Underlying everything in the world, physicists have found categories of information (like mass, momentum, position or energy), mathematical relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. These three aspects of real-world information are seemingly the basic substance which, when logically aggregated, constitute the various varieties of fundamental matter: no “more substantial” substance has ever been found; no “more material” matter has ever been found. So, rather than these three aspects of information being a “property” of material substance, material substance is seemingly a logical aggregate of information.

But, as I ask in my essay: why are these numbers moving and changing? The categories don’t change; the relationships don’t change: only the numbers move and change. But the numbers don’t seem to be the type of self-sufficient entities which could change themselves, and the categories and relationships also don’t seem to be the type of self-sufficient entities which could change the numbers. So, I conclude that there is another aspect to the world, which can only be represented as logical connectives (like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and IS TRUE), which are responsible for the above-described logical aggregation of information, and responsible for number movement/ jumps.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Unfortunately, you do not give a definition of MATTER. And this is very important!

Vladimir, this is my answer to your 17th May challenge:

When fundamental-level matter is measured, or calculations about fundamental-level matter are made from other measurements, resulting in categories of information (like mass in MeV/c2, or charge) with their associated numbers, what is the material substance whose properties are being measured? My answer is that there is no material substance other than information which is logically connected (e.g. by logical ANDs) to other such information.

But what is information itself? The three necessary aspects of real-world information are: categories (like mass or charge); context (like mathematical relationships between the categories); and numbers that apply to the categories. Numbers, without category or context, are not information. Yes/no answers, without questions and other associated context, are not information.

      Lorraine Ford
      P.S.
      Which, I might add, is EXACTLY why computers/ AIs are not processing real-world information, real-world information which has 3 inherent, inseparable aspects: category, context/ relationship, and number. Computers/ AIs are merely processing man-made symbols of information, where there are physically separate symbols for category, context/ relationship, and number.

          Lorraine Ford
          Has matter always had the capacity to, at least sometimes, behave logically, i.e. behaviour which can be represented by logical connectives (like IF, AND, OR, THEN, and IS TRUE)? This is as opposed to categories of information (like mass, momentum, position or charge), which seem to exist in relationships that are represented by mathematical operators.

          But what is matter? Seemingly the most primitive matter is already assumed by physicists to be a hybrid type of thing in which these categories, with their associated numbers, are connected by logical ANDs (as opposed to these categories and numbers being seen as “properties” of matter).

          Unacknowledged logical ANDs have seemingly always been a part of the picture that physicists have of primitive matter.

              Lorraine Ford
              So, in the absence of any other fundamental “material substance” being found by physicists, I’m concluding that the fundamental “material substance” of the most primitive particles would be information of the following type of form:

              (mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,

              where the logical connectives “AND” and “IS TRUE” are the things that can build a materially substantial “particle” of information.

                  Georgina Woodward

                  1. What “load of numbers” are you talking about? Did you not notice that, as well as word symbols representing real-world numbers, I also used word symbols for real-world categories (“mass”, “charge”), symbols for “=”, symbols for brackets, and symbols for AND and IS TRUE? The numbers are only a part of the picture I was trying to portray.

                  2. I think you yourself are perhaps “muddling” symbols of the world with the actual world. Physicists and others have always used word and other symbols for real-world categories (like mass and charge), real-world relationships (“laws of nature”), and real-world numbers that apply to the categories, in order to represent theoretical, experimental and measured aspects of the real world. Are you suggesting that symbols with known meanings should NOT be used to represent aspects of the real world? I’m saying that in order to concisely represent known aspects of real-world primitive particles, one needs to use the above-mentioned AND and IS TRUE symbols, which have known meanings to people.

                  3. “…isn’t material … material existence”: In the absence of any actual evidence of any material substance, I’m concluding that the most primitive material substance can be represented in the above-mentioned way which includes the known aspects of the most primitive matter. Have you got a better way of representing primitive material substance, apart from the words “material existence”, words which pretty much say absolutely nothing about the known aspects of primitive material substance?

                  4. Define what you mean by "information".

                    Georgina Woodward
                    I’m saying that the most fundamental matter, the material substance of a fundamental particle, is actually just information which can be represented in the following type of way:

                    (mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,

                    where the numbers can be zero, and where the logical connectives “AND” and “IS TRUE” are the means whereby a “particle” of information can be built.

                    People know what the word “number” refers to; people know what the words “mass”, “velocity”, “charge” and “spin” refer to; people know what an equals sign is; and people know what the words “AND” and “IS TRUE” are supposed to mean.

                    So, can you provide a better, alternative way of describing fundamental matter?

