Essay Abstract
Ask an experimental physicist to describe reality, and she might speak in terms of discrete events--clicks, flashes, particle tracks. Ask the same of a theorist, and he might speak of the continuous phenomena of curves, symmetries, dynamic motion. Pressed hard enough, though, both will likely reach the same conclusion: reality isn't important to what a scientist does. Why not?
Author Bio
Technical writer-editor by trade. Independent researcher.
Dear Thomas,
When I had the opportunity to look at your essay for a glimpse, I got a very good impression and decided to store and print it. Unfortunately, my Acrobat Reader told me "file does not begin with %PDF", and I did not yet manage to fix my problem.
So far I can only ask whether the opposite of you abstract is also correct: Ask an experimental physicist, and he will tell you that an exact discrete value of a length is not available by means of measurement. Ask a quantum theorist, and she might be convinced that anything is quantized down to the admittedly purely theoretical, definitely not measurable Planck length. They both will claim dealing with reality.
Hopefully you will not take amiss such humor. I am curious to read your essay.
Regards,
Eckard
LOL. There's probably a lot of truth in that, Eckard. Thanks for reading.
Tom
Dear Tom,
Having read and responded to some of your critiques I have been impressed that you usually make sense and sound authoritative. So I looked forward to your essay. On first reading I find it interesting, but platitudinal, a pastiche, not the integrated viewpoint that I'd hoped for.
As an erudite critic you cover the spectrum; Verlinde, Hawking, Gell-Mann, Einstein, Quine, Popper, Bohm, t'Hooft, Bohr, Lamport, Davies, etc. The views you espouse, from the people you quoted are reminiscent of the five blind men and the elephant; each is correct in the context of what he touches, but none have seen the elephant.
I am reminded of Feynman's Nobel Lecture, in which he says, "I also had a personal feeling, that since they didn't get a satisfactory answer to the problem I wanted to solve, I don't have to pay a lot of attention to what they did do."
As to specifics, I do appreciate that you bring in consciousness, at least peripherally. At one point you state that "conscious motion is not differentiable, in principle, from random." While, from the objective, even mathematical viewpoint, you are surely correct, from my view of reality,
conscious motion [volition] is by reason of awareness, while
random motion is for no reason at all.
It's a very different universe, depending upon which you choose as basic.
Since we've argued non-locality elsewhere, I won't clog your thread with these arguments. But you end with the observation [or conclusion, I'm not sure which] that
"information, gravity, and time are identical."
Information is not physical, it is descriptive, and contextual, and depends upon a 'framework' for interpretation. Physical reality just 'is' independent of interpretative frameworks. Nor do I find credible or sensible the idea that time = gravity.
I cannot tell whether you are just throwing this out to show how absurd things have become, or whether you are taking this position.
Normally, I look for things to support in others essays, but, visiting Rome, I decided to do as the Roman does.
Best of luck in the contest,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
Edwin,
So you found it interesting. :-)
I know what you mean. When I decided to focus on a survey of the topic rather than my own research, I knew the references would be many. It's the most foundational topic that FQXi could have fielded, at least that's tractable to scientific method.
The difference between Feynman and me is that I don't worry about what "they" think or do. Oh wait -- that makes us not different at all, doesn't it? Feynman was famous for taking a position orthogonal to his contemporaries, as the Nobel speech reflects. And that's much of the point of the essay, that variable rates of independent actions combine and decohere in a continuous process -- the hub of activity in a complex system is dynamic, shifting. So I regret that you think consciousness is peripheral; in fact, it is integral. Rather than assume that consciousness is a mystical state of "free will," however, I frame consciousness as a process and suggest that process is not differentable from reality. That's not completely off the reservation; look at the essays here on virtual reality, such as Brian Whitworth's which I deemed worthy of citation.
So far as the identity among time, information and gravity -- Jacobson's and Verlinde's research already deems gravity entropic, implying loss of information ('t Hooft's classical determinism in quantum mechanics also implies information loss). If one takes Julian Barbour's view that time is no more than a least action principle, then it's a short step to entropic models of information and gravity at T = 1. Counterintuitive, maybe. Absurd, no.
Edwin, I know we radically differ in our philosophies regarding "physical intuition." I don't think there is such a thing. Most of what we know about the objective world is counterintuitive, a legacy of the Greeks, not the Romans.
Best of luck to you as well.
Tom
Tom,
One minor correction -- I do not consider consciousness 'periperal' I consider it central (or integral). My remark was that you treated it peripherally. For a brief perspective on my view of consciousness see Fundamental Physics of Consciousness, my essay in the ultimate physics fqxi contest. The associated comments thread expands upon the essay.
