short, your essay was entertaining, illuminating, and fun.

Perhaps more importantly, however, was its impact: You actually persuaded a rather hard-nosed scientific type like me to take your arguments and points to heart, though I'll also admit that the "hard-nosed" part is a bit of a fraud. These issues have always fascinated me, even when I was very young. Alas, in exploring such issues later in life, what I discovered was that as a general rule, the greater the size and of the words and the frequency with which they were used, the less was the actual knowledge that someone was attempting to convey to me. For that reason it was a mercy that you held off using "epistemology" and "ontology" until page 7. It was your determined use of well-chosen ordinary words and analogies in the pages before that persuaded me to read and enjoy the essay as a whole.

I'll mention just two points: qualia, and your definition of what is fundamental.

Qualia are a topic I pondered for decades before encountering the word for it. You state on page 7 that "qualia...are truly...independently fundamental." As someone who worked for years in topics involving both human and machine cognition, allow me to state a position that I did not come to trivially: Computers, even computers that exactly mimic human behaviors and emotions, have no qualia. That is because they need for qualia, and in fact have no any room in their fully deterministic designs by which qualia might somehow "slip in" and affect the behavior of such devices.

To help explain that, here is an assertion about qualia that you likely have never heard before, and that many might consider to be heretical: Qualia do not just define our very existence, they are incredibly useful. Qualia, including emotions, somehow help our limited suite of human neurons to connect and sort through information faster. When you look at an apple tree with green-red color blindness, you see only leaves. When you look at the same tree with full color vision, you see bright red edible fruit and exactly where it is located. It is the qualia that within the mind convert ordinary data from the eye into a single coherent map, an interplay of red and green that helps your body get to the food faster and more safely.

We do not know what qualia are. The simple truth is, we simply do not want to know what qualia are. Humans want reliability, so human designers make their machines as deterministic as possible to help shield against such ill-defined forms of information processing. In fear, we purge the scourge of qualia before we even get a glimpse of what they look like. In their place we use blinding digital speed, a safe way to emulate but not access the incredible speed, smoothness, efficiency, and diversity (emotions, colors, space, sounds, tastes, senses) of qualia.

Is it offensive to say that the same quantities that define our very existence, that create meaning and enable empathy, and that categorically distinguish us from literally mindless, full deterministic computers, are also useful?

Perhaps it would be if qualia are nothing more than local chemical reactions with no more profundity than the foam that arises when you pour vinegar on baking soda. But what if qualia are so remarkably powerful at processing information precisely because they are not just simple local phenomena, but something more akin to shared access to some pool or network of resources of an unknown type? For those who already suspect that qualia are a quantum mechanical effect, this would not even be much of leap. These days you can buy off-the-shelf communication encryption devices that spookily entangle particles of light that are many kilometers apart, so it is no stretch at all to say that the quantum world is broader and stranger than our local-only classical perspective.

I like to think that qualia are either simpler or more complicated than the quantum world. When we finally get around to figuring out whether your mental image of green and my mental image of green are the same, or that what I call green is what you call red, I suspect we will whack our foreheads with the backs of our hands and say "why didn't we see that before?"

If qualia are not just local effects -- if they somehow represent limited peeks into a much larger world in which the colors of human rainbows are nothing more than a starting point (which some birds and butterflies already know) -- then your own point about what is fundamental becomes more immediate and personal:

"Something is truly fundamental if it could not have been otherwise."

And so you have persuaded me to a broader perspective. Without qualia we are nothing but more machinery, striving to remain alive and acting out the part, but with no more awareness of that life than has the glowing image of a great actor on a television screen. It is only our access to qualia that puts meaning into the bodies that are our images of life projected into this chaotic universe. That makes qualia far more than just helpers in our striving to survive. It makes the something that could not have been otherwise, for otherwise no one reading these words would even care.

Cheers,

Terry

Fundamental as Fewer Bits by Terry Bollinger (Essay 3099)

Essayist's Rating Pledge by Terry Bollinger

P.S. -- You forgot to add in the chiral particle counts in Table 1. Chirality doubles the number of most of the fermions, except for the odd and fascinating case of neutrinos. If you are interested in seeing more and more precise info on this issue, please try out the online Elementary Particle Explorer by Garrett Lisi, Troy Gardner, and Greg Little.

The notion that qualia are useful reminded me of something I read the other day in Ancillary Justice, a scifi novel by Ann Leckie, recommended to me by my literary son. In this story it's taken for granted that advanced AI systems have feelings - since "Without feelings insignificant decisions become excruciating attempts to compare endless arrays of inconsequential things. It's just easier to handle those with emotions."

Conrad

Dear Marc,

It is good to see again an essay of yours in this contest.

One interesting point in your essay is the distinction between ontological and epistemological fundamentality. I accept the distinction as you have drawn it. However, I would tend to identify fundamentality as it presents itself in scientific theories with an estimate of ontological fundamentality. Thus, when fundamentality is ascribed in a theory, it is not epistemological fundamentality that is meant. So, it is necessary to distinguish genuine ontological fundamentality (i.e., "the fundamentality of reality itself," as you describe it on page 7) from our best theoretical estimate of what that fundamentality is. Neither one is epistemological fundamentality. From this perspective my interpretation of the story about the panelists from the 2016 conference (page 6) might differ from your interpretation. I think they might have been voting about ontological fundamentality. As you point out with the reference to Descartes' cogito, it is hard to deny that consciousness is epistemologically fundamental. So a vote on that does not seem necessary. But then, I did not attend the conference, so this is only my interpretation.

I think that the idea of non-arbitrariness (page 8) is important. I agree that the best current theories ascribe a considerable amount of arbitrariness to the facts of the world. I am inclined to consider non-arbitrariness a separate feature from fundamentality. In this view, fundamentality is a matter of the arrows of explanation, as discussed particularly on pages 1 and 2 and then again on page 6. At present the arrows cannot all be traced back to a core of fundamental truths. Nonetheless, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the world is organized in that coherent way. By contrast, it does not seem likely that the primary truths are non-arbitrary. So, non-arbitrariness is different from the distinctive order built on the relation of explanations in terms of more fundamental truths.

I agree, that, if all possibilities are real, then there is no arbitrariness, as you also discuss on page 8. I would guess that for the infinite ensemble there is only one fundamental truth, namely, that everything is true (somehow, somewhere). If that is so, then the concept of fundamentality does not apply in infinite-reality theories to the same extent that it applies in more standard theories.

Laurence Hitterdale