                        Lorraine Ford
                        The difference between information (like the above purportedly existing “particle” of information) and categories (a group term for things like mass, charge, and position) is that:

                        • Information is always represented in logical connection with other information, using logical connectives like IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE.
                        • Categories are always represented in mathematical relationship with other categories, using mathematical operators and equals signs.

                        The physics equations that represent the experimentally determined relationships between categories (“laws of nature”) essentially say that IF some numbers that apply to some of the categories change, THEN other numbers that apply to other categories will instantly change, so that the relationships between the categories are never violated. Then all further number movement stops, because these relationships between categories can’t explain why the numbers would ever change in the first place, or why the numbers would continue to change. In other words, the relationships between categories can’t explain why the world is continually moving and changing.

                        To explain why the world is continually moving and changing, one needs to represent the world in terms of information, using statements containing logical connectives like IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE to represent the necessary number jumps. But, relationships between categories are essentially rules, whereas logical connections between information are not rules. So, unlike relationships between categories, which can be experimentally verified, it would seemingly be difficult to experimentally verify any specific purportedly existing logical connections between information.

                            Lorraine Ford
                            But (who knew?!!*) that man-made symbols of the real world are not the same as the real world!! I suggested a way of representing a fundamental particle in the above posts, but the written symbols:

                            (mass = number1) AND (velocity = number2) AND (charge = number3) AND (spin = number4) IS TRUE,

                            or the same symbols read aloud, are not a particle. Who knew?!!

                            And the same symbols represented in a computer or an AI computer, are not a particle. Who knew? Who knew that symbols of the real world are not the same as the real world? I try to explain this in my essay, and in subsequent posts, but it seems to be a very, very, very difficult concept for many people to understand.

                            *who knew?:
                            Expressing ironic lack of surprise, upon learning something.

                                Lorraine Ford
                                The thing about basic matter (and also consciousness) seems to be it’s quality of “AND” and “IS TRUE”, where many things (like mass, charge and spin) are simultaneously true in the one time and place (so to speak, because time and place are also part of the things that are true). This is easily seen in one’s own consciousness, where many things are simultaneously true in the one time and place (e.g.: (the grass is green) AND (the sun is shining) IS TRUE). This seems to show that logical connectives (represented by the following symbols: IF, AND, OR, THEN and IS TRUE), are just as important and basic a part of the real world as the aspects of the world that are represented by mathematical operators and equals signs.

                                However, it bears repeating for those poor souls spooked by human creations (i.e. AIs), that symbols representing the above logical connectives (which are symbolised by man-made arrangements of circuits, transistors and voltages) are not the actual logical connectives that seem to exist as a fundamental part of the real world.

                                    Lorraine Ford
                                    OMG. These people on the FQxI forums website with their crazy alarmist fearful views about AIs developing minds of their own, and either going rogue, or going to save humanity! And yet, just like the climate change deniers have no idea how the climate works, the AI alarmists and utopians also have no idea of the nitty gritty of how computers/ AIs are made to work, and they just believe what everyone else (who also don’t know the nitty gritty of how computers/ AIs are made to work) tells them. It’s truly laughable how a bunch of woefully ignorant people, physicists included, have managed to freak themselves out.

                                    In my above posts, and in my essay, and I think also in my posts to other essay authors, I have tried to explain the nitty gritty, the well-known details, of how computers/AIs are actually made to work, and I’m not sure that I can be bothered repeating myself over and over and over again.

                                    More disturbingly for a supposedly science-based website, is the complete lack of interest in the WELL-KNOWN DETAILS OF HOW COMPUTERS/ AIs ARE MADE TO WORK. It is an absolute disgrace that a type of religious belief has overtaken these people. I expect they will soon all be banging tambourines and shouting “hallelujah”!

                                    More seriously, having badly misjudged the nature of AI, the AI alarmists and utopians are inevitably wasting their own time, and everyone else’s time, barking up the wrong tree.

                                        Lorraine Ford
                                        Even the developers don't know the nitty gritty of how the large language models learn for themselves. They can ask what the models have done but humans think in a different way. The speed and amount of processing by AIs can be beyond the ability of relatively much slower human checking ,

                                            Georgina Woodward
                                            Unlike all the genuinely learned immunology professors during COVID who could give you a detailed account of how viruses and pandemics work, NOT ONE of the AI alarmists or AI utopians, not one of the “AI researchers” or executives, not one of the videos, not one of the people supposedly “in the know”, could give you a detailed account of how bunches of wires, transistors and voltages, run by computer programs, are supposed to transform into civilisation threatening entities with minds of their own. This is because, unlike the genuinely learned immunology professors, the know-nothing AI alarmists/ utopians are believers in miracles.