I definitely do not assume a 'mystical state of free will'. In fact my definition of consciousness is awareness plus free will, because both in my experience and in any logical analysis, these two aspects cannot be separated. I'm not sure what you mean by 'process' but if you mean that awareness 'emerges' from properly arranged matter, then I would argue against that. [see my essay]
The key to consciousness (for those who even believe in consciousness) is not to try to figure out how it 'arises' as this will never succeed, but how it interacts with (the rest of) the physical world. I believe that my treatment is the only one to attack this problem seriously. I expand upon this treatment in Gene Man's World.
You mention Brian Whitworth's VR essay. I discuss that on his thread, so won't clog your thread with those arguments (unless you have some point you wish to discuss here.)
Also, with respect to Verlinde's approach to gravity, I have discussed that briefly here at Jan. 30, 2011 @ 00:41 GMT.
As for time=information=gravity; because one can equate symbols that one assigns to map the physical world, and because the simplest definitions may even allow one to 'equate' A to B and then B to C symbolically, does not mean that physical A = physical C. [It may be true, but simplistic symbolic definitions do not guarantee it.]
In my view 'consciousness' is part of reality, and 'information' is about reality.
So, we are interested in the same things, and are tracking them on others threads. Unless you wish to discuss specific issues, I'll just keep on working on the relevant threads, and see you there.
Best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
And my point was that i did NOT treat consciousness as peripheral.
If you want to say conscioiusness requires free will, that's your prerogative. It demonstrably does not, however.
I realize that you're selling, Edwin, but I'm not buying.
Tom
Tom,
I'm not sure if you are a Darwinian, or what, but if so, you might ask what good awareness of danger [or food, etc] is without the ability to freely respond to it, and conversely, what good free will would be without awareness. I see no survival value in either case.
But you may have some entirely other view of 'consciousness'.
I think we've already both rung up 'no sales'.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
I explained that, under the assumption that decisions are rational (survival based).
Tom
Tom,
Wow! I didn't think it was possible, but your essay has cured my insomnia.
I'm joking of course. I good friend used the same remark in regards to my own essay and I thought it much too good to not use. Au contraire, I found your writing to be very interesting and much different than what I had expected. You chose a much different path from the majority of those of which I have read. By not putting forth a perhaps an unwinnable argument or using the shoehorn approach, due to the breadth of the topic, as most of the rest of us have, your essay, along with perhaps that of Professor Jarmo Mäkelä are unique enough to stand out from the crowd. Not an easy accomplishment, with so many talented and not so talented people vying for the same recognition. I commend you on taking a topic that is both broad and deep and producing a result that is very much the same.
Best regards as always,
Dan
P.S. I especially enjoyed your technical endnote "Mach's Principle & the relativistic theory of the non-symmetric field", another reference to Mach's mechanics of which you are already aware that I am still learning the intricacies.
Hi Dan,
Thanks for reading, conscioous or not. Will it play in Peoria? :-)
I was torn between writing a technical paper, which if I am to be honest I more enjoy doing, and trying to survey the subject in order to show how subtle the question is. I hadn't imagined (to echo Einstein) how malicious subtlety can actually be. We live, we learn.
Tom
Hi Tom,
I think it will play in Peoria, except for maybe the whole string theory part. We're still unsure about all that. After all, we are a fairly conservative Midwestern town. No Ed Wittens or Stephen Hawkings here, just us wannabes. Wannabe someplace else. Not really, it's really a great place to live, I just wouldn't want to visit here.
Still, the survey was the tougher route IMO. Not everyone could pull it off. But, after all, you are a professional.
Dan
Dear Tom,
I have read your essay and will have to read it again when I am less tired. It is well written but it did surprise me. I was not expecting a discussion of biology and art and what you consider life to be. Your hypnotherapist wife and your sculptor friend. It is so different from your FQXi blog forum contributions where you demonstrate a very harsh and rigorously argued approach to other peoples ramblings. It is interesting to see another side to Tom.
You said "science is not about reality." That may be true but it is an unfortunate situation that I think needs remedying. Space-time mathematics has disconnected us from realism and quantum physics even more so. Before you say it, I know science also does not care what I think. I will take the time to read your essay again and be more constructive with my feedback. You have an impressively long list of references. Good luck.
Regards, Georgina.
Dear Georgina,
You are so kind, thank you.
I think it's more or less obvious that I lack the social skills that most of you expect in these forums, and that many of you take for granted. And rigorous argument is just a product of my first love: mathematics.
The differences between you and me have to do with whether external nature is ordered differently than our biology. I say probably no, and you say probably yes. I just don't see a demonstrable boundary between inorganic beingness (that includes the phenomenon of consciousness on a continuum from simple to complex) and organic self organization. Perhaps the experimental breakthrough will come along with research into AI, or maybe abiogeneis.
I'll look forward to more dialogue.
All best,
Tom
Hi Tom ,
Nothing wrong with a rigorous argument, I have given a few people a hard time too. However unforgiving criticism devoid of encouragement or positivity can also be an irritant to the recipient.
