The current "Western" scientific paradigm has been criticized as "Galileo's error": the idea that reality can be described in the manner of points in motion and similar notions that lend themselves to mathematical modelling. The paradigm is challenged here in two ways. First, we find that no computational or even broadly "mathematical" model of a mind can even know that it has concrete existence. Second, MWI or EQM — the premiere attempt to make quantum mechanics "realistic" and deterministic — is fallacious and fails to resolve the measurement problem. These seemingly unrelated realizations work together to suggest that the quantum reality underlying the workings of the brain/mind enable it to appreciate and feel its transcendent character, as an aspect of a wider, universal mind underlying the universe. Conventional science will not be up to the task of modeling and working through such a broader reality. Panpsychism enabled by property dualism is the most promising new perspective.
The Brain in a Plat and the Fading Dream of Quantum Realism: Science at a Transf
Hello PersimmonCatshark. I enjoyed your essay. It provided room for something new and a time for change. It fit very well into my thinking. In my essay: “Could Science Be Different And Improved? Yes. A Specific Proposal”, I introduced something new —Successful Creation —which provides an overview of how science could add qualitative consciousness, intelligence, life, and creativity to “as it is” quantitative science. I believe this combination would put science back on the right track. Also, with the correct interpretation, it provides many of the fundamental components that you express are lacking in today’s science. If you can, I would appreciate it if you would read my essay and we could discuss how the ideas in both of our essay’s could improve science. FlaxTern
John Crowell
Hello FlaxTern, thank you for responding to my essay. I haven't read your essay yet, but your description of adding the qualitative aspect to our doing of science resonates directly with my own proposal. I will read yours and get back to you soon. - PC
Neil Bates
A very important, deep and interesting essay with radical ideas to overcome the crisis in the foundations of knowledge.
I agree completely with your final conclusion:
"I can only suggest the contours of what may lie beyond, but it's time for a change."
You have taken an important Penrose epigraph to the essay. I just don't agree with Penrose - "a universe governed by laws".
In my opinion, it is more ontologically true that the Universe is governed not by "laws", but by one LAW (in the spirit of Heraclitus): "In the Beginning was the Logos.../ Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος..."
"Logos" is understood as a MetaLaw (Law) that governs the Cosmos (in the spirit of Heraclitus).
Fundamental science (mathematics, physics, cosmology) is experiencing a conceptual - paradigmatic crisis of the metaphysical / ontological basis, which manifests itself as a "crisis of understanding" ("J. Horgan "The End of Science", Kopeikin K.V. "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of the soul : Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (Romanovskaya T.B. "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style"), "loss of certainty" (Kline M. "Mathematics: Loss of Certainty"), "trouble with physics" (Lee Smolin "Trouble with Physics").
Fundamental science "rested" in the understanding of space and matter (ontological structure), the nature of the "laws of Nature", the nature of "fundamental constants", the nature of the phenomena of time, information, consciousness.
Quantum theory, General relativity and String theory are phenomenological (parametric, operationalist. "effective") theories without ontological justification (ontological basification).
To overcome the crisis, the Big Synthesis is needed, a critical look at the entire path of philosophy and science, new ontological and dialectical ideas.
A holistic paradigm, the "PARADIGM OF UNDERSTANDING", should come to the aid of the "paradigm of the part" that dominates science today.
More than a quarter of a century ago, the mathematician and philosopher Vasily Nalimov set the super-task of building a "super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World" - the creation of a model of the "Self-Aware Universe"(V.Nalimov, 1996).
In the same direction, the ideas of the Nobel laureate in physics Brian Josephson (which are not very noticed by mainstream science), set out in the essay "On the Fundamentality of Meaning" (2018).
The paradigm of the Universe as an eternal holistic generating process gives a new look at matter: matter is that from which all meanings, forms, structures (material and ideal) are born
Today, problem No. 1 ("the problem of the millennium") is the ontological justification / substantiation of mathematics (ontological basification), and therefore knowledge in general, the construction of the New Extended Ideality - the ontological basis of knowledge and cognition for the new information age: ontological framework, carcass, foundation. That is, the big Ontological Revolution is needed in the foundations of knowledge. Physics must move from the stage "Phenomenological physics" to the stage "Ontological physics".
Heraclitus, Plato, Galileo, Kuzansky, Whitehead, Wheeler, Florensky and Nalimov give good hints and directions for searching and constructing the New Extended Ideality.
