Julian Barbour and his Newtonian Case for a Complex Universe

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford you tell You are getting a bit ahead of yourself: you can't even model or describe what you mean by "consciousness"; "information" or "numbers".
It is a little bit laughing, have you modelised them and solved the deepest unknowns in physics, do you know what is the consciousness, no. You don t know what is the ontology of this universe, nor why we are conscious.So maybe what you tell to your fellowmen when you cannot answer is for yourself Lorraine.

Steve Dufourny

Steve Dufourny Impress us Lorraine, develop here in maths and with algorythms a pure formalised model for the consciousness with your 4 categories and a concrete universal ontology, write all the maths, utilise the AI if you need help but do it . And if it is concrete, invite me after for your nobel price , I d be happy to be there and we shall drink after the conference a belgian beer together Lorraine, me I like you , the problem is not there, I need simply deeper developments because I love to learn things that I don t know, so impress me with these mathematical developments and formalisms , to you dear friend

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
I have repeatedly posted my symbolic model of consciousness and agency in the context of a mathematical system. But you still can't decide what you mean by the word "consciousness".

And where is your explanation/ model for why the world is moving? I have posted a symbolic model.

Similarly, I have repeatedly said that information, consciousness, knowledge, and awareness, and intelligence, are all pretty much the same thing. Similarly, agency, free will, creativity and initiation of number movement are all pretty much the same thing.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford you repeat things but we don t see a concrete mathematical formalism for all this Lorraine, repeat an idea is one thing, but to ponder a proof an other. Give the maths here now please. What is your mathematical symbolic concrete model of consciousness and agency, REPEAT IT with the maths. The universe is in motion because it is like this and we have deep limitations ontological and physical, we dont know really the physical fundamental structures and the ontological origin of the universe and nor the fundamental informations, so tell us more and develop the proof of what you assert please. Ps consciousness, intelligence, information are the same things you tell, it seems non sense Lorraine , but maybe you can prove now your assumptions with concrete maths .

yusrob

Musical interlude.
Simple, straightforward plot.
In Russian.

[

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Where are your models, Steve? Non existent. You use the words "consciousness", "information", etc. but you can't even describe what you mean by these words. But I see you are looking in the wrong place, because you are looking for "the equation that explains consciousness".

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford you see Lorraine , you always make the same , you don t develop and don t answer to what the people ask you. Is it a problem of vanity, maybe , we are not in a game of competition, I know that in USA , the competition is in the culture , but you know the humility and collaboration are better for the universe and the evolution.In all the cases I prefer this. My models, I have posted many on alternative models of the reality and I don t assert them, there are maths also but I am not a professional , so I give just general ideas and I don t assert them. I doubt me Lorraine about my assumptions, I don t assert them . For the consciousness I have never created a model, I have just ideas general ontological that I shared. So I repeat Lorraine, give us now the concrete formalism mathematical of your assertions about the informations, consciousness and intelligence wich are the same for you, so give the proof. Prove also the ontology of moving systems and the proof also about the 4 kinds of categories you repeat. We speak about your models, not mine, me I have not asserted to have solved the consciousness, you yes, so give the proof with concrete mathematics, algorythms......I know due to competition and culture you never give up, so don t give up but PROVE what you asswert like postulates, to you

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve bandies round the word "consciousness", but he can't even describe what he means by the word "consciousness".

But I'm saying that consciousness is the system's, or small parts of the system's, or small parts of the universe', or matter's knowledge of itself. I.e. knowledge of it's own categories, relationships and numbers. And I'm saying that this is a necessary aspect of a viable mathematical system because the mere existence of categories, relationships and numbers does not imply knowledge of their existence. Existence does not imply knowledge of existence, therefore a mathematical system needs to have knowledge of its own categories, relationships and numbers.

So, I'm saying that the following logical statement is an example of how to represent the basic consciousness of matter, in the context of a mathematical system:

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

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford you have never described, normalised the word consciousness, you assert assumptions simply . All your assertions and correlated ontologies are just in your mind and are not proved. The only thing you prove is not about sciences Lorraine. You have never developped, proved , formalised ontologically, physically, mathematically, algorythmitically the words consciousness, intelligence, informations. You just repeat the same all the time with the 4 categories, the moving systems, the agency, the knowledges, numbers........that is all but nothing of concrete scientifically speaking. Lorraine repeats the same all the time , she is persuaded to know , but she does not simply , she has not described, , she does not simply know what she speaks about. The most impressing is that she is persuaded she understand the universe, the ontology of this universe and the informations, the consciousnerss and others. You assert too much Lorraine , so I repeat , PROVE what you assert, after we maybe shall take you seriously, actually it is non sense generally. Lorraine can t simply describe what she asserts.