                                            ALL the technical knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work is out there. How is it that the fearful know-nothings with their inability to explain anything, and their reliance on dubious interpretations of superficial appearances, and fear-based know-nothing videos, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                                Georgina Woodward
                                                They are a whole new ball game ONLY for those who know nothing about, who have no understanding about, how computers/ AIs are made to work.

                                                I repeat: ALL the technical knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work is out there. How is it that the fearful know-nothings with their inability to explain anything, and their reliance on dubious interpretations of superficial appearances, and fear-based know-nothing videos, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                                    Lorraine Ford
                                                    I should have said:
                                                    ALL the technical and programming knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work their seeming “miracles” is out there. There are no actual miracles; there is no emergence of potentially rogue, or potentially benevolent, intelligent entities. The actual intelligent entities are the many thousands, probably millions, of intelligent people whose scientific, mathematical, technical and programming work, in many different fields over many years, enabled the development of computers and AIs.

                                                    So, how is it that the AI-fearful know-nothings, and the AI-techno-utopian know-nothings, who are both characterised by their complete and utter inability to explain how computers/ AIs are made to work, and who have therefore developed woo-woo beliefs about AIs based on superficial appearances, can hold sway on a supposedly science-based website?

                                                      Seriously. Apparently, there’s an organisation of very-serious-fellows called “The Monty Python Institute of Future Life” (or some similar name) who write very-serious-papers, and give very-serious-lectures, and make very-serious-videos, about something called “existential wrists” (or some similar term) that you get from AI.

                                                      Apparently, susceptibility to this absolutely horrible affliction is a result of being one of the close to 100% of the human population who don’t know, and don’t consider it is necessary to know, the technical details of how computers/ AIs are made to work. There seems to be quite a few physicists and philosophers currently afflicted by this absolutely horrible “existential wrists” condition. But not to worry, because a little bit of actual knowledge of how computers/ AIs are made to work will clear up the horrible condition in no time.

                                                        Lorraine Ford
                                                        The idea that man-made symbols mean something, or anything, to the non-human part of the universe, and to computers/ AIs in particular, is at the root of techno-idiocy.

                                                        This techno-idiocy is what founded the woo-woo “Monty Python Institute of Future Life” (if I’ve got the name right), and techno-idiocy is behind the current ludicrous and woo-woo discussions between Robert McEachern, and Georgina Woodward on the FQxI Forums website.

                                                        In fact, nothing in nature apart from human beings knows about, or responds to, man-made symbols of the world. E.g., binary digits occur nowhere in nature, except as a concept in the minds of human beings. Apart from the minds of human beings, nothing in nature knows about, or responds to, the binary digit concept, or to man-made symbols of the binary digit concept. All nature knows about is categories (like mass or position or spin), mathematical relationships between these categories, and numbers that apply to the categories. But, once again, nature doesn’t know about the man-made symbols that people use to represent these real-world categories, relationships, and numbers.

                                                        There are no binary digits in computers. Specially arranged circuits, transistors and voltages are used to represent the man-made binary digit concept, and there is a fair bit of specialist knowledge and circuit complexity required to get the circuits, transistors and voltages to perform as required in order to correctly represent the binary digit concept. Depending on the setup and the components to be used, various ranges of voltages can be used to represent the binary digits concept, where the higher voltages in the selected range can be used to represent the zero binary digit concept, OR the lower voltages in the selected range can be used to represent the zero binary digit concept. In other words, there is no rule whereby voltages can be measured, and calculations made using the voltage measurements, to reveal the binary digits, and the words, sentences and mathematical symbols that the binary digits are supposed to represent.

                                                        The idea that computers/ AIs know the meaning of these man-made binary digit symbols, or word, sentence, and mathematical symbols, is the woo-woo lunacy that fills the minds of the techno-idiots.

                                                            Lorraine Ford
                                                            The FQxI / “Monty Python Institute of Future Life” woo-woo brigade ARE MAKING BIG CLAIMS about the supposed nature of computers/ AIs. So, these people need to explain how they think computers/ AIs:

                                                            1. Know what a binary digit is.
                                                            2. Know that a voltage is meant to represent a binary digit.
                                                            3. Know what particular binary digit is meant to be represented by a particular voltage.
                                                            4. Know that arrays or groups of these binary digits are in turn meant to represent word symbols and number symbols.
                                                            5. Know what particular word symbols and number symbols are meant to be represented by particular arrays or groups of these binary digits.
                                                            6. Know that human beings ascribe meaning to these word symbols and number symbols.
                                                            7. Know what particular meaning human beings ascribe to particular word symbols and number symbols.