[This is just scratch for me to work with formatting. But any discussion of that issue IS welcome too, if anyone is inclined.]
five mind error
hello out there
Vladimir Rogozhin Greetings Vladimir,
Thank you for your sentiments and musings here, your perspective is much like my basic orientation even if we emphasize different details and aren't fully on the same page. Thanks also for bringing Vasily Nalimov to my attention. I either had not heard of him, or forgot. He too, is basically aligned with our perspective, although I note he frames this in terms of semantic expression of mind (more cognitively) rather than the "qualia" format that emphasizes sensory empiricism and as a distinction from abstract process. I will read more.
You don't have an alias like us contestants, in what manner are you a member of FQxI?
Regards.
- Edited
Neil Bates
As for the ideas of V. Nalimov ("Self-Aware Universe", 1996), I consider these thoughts to be especially important for ontological construction:
the task of "building a super-unified field theory that describes both physical and semantic manifestations of the World."
"we must: (1) overcome some of the limitations that weigh on us, established in the paradigm of our culture; (2) outline the contours of a self-conscious universe."
- 1. Overcoming interfering prerequisites_
_1. We are still hung over by the rigid Cartesian distinction between mind and matter. The basis for this was the assertion that matter is spatially extended, but the mind is not. Now we can ignore this argument. We know that the spatial perception of physical reality is determined not so much by the World around us, but by the ability initially given to our consciousness to see the World as spatially ordered. We can also learn to spatially perceive the World of Meanings if we are able to set the image of the semantic field in some fairly visual way. So we can geometrize our ideas about consciousness and create a language close to the language of modern physics.
- 1. Overcoming interfering prerequisites_
In order to set the image of the semantic field, it must be recognized that meanings are primary in nature. In other words, it is necessary to agree that elementary meanings (which are not yet texts) are set initially. Here we come very close to the position of Plato, by the way, formulated by him not clearly enough. Such an approach can no longer be considered unscientific - we recognize the initial predetermination of fundamental physical constants, the nature of which is more mental than physical." [https://web.archive.org/web/20111205183605/http://v-nalimov.ru/articles/111/395/]
But I do not agree with his further approach to constructing the model of the "Self-Aware Universe". Building a model, one must simultaneously solve the century-old problem of the ontological justification/substantiation of mathematics (ontological basification).
As for "qualia", the inclusion in the core of the model of the concept "ontological (structural, cosmic) memory - the "soul of matter" substantiates the nature of "qualia".
I am not participating in this Competition, but only as a reader.
Good luck in the Сompetition!
Regards.
My brief takeaways:
1. Orchestrated Objective Reduction: (Roger Penrose & Stuart Hameroff) Human consciousness quantum processes occurring within microtubules inside neurons of human brain.
2. Panpsychism: (Philip Goff) Universal consciousness is a ubiquitous feature of the Cosmos like the Electromagnetic field and the interplay of mass and Charge in the interactions with the electromagnetic field -- Cosmic consciousness works within this framework.
3. Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH): is Max Tegmark's brainchild blurs the distinction between mathematical structure and physical reality. No doubt that many mathematical constructs are a perfect match to describe aspects of physical reality. The only rule I would apply is that nothing that has physicality has zero size, zero thinness, or zero volume.
4. Modal realism: A position in metaphysics, advocated by David Lewis in On the Plurality of Worlds, which claims that all possible worlds are just as real as the actual world we inhabit.Clearly each of these perspectives bring to the table key ideas that can connect together.
I would say that phenomena like Remote Viewing, ESP & Astro Projection would not be possible if Panpsychism was not the case --AND-- that the microtubules are a prime candidate as the interface between Human consciousness Cosmic Conscious Field. As for Modal Realism my personal view is that the past already existed, the present is exists now, and the future exists in the imaginary realm of possibilities. But, to be honest, my thoughts in this area are very preliminary.
All-in-all I'd say each of the 4 perspectives above (with the caveats mentioned) contribute significantly to this most intriguing Cosmic puzzle we call our universe.
Someday I'll have much more to say about the Quantum Measurement Problem, but it will take several pages to explain the ever-expanding Cosmic Event Horizon as being a mirror that reflects all of physical reality back onto itself.
Loved the title! I'm not sure if I've ever read a more compelling argument against computationalism other than that of Penrose himself.
While the title of my own essay "Schisms beyond Arithmetick" might sound like it deals with mathematics it is not a subject I broached. Still, I would be interested in your perspective if you have the time to check it out.