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford if you developped the ontology of this universe and that you proved what you told us with the consciousness is the system and why and how and that the matter is knowledge of itself with concrete mathematical informational, algorythmic, physical formalisms, I d agree with the concrete relationships of logical categories, but it is not the case. You don t prove us a mathematical system having a concrete mathematical formalism of knowledge of its own categories and why and how ontologically, so what you say about the logical statement and the basic consciousness is just a personal interpretation of the universe and its ontology without proofs.

Ulla Mattfolk

Lorraine Ford consciousness is the system's, or small parts of the system's, or small parts of the universe', or matter's knowledge of itself. I.e. knowledge of it's own categories, relationships and numbers.

Consciousness cannot be knowledge itself -it is more than that, a selection and a modelling or 'fitness'. Consciousness cannot be information either, because you need to select what is important. Not all goes. But you are on the most important, that knowledge of the 'self' is important so you can organize yourself. Even if you are a proton. There are laws to follow, equation that describe your choices etc. All constants that describe your relations.

Intelligence is the tool you use, if it is good you get advantage (it is easier to use a hammer to put in a nail). Wisdom is the minimality, after unnecessart bits are selected away. In brain we assimilate and metabolize consciousness, I think. We create awareness when much is selected away. This is not the real consciousness, even if it comes from it (universal?)?

The curvature is also infornational, I think. We have somehow messed up the causes here?
Ulla.

Lorraine Ford

Steve Dufourny
Steve,

You are very, very mixed up. I don't have to prove anything.

I have given reasons for saying that the following logical statement is an example of how to symbolically represent/ model the basic consciousness of basic matter, in the context of a real-world mathematical system:

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

It is up to others to say what, if anything, is wrong with this way of representing/ modelling basic-level consciousness in the context of a real-world mathematical system.

And while they are about it, these "others" might like to explain why the numbers are moving, because equations merely represent relationships. I'm saying that the following logical statement is an example of how to symbolically represent/ model the basic agency/ movement of basic matter, in the context of a real-world mathematical system:

IF (category1=number1 AND category2=number2 AND category3=number3) IS TRUE, THEN category4=number4 IS TRUE (i.e. assign number4 to category4).

Steve Dufourny

Lorraine Ford yes you must prove your assertions and assumptions, it is like this that the sciences community acts with or without your approvements and persuasions . A person persuaded can be persuaded, it is her choice and free will, the others are not abliged to accept it , they shall accept if a proven law, axiom , postulate, equation, formalism is concrete simply, so I repeat, prove what you assert. You know probably the words inside the sciences community, I tell this with respect , they tell , it was David Mermin who told this, he told, shut up and calculate, you like the numbers and the logic,the maths, so be logic and calculate now with your ontology, numbers, categories,..... but don t assert and make like all, prove your assertions and assumptions, we shall accept them when it is made.Thanks Lorraine I know you can do it for the intelligence,informations consciousness and its formalism concrete, the ontology of the universe and the origin of fields, particles and GR a, QFT, SM, good luck

Lorraine Ford

Lorraine Ford
P.S.
I should add, for anyone who doesn’t already know, that the above symbolic statements are just the basic way that a system’s knowledge of its situation, and a system’s movement of itself in response to this situation, would be represented in a computer program.

And I should add, for anyone who doesn't already know, that refined versions of the above basic method of representation, which ultimately ends up being re-represented with voltages, transistors and circuits, have been very, very successful in fooling people into believing that computers/ "AIs" are conscious/ intelligent and have agency.

So, I'm saying that the essence of consciousness is, point of view, what IS TRUE.

This is not some purportedly-existing, rarefied, absolutely logical, Platonic truth: this is point of view, what IS TRUE.

Steve Dufourny

The most important is to understand that this uncertainty is so important when we observe and measure because the outcomes are correlated and the changes are essential when we consider the probabilties, the interactions and constraints. It is this the key , to have an understanding of his QFT, GR , SM and the geometrical algebras and after we extrapolate possibilities in maths for other possibilities. That is why the shape, the form is essential because this emerges from these interactions and probabilties and constraints. It is a kind of logic of comportments following the measurements. That is why the choice of fundamental structures and shapes are important at this quantum level and so the volumes and their motions oscillations become a key if the probabiltiies and uncertainty are considered if specific primary series of volumes are also considered in the extrapolations.
This a kind of chosen method and specific conditions foir the emergent systems. If the spherical volumes are considered and specific series and motions, oscillations, so the interactions and probabilties become relevant . This is interesting considering this uncertainty. It is essential for all the interactions, computations, observations, communications.........because the interactions are essential also. This uncertainty is fundamental and the choice of a specific method, it is the choice of this method primary the key .

