FQxI's Essay Competition Asks How Quantum is Life? Plus Plant Intelligence, Phys

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford thank you for developing this, Lorraine.
What you said is very relevant to the relationship between knowledge and consciousness.
If an infinite, eternal consciousness truly exists omnipotent ,then we can try to correlate it with creativity, qualia, causation, agency.....
Through mathematical equations, logical relationships, and physical structures, we attempt to describe the universe and its dynamics , its mechanisms, motions, changes, and evolution.
Even within the dual processes of negentropyand entropy, all this seem to give an underlying logic.
Although we still face deep limitations, we continue to evolve in our understanding.

Best regards.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford Have you already thought about the qubits and my theory with quantum 3d spheres and the links with the Bloch sphere and your reasonings with the logical relationships , I try this with the book of Bob Coecke quantum in pictures and my spherical topological geometric algebras. Bob Coecke is probably one of the best actually about quantum computing ,he is professor at Oxford and invited everywhere actually, I study his book in details , he has also invented the quantum guitare, he is friend on facebook, I play guitar and piano , he is famous you know, that is why tou could love his book, it is revolutionary and if Nvidia has invested the past month 600 millions in the enterprise of Bob Coecke Quantinuum, there are reasons, Regards

Lorraine Ford

If one writes down, on a piece of paper, a simple equation involving variables a, b, c, and d, some plus and/or minus signs, and an equals sign, one can easily see that an equation does not represent a moving system.

And no matter how much one complexifies an equation with partial derivatives and delta symbols, i.e. symbols that ASSUME movement, an equation still cannot represent a moving system. The equation then in effect says: “IF some numbers change, then other numbers will change”, so the equation STILL does not represent a moving system.

The issue is that the underlying “mechanics” of a moving system is not represented by an equation.

So, it is the underlying “mechanics” of a moving system that is responsible for the arising of life, though the equations clearly restrict and/or shape outcomes.

This issue is relevant to how the first life could have arisen. The first life 1) needed to be aware of its surroundings and 2) needed to be able to move in response to its surroundings.

To represent 1 and 2 above, one needs to use algorithmic/ logical connective symbols, i.e. symbols which represent the “mechanics” of a moving system.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
It is not difficult to see that an equation, or a set of equations, can’t ever represent a moving system: equations can only ever represent static relationships in a moving system.

The underlying “mechanics” of a moving system is not representable by equations. And it is the underlying “mechanics” that is responsible for any movement, e.g. the arising of life (though the equations clearly restrict and/or shape outcomes).

If one wants to represent a moving system, like the whole moving universe and its parts, including living, moving organisms, one needs to use computer programs.

I.e., one needs to use the same sort of symbols used in computer programs in order to represent a moving system.

With manmade computer systems including AIs, symbolic computer programs are pre-conceived, planned, written and tested by people, and the symbolic programs are symbolically re-represented using voltages, transistors and circuits, which people are using as just another set of physical symbols.

But the real world was never pre-conceived, planned, written or tested, although there seem to be structural “law of nature” relationships, which people represent using equations.

And the real world has non-physical, non-measurable, logical aspects: these logical aspects are the underlying “mechanism” that make a moving physical system possible. But a computer system can only represent these non-physical aspects of the world in the same way it represents the physical aspects of the world, i.e. using physical voltages, transistors and circuits.

And the real world is not constructed out of symbols: the real world is the real thing, not a symbol of the thing.

Stefano Ferruccio

Buongiorno.

Lorraine Ford

Stefano Ferruccio
Re the text that you have now deleted:
Why would the world ever start to move or continue to move? This includes: why would your framework ever move? I.e., when represented symbolically, i.e. in terms of categories (like position, mass, energy), relationships between the categories, and numbers that apply to the categories, why do the numbers move?

And in fact science has no answer to the question of why the numbers would ever move or continue to move; science only has relationships between categories; science just assumes number movement. And that is why something that initiates and reinitiates number movement, i.e. an agent or agents, is a necessary part of a viable moving system.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford Once you asked about the function of consciousness. As a reduced state it is exactly this movement or 'life', dynamicity, I think. Without including this the QM and CM are incomplete?
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
Hi Ulla,

I think that consciousness is a functional, necessary and separate aspect of the mathematical world. It is a time-place logical aspect of the real-world system, an aspect that is tied to matter.

Some people seem to think that how consciousness subjectively feels is a problem that needs to be explained. But I think that this is not a genuine problem, because we can’t say that a separate consciousness should subjectively feel like something, or shouldn’t subjectively feel like something. It is only if one tries to say that consciousness arose from matter, that how consciousness subjectively feels becomes a problem that needs to be explained.

If the measurable physical aspects of the world are represented as categories with associated numbers, then low-level consciousness is the necessary time-place on-the-spot aspect of a mathematical system that would be symbolically represented in something like the following form:

(category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford Thanks.
I also think the subjectivity is not THE THING. It is more a collective construct that makes the illusion of subjectivity? The hard problem is maybe not even a problem?

You say time. map, math. but is it additative? Time is definitely important, like the map. But I am not sure I understand you here?
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
The underlying low-level “quantum” world is something that exists right now: it is not something that existed only in the past.