John Wsol
Hello, MustardLynx,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You listed four key items which are indeed core concepts in the attempt to transcend reductionism, although #3 and #4 are fairly similar. Modal realism is more broadly "semantics" oriented, it is not strictly limited to "mathematical" description. It is based on whatever could be coherently stated in principle as a "possible world," the only essential requirement being logical coherent and consistent. Both MR and MUH make essentially the same point though: neither mathematical nor semantic logic really explain why some such descriptions should be considered "concretely real" or "more real" than supposed mere abstractions, whether the latter are framed in terms of math or in terms of propositions broadly defined.
Arguably, if indeed parapsychological phenomena really happen, Panpsychism is further supported. I'm not too up on the firmness of empirical support for any of those. As for the relation of MR to possible futures etc: MR goes far beyond possible paths of future events, of the sort proposed in MWI. MR imagines every, literally every, possible universe to exist just like ours does. So that means cartoon worlds like Wile E Coyote and the Road Runner, with varying degrees of specific elaboration and detail etc.
I'll take a look at your essay soon.
Hello, thanks for the props. I will take a look at your essay soon, remind me if i wait very long to comment there.
-- PC
Dear PersimmonCatshark, thanks for your well thought-trough essay! Your examination of the MUH is to the point and your conclusion that AI isn't able in principle to transcend and therefore realise its physical existence is marvellous. I also appreciate what you wrote about the EQM interpretation and its problems, it is good to have an essay that addresses these problems, since they are not at all spelled-out in the popularised presentations of EQM.
As you rightfully work out in your essay, the human mind must have a certain ability to transcend its own information-processing determinism. Otherwise we wouldn't get dizzy when seriously thinking about the possibility for the MUH to be a true statement about fundamental reality.
Although the MUH at first sight appears to be overal consistent, the above mentioned dizzyness reveals in my opinion that if it where true, then Gödel's undecidability must be decided by the human mind in favour of inconsistency instead of incompleteness – since the human mind as part of the MUH is able to produce a whole plethora of inconsistent systems / lines of reasonings etc. That in turn would mean for the MUH that it mixes consistency with inconsistency to arrive at a desired new level of explanation (the MUH level of explaining consciousness).
But on the basis of mathematical logics, this mix isn't useful to really fundamentally explain reality, since it is unable to explain that human logics is able to discriminate between consistent and inconsistent. It is unable to explain this transcendent feature of the human mind with the help of an inconsistent explanatory scheme. Moreover, when talking about information-processing, the term “information” must also be a kind of transcendental entity, different from any formal system, since otherwise we couldn't even discriminate between consistent and inconsistent!
So, in my opinion you are totally right, there must me something more within and about ultimate reality, something different than just information-processing – since information-processing obviously cannot differentiate whether or not what it is processing is built up by a consistent or an inconsistent choice of logical operators. It needs a (human) mind to do that!
So we both essentially come to the conclusion that formalisability has its limits in explaining fundamental reality. I totally agree with that, on the basis what I myself have written for that contest and subsequently in my several comments on other essays. At my own essay page I make a dualistic attempt to solve the mind-body problem. I would be happy if you could take your time and read that comment as well as my essay. Would be great if you could also leave your thoughts on what i've written there by commenting!
Big thanks again for a really deep and far-reaching essay!
- Edited
Neil Bates
Re “MUH still deserves credit for being a boldly contrarian total world-view with a surprisingly solid (so to speak) argument”. I disagree.
I think the biggest problem with the already absurd and over the top MUH concept is that this concept is completely blind to the many logically necessary algorithmic steps that would be required to implement such a concept.
The controlling, many-step MUH algorithm that would be logically necessary to run each world, goes something like this:
IF more than one possible numeric value outcome for a particular situation is detected anywhere in a world (billions of checking and detection steps required here), THEN:
- Count the number of possible numeric outcomes, while recording each individual possible numeric outcome in a table (this involves a massive number of steps).
- Record the current numeric values of every variable, everywhere in the world (e.g. mass, velocity, position, energy). This would require much research and billions of steps.
- For each individual one of the possible numeric outcomes: create a whole new blank universe out of nothing (quite a lot of work), assign all the stored numeric values to every variable in the world, including the abovementioned individual possible numeric outcome (quite a lot of work); give each world a copy of the controlling many-step MUH algorithm; start it up.
- When all the above is finished, clean up by deleting the original algorithm and the original world.
Logically, billions of algorithmic steps would be required to implement the MUH concept. Yet MUH adherents seem to believe that new worlds can just magically appear, without all the logically necessary intermediate steps that would be required to implement the MUH concept.
Things get even worse for Everettian Quantum Mechanics (EQM), since if the MUH is considered to be true, then also EQM must be true.