Steve Dufourny

The most important point is to be general and to extrapolate universal possibilities without asserting assumptions. A central point in foundational physics is the role played by uncertainty in measurement and observation. This uncertainty is not merely a limitation of instruments; it is a very important factor for outcomes involving probabilities and constraints. There is always a kind of interaction between the observer and the observed system, which is why the method becomes a key element. If we now consider our current Standard Model (SM), Quantum Field Theory (QFT), General Relativity (GR), and the tools used, such as geometrical algebras, they open possible paths that are not asserted ontologically or physically, because probabilities are considered for relations and, therefore, for structures. The choice of a sphere, primary and universal in nature, can be relevant for the emergence of interactions, probabilities, and constraints. That is why this uncertainty is fundamental.

If we consider a deeper ontology than strings or points, or if we consider a deeper physical logic than excitations and links with GR, this becomes relevant when a chosen universal possible method is considered.

Spherical volumes can be a natural candidate, as they may even allow simplification of boundary conditions or symmetry breakings, among other aspects. The motions, oscillations, and relative configurations of these volumes would then directly influence interaction probabilities, correlation structures, and uncertainty relations. This remains very important even if the primary universal series are not known; we can explore several possibilities. Uncertainty thus becomes relevant when we consider the interactions of these spherical volumes. This can also be correlated with exchanges of information and negentropic stabilities. Probabilities within this spherical logic become particularly interesting if these volumes and their motions and oscillations are considered a universal key. This could allow us to rank outcomes and possibilities such as fields, resonances, stabilities, deviations, and fluctuations. All of this is purely correlated with these spherical probabilities and their properties. The choice of a specific method,here, spherical volumes for particles, fields, and informationis relevant for aspects of uncertainty. Uncertainty thus becomes like a main orchestra conductor within this spherical logic and for logical relationships. We can even create categories and extrapolate possibilities using these probabilities.

Lorraine Ford

Ulla Mattfolk
I'm saying that the BASIC-LEVEL consciousness (knowledge/ information/ agency/ intelligence) of basic-level matter, and basic-level life, in its surrounding environment, could be symbolically represented with logical and other symbols, as described above. This is a more precise way of thinking about consciousness and agency.

I think that biologists are already doing an equivalent sort of thing with their "truth tables", but it seems to be verboten to think in terms of matter having consciousness or agency.

A generalised model/representation of higher-level consciousness (knowledge/ information/ agency/ intelligence) could seemingly also be constructed with these logical and other symbols, though in actual practice there would be too many unknowns to make a precise model.

Also, higher-level consciousness necessarily requires quite a bit of analysis and collation of the basic-level information (e.g. basic-level information coming from myriads of particle interactions the eyes and other senses), and this analysis and collation could be represented with same type of symbol set used to represent basic-level consciousness and agency.

But the essence of consciousness is that consciousness is what IS TRUE, from a point of view.

Unlike Julian Barbour, who seems to believe that some sort of rarefied, abstract, capital-T-Truth resides outside the universe in a Platonic realm, I'm saying that the ONLY truth is internal to the universe, and the individual point of view consciousness of matter is the point of view experience of what IS TRUE.

Lorraine Ford

Individual consciousness is the aspect of the world that says what is true. This truth is felt/ experienced/ known. There is no external-to-this-world, abstract, Platonic, arbiter of truth.

In the case of the most basic matter, the most basic consciousness is of what categories, relationships, and numbers “are now true”. This is not a case of consciousness being a “static block universe position pointer”, or Julian Barbour’s somewhat similar view, because there is no “static block universe”. Instead, in a moving, changing, evolving universe, what categories, relationships, and numbers exist does not logically imply knowledge/ consciousness/ awareness of what exists. What exists does not imply knowledge of what exists; therefore a viable universe requires a knowledge aspect.

This knowledge/ consciousness/ awareness/ “is now true” aspect of the world can only be represented with the “IS TRUE” logical symbol; equations and numbers alone can’t represent what “is now true”.

But in the case of higher-level matter, there is a vast myriad of information that is simultaneously true, including executive analyses and summaries of this information. And to symbolically represent this simultaneously true conscious experience requires a vast number of “AND” symbols.

So, for example, our visual picture of the world, with its labels for objects in the picture, is a type of executive analysis, summary and collation of what individual particle interactions very recently occurred in the eyes. Simultaneously, we experience an aural “picture” of the world, and so on.

But the point I am making is that individual consciousness is the aspect of the world that says what is true.

Lorraine Ford

I should have added the following point 5 to my comment, a week ago, about numbers:

Numbers are a creation.
Numbers are relationships between the categories where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, leaving a thing without a category.
I.e., a number is a thing without a category.
When assigned to categories, numbers are the currency of the system, together with the mathematical relationships that transform the numbers.
The above way of envisioning a number provides the only type of number that will seamlessly integrate with the mathematical relationships (the relationships that we symbolically represent with mathematical equations).

Let's get rid of the Platonic nonsense once and for all. Let's stop looking for "out of this world" solutions when it comes to trying to understand the world.

« Previous Page