So, we can make up stories about the underlying low-level “quantum” world, but in fact all we have are measurements and mathematical equations representing relationships that have been found. The underlying world can only be represented in terms of measurements (i.e. categories and numbers) and mathematical equations.

However, we can deduce that any viable moving mathematical system requires logical aspects that can be described as “consciousness”, and any viable moving mathematical system requires logical aspects that can be described as “agency”.

This low-level consciousness and agency are clearly the basis upon which higher-level consciousness and agency can be built, where the higher-level consciousness and agency of living organisms involves a lot more collation and analysis than the lower-level consciousness and agency. However, this higher-level consciousness and agency is not a different type of thing to the lower-level consciousness and agency.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
Yeah, I think that time itself can only be a logical construct: a conscious analysis that number change IS TRUE. However, the source of this number change, or these number jumps, is agency (not necessarily one's own agency): the equations merely extend the reach of the number jumps. So, I'm not sure how that whole idea works.

But one thing we CAN be sure of is the nature of mathematical systems: viable mathematical systems require aspects that can only be described as "consciousness" and "agency". Consciousness and agency are basic to a viable moving mathematical system.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford sounds interesting. I make a model of life and consciousness right now, but I will wait until the competition is closed before I say much. I take part.
If you are interested you could maybe look at it then? You have surely a much better touch on it than me, esp. the math.
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
Hi Ulla,

Basically, I only ever talk about systems.

Decades ago, systems analysts and computer programmers knew that the symbols used to represent equations are not sufficient to represent a viable moving system. To represent a viable moving system, you also need to use algorithmic/ logical connective symbols like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN.

Decades later, i.e. right now, including in this FQxI essay competition, philosophers, scientists and mathematicians are STILL labouring under the invalid assumption that a set of equations can represent a viable moving system!

These symbols (like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN) obviously represent necessary aspects of the world, necessary if you want to have a viable moving real-world system, including living organisms.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford
IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN. are non-commutative so you have to select? Logic is such.

marcovici alexandru

i don't want to use the term cartesian closed categories until i really understand it

maybe there is a special if or and than is true

drawing of a cloud
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| quantum logic ? |
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
I should have said: statements containing the symbols IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN represent necessary logical aspects of the world. (Just like equations are statements that represent relationship aspects of the world.) Logical statements are necessary to describe the behaviour of the real-world mathematical system, and the behaviour of living organisms. More specifically, logical statements are required to represent the system's (or the organism's) knowledge, and the system's (or the organism's) agency, whereby it moves itself.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford this is the causality, the non-commutative selection of one alternative, the Logic?

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
This is the way that I would describe it:

Equations can only ever represent relationships between categories, whether in a static structure, or in an existing moving system.

Relationships between categories can’t explain why a system moves, or why life would arise or why life would continue to exist.

So, the equations that are used to try to represent the “quantum” aspects of the world can’t explain why the real-world system moves, or why life would arise or why life would continue to exist.

It is the logical infrastructure underlying the “quantum” aspects of the world that can explain why the real-world system moves, and why life would arise and why life continues to exist.

Symbolically represented, this logical infrastructure represents the real-world system’s time-place on-the-spot point-of-view knowledge of itself, and represents the real-world system’s time-place on-the-spot moving itself in response to this time-place on-the-spot knowledge.

To answer your question:
Equations can’t represent a system’s time-place on-the-spot aspects, but logical symbols CAN be used in statements to represent a system’s time-place on-the-spot aspects. These logical statements represent what the system knows and what the system does; the logical symbols don't represent a pre-exiting blueprint for the system.

As quantum theorist Christopher Fuchs said in a Quanta magazine article: “the world is loose at the joints”:

“If you have it in your heart — and not everyone does — that the real message of quantum mechanics is that the world is loose at the joints, that there really is contingency in the world, that there really can be novelty in the world, then the world is about possibilities all the time, and quantum mechanics ties them together.” https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
(continued)

The real world is not reversible. It doesn’t really matter whether, at the quantum level, there is actual selection of alternatives going on, OR selection of alternatives is just the way that we human beings envisage the quantum-level world.

What matters is that the system needs to know its own time-place situation (where a situation is represented in terms of categories and numbers), and the system needs to be able to move itself in response to the time-place situation (represented as a categories and numbers outcome).

Lorraine Ford

A lot of people (philosophers, scientists, mathematicians) seem to tacitly assume that a real-world mathematical system would somehow have knowledge of itself, but without explaining how the system could have knowledge of itself.

So, in a real-world time-place on-the-spot particle-level “quantum” situation:

Is the situation Platonically known (including knowledge of “possible outcomes” for the situation)? In this case, one must invent an entirely new, major part of the real-world mathematical system called “the Platonic realm”.
OR is the situation actually known by the system or small parts of the system? In this case, one is not inventing anything new.

Clearly, 2) above makes a lot more sense. (Note that one can represent a system's time-place on-the-spot knowledge of itself using algorithmic/ logical connective symbols, i.e. in the same way that computer programs do it.)

And, of course, this issue is relevant to the issue of how the very first life could have had awareness of its multi-part surrounding situation.

« Previous Page Next Page »