Since the wave function in EQM evolves not only deterministically but also continously, there would be a non-denumerable infinity of possible branches involved within certain physical events (like for example atom dedays where time may be infinitely dividable, Feynman's path integrals etc.).
Besides the question how nature should cross a non-denumerable infinity of spacetime points even in a non-EQM world, things get worse when combining the MUH with the EQM. Then the question is whether or not to attach to each quasi-independent mathematical universe within the MUH a different time-scale or not.
In your scribble of the needed steps to produce a new “mathematical” world, you seem to assume the core mechanism to be some kind of classical computer, that step by step performs its instructions. This I think would be true for the mathematics we use to do science.
The EQM is not like that, since it is assumed to be a continous process. But in both cases one can ask how mathematics should be able to clearly separate discrete from continous evolutions of “itself”.
Take for example the continuum hypothesis. The latter is a certain assumption. As had been shown by Gödel and Cohen, this assumption can be added to Zermelo-Fraenkel-Set-Theory (ZF) without making it inconsistent. Cohen then showed that when abandoning that assumption from ZF, the latter likewise is not rendered inconsistent. That use of the mentioned assumption is called the “axiom of choice”. As far as I know, the original assumption cannot be rigorously proven to be true or false by any mathematical system.
Now the question arises how mathematics itself should implement its many worlds without knowing whether or not the continuum hypothesis is true or false. Notwithstanding the theoretical possibility to use the axiom of choice for one world, and not use it for another world does make logical sense on a human basis – as long as maths cannot prove whether or not the continuum hypothesis is true or false, it cannot create a physical, deterministic world by simply discarding the axiom of choice (since it does not know how such a world should evolve).
So neither the question of time-scales nor the question of physically meaningful choices can be answered alone by pure maths. They not even can be answered by human beings. Hence there are mathematical questions that have no answers and we as humans know that. But how should pure maths – seen as information processing in the framework of MUH know that? It can't, since many mathematical problems are NP-complete and without some dramatic speedup of information processing (or in other words, a mysterious MUH time travel?), pure maths can never know what is possible to be existent as physical and what not.
Therefore, I would rather prefer to see the axiom of choice as a clever human way to say that there are choices possible for human beings which are independent from certain deterministically working mathematical systems.
This comment is thought just as an addition to what you wrote, not as some kind of falsification (since your critics is well justified in my opinion).
A little addendum to my previous post:
Let's assume that the continuum hypothesis is false. Let's further assume that there does no mathematical proof exist that it is false. This then would mean that it is false due to no reasons at all. At least due to no mathematical reasons. Thus, there would be mathematics that is true for no mathematical reasons at all, since there would exist no mathematical algorithm to ever derive the truth that the continuum hypothesis is false.
These “reasons” must then be taken as simply given, or one has to search for some non-mathematical reasons for something that is “mathematically” true for no mathematical reasons.
Here I think we arrive at the limits of deduction and face the land of beliefs: One can also believe in the existence of a Creator of all maths and all the rest – simply due to the logical equivalence that this too could be true for no reasons. At least not for some mathematical reasons.
Stefan Weckbach
I personally wouldn’t equate the axiom of choice with true, non-arbitrary choice. There seems to be a lot of ideas about choice: many physicists and philosophers seem quite content to settle for the superficial appearance of choice (i.e. the superficial appearance of free will) rather than true choice. Put simply and unambiguously and mathematically, I think that true real-world choice is equivalent to the assignment of a number to a real-world variable, e.g. the relative position variable. (This is in contrast to a number for a variable being determined via a mathematical law of nature relationship.)
Also, to my mind, maths can’t be “seen as information processing”. In maths, it is people that perform the information processing steps (or a computer program can represent these same information processing steps). People make mathematics work: people are performing the steps and changing and rearranging the mathematical symbols.
- Edited
Stefan Weckbach
Dear AquamarineTapir,
Thanks for appreciating my criticism of the MUH. The other related theory of how the world works that you mention, EQM, compounds the absurdity of the MUH idea. But when physical reality is looked at very closely, it seems that there is no such thing as numeric continuity, there are only number “jumps”, tiny number resets. Many physicists seem to still be fighting for the simple idea of numeric continuity, because numbers jumps seem to point to a lack of mathematical simplicity in the real world.
But I agree that “one has to search for some non-mathematical reasons for something that is “mathematically” true for no mathematical reasons.”. As you imply in your essay, there is no mathematical or logical reason, that physics or philosophy can find, for laws of nature: neither their existence nor their particular form.
I personally wouldn’t talk about a Creator, or any sort of original source of all there is. This is because this is a much more difficult question: the origin of the aspects of the world that we might represent with mathematical and algorithmic symbols. I think that, first, we need to clearly articulate what choice (free will, creativity) is (and whether it even exists at all), and what consciousness is.
Lorraine Ford Maybe I don't fully understand your critique, but as I understand the concepts behind MUH (which, BTW, I do not agree with for other reasons): universes literally are the embodiments of mathematical structures, as if a mathematical model of a real world simply was, by itself, a world. There is no need to create something out of "nothing," the Platonic existence (like ideal dodecahedrons) is already real and manifests as a thing. All possible structures exist, like all possible numbers and equations, so no matter how difficult it is for a model to do the job, if there is even one in possible existence, that model makes for a world with observers who can wonder why they exist. It is like the self-selection effect claimed for why our physical constants are helpful to the formation of life: among all the possible worlds, even the tiniest minority with favorable laws of physics will have life, and "there you are." Again though, I disbelieve MUH but not because of supposed representational problems. I don't think that pure math or anything that acts purely like it can be modeled by math, can have real feelings, real consciousness. (As I explained in my essay.)
- Edited
Dear CornflowerCicada,
thank you also for your response and appreciation for my arguments.
Of course, the quest for the existence of a Creator can be made logically independent of how the world works. And as such, it is my attitude to not see or use the assumption of a Creator as an argument against examining the world with all the tools we can find. It is only that I think that the other way round also does make sense: examining the world is not in opposition to the assumption of a Creator. It is more the question whether or not we need / will need that assumption or whether we may be able to find a “natural” explanation / definition (whatever “natural” then will mean) not only for what i. e. consciousness is, or choices, or Qualia and the like, but also how this would be linked to a possible original source of all there is (since it had to be linked in some way to the latter – if we assume that the world is a unity).
My take on this is, that every such explanation / definition, for reasons of logical consistency, must be constructed by some logical lines of reasoning and as such is subject to incompleteness or subject to unprovability. Even if these lines of reasonings are motivated by empirical data, I cannot see how for example neural correlates could ever explain the phenomenon of Qualia. But I am open for any attempt that someone eventually does so!
Some people say that there may be needed a totally new scientific “paradigm” in the future that would enable us to explain Qualia. A new maths, a new mode of thinking, a new philosophical twist etc. My take on that is that we depend on data about the brain and as such, data and its many possible interpretations / combinations is always just a way to arrange the data to achieve consistency, not necessarily truth.
If such a data arrangement should indeed – inherently – be the one that faithfully represents what Qualia is, then in my opinion that wouldn't be provable within that system. It wouldn't also be provable from without that system, means by human beings, since the problem of Qualia is that it is fundamentally different from particles, numbers, motions, vibrations and the like, even if the latter occur in vaste quantities in the brain and are supposed to have in-principle emergent potentials. The latter may be true, but in my opinion it is exceptionally hard to demonstrate / to prove with consciousness, even if some AI would be conscious (means aware that it exists and guesses – not necessarily knows! – that what it fundamentally is itself is some kind of information processing).
Therefore I also like to examine what it would mean when it where true that there simply does not exist any suitable deductively as well as empirically reachable theory for Qualia, one that at least convinces all philosophers and all scientists – and we humans do not and cannot know that.
In that case, the Turing machine in our heads will never halt, since it cannot arbitrarily change the tools with which it is working on the problem. In other words, I guess that the more we learn about the brain, the more questions will arise how we should translate the data we will find into what is called Qualia.
The hypothetical opposite would be that Qualia (then meant as the undeniable conscious impression that Qualia emerges from information processing) is able to explain Qualia. But in my view that would only amount to saying that information processing is able to explain information processing (if it where true that Qualia is merely a sophisticated form of information processing). Thus, if the information processing paradigm where true, then the question is why it should become conscious at a certain – highly abstract? – level?
With your own lines of reasoning and your argument for number jumps, in my opinion you gave a clever argument that there is at least something missing within the information processing paradigm. I would apprechiate when one could develop a bigger picture with your argument and its consequences for explaining Qualia / consciousness. I think we are only at the very beginning here, but your argument seems to be a good starting point in my opinion.
Neil Bates
But my opinion is that
“… the Platonic existence (like ideal dodecahedrons) … “
where
“…All possible structures exist, like all possible numbers and equations, so no matter how difficult it is for a model to do the job, if there is even one in possible existence, that model makes for a world with observers … “
is a thing that only exists in the human imagination!