The discussions we have had about consciousness on the FQXi blog forums have perhaps caused you to prejudge what I am saying in this essay contest. I have taken the advice given to me by Peter Jackson on the FQXi blog forum to avoid talking about the "minefield of human consciousness". It does distract from the simple physical process of image reality formation that I have also been talking about.
Marius Buliga on the other hand does discuss the reality produced by the biological structure and functioning of the organism. His paper is more mathematical than my own and may be therfore more to your liking. He was kind enough to say that he liked my essay and he could see the overlap in our thinking.
As I have said I will return to your essay, and I will then, contrary to my current un-objective inclination, discuss its many merits.
Regards, Georgina.
Tom ,
I have re read your essay. This is what I think. It has a relaxed and easy style. It is more of the magazine article, that FQXi requested, than the demanding formal academic paper. I wanted to sit down and read it with a nice cup of coffee and biscuits. Like a longer new scientist article. Not too taxing on the brain but educational, lighthearted and enjoyable.
It came in easily digestible paragraphs, rather like a buffet of snacks than a full formal dinner. A variety of morsels. Life and death choices, battles for survival, predator prey relationships but then a personal interlude including friends and family. There was art and sculpture food, wine. I do not feel I would be invited, so this is a little voyeuristic. I am taken into your reality not mine, but the relaxed buffet continues.I am back with the scientists, the history of their thoughts and ideas.
It is like a long evening of pleasant conversation.I am surprised to be here but nothing is astonishing or outrageous but neither is anything unpleasant or strenuous. Having conversed with you on many previous occasions I know the accuracy and faithfulness to scientific theory that is demanded. I assume that the same standards apply to yourself. Therefore I do not feel the necessity to examine the minutiae of what is written. Your relaxed presentation gives the piece less immediate authority, than the other historical reviews in the contest. But I have no reason to think it is less accurate. It is just different. Originality is important.
This essay ticks the boxes. As the essay of a professional writer should. It is your craft. I have said that the essays should be marked upon the evaluation criteria. Using those criteria it does well. A fine effort.
Tom you really said "Science just isn't about reality... A donkey is not a philosopher... Seeing is all that makes it real." I will remember that. (They did not appear together in the text but they work so well together.)
Good luck, Georgina.
Dear Georgina,
You honor me with the only award that really matters to a writer: you got it.
In the classical physics that culminated (and many of us think, was completed) in Einstein's relativity, that "all physics is local" is a message that resonates not just with the physics of discourse but with the physics of being. In that respect, thinking of how my own local world affects and is affected by reality -- I could not find any boundary between the process that generates that reality, and the process of personal learning and creating.
You may or may not know that my close friend of many years, Michael Steinberg (now professor emeritus at Michigan State University) who is mentioned in the essay, is one of the founders and advocates of what is known as the process method of writing, a popular professional teaching tool these days. Mike taught American Thought & Language at the university level for a long time -- one of his more impressive teaching techniques was to actually himself simultaneously write the assignment that he gave his students. What this amounts to (my characterization, not Mike's) is a metaprocess overlaying the process of teachng; that is, the disinction between teaching and learning is not just blurred, but obliterated. There are at least two distinct Michael J. Steinbergs -- the one projected into the world of professional teaching, where Steinberg has very little interaction (a nonlocal influence independent of time--the products of his work will live on after him) and the one where I and a whole lot of other people get to participate and co-create (a local reality, time dependent and continuous).
The nonlocal influence (we'll symbolize Steinberg with the letter S), S', is independent of S, the local reality. The former is discrete in the sense that it does not map 1 for 1 to S. That is, the part "left over" in the mapping from S' is a discretely bounded symbol independent of the unbounded process represented by S. This is how I concluded that process is not differentiable from reality, and that locality is identical to experience, i.e., life as it is lived.
What I find even more profound, however, is that the independence of S' implies that feedback to S may be quite different (and I haven't asked him, but I think Michael might say that this has already happened) from the original output of S. This leads us to complex networks, Watts-Strogatz graphs, small world effects and all manner of technical topics that I resisted getting into when I made my choice of what to write.
There remains the seriously hard question of whether unique brain structure determines that reality, or external nature is mirrored in brain structure. That's yours to answer -- you've already a got a start on it -- and if I appear to give you a hard time, it's only because peer review will be much tougher. Believe me, if I didn't think you had a chance, I wouldn't say a word.
All best,
Tom
P.S. -- Robert Frost, on being named poet laureate of Vermont, responded with a four line poem:
"Breathes there a bard who isn't moved
To hear that his work is understood
And not entirely disapproved
By his country and his neighborhood?"
It isn't one of his best poems. It isn't even a very good poem by most critical standards. It is, most typical of Frost, simple and honest. Those who get it may not entirely approve, but those who don't understand can't participate in the work at all. A poet, as much as anyone else, wants to be "real," co-creative with the community.
Hello Tom,
Good to see you participating in the contest!
By the way, you probably know that your essay is a "dangerous" mix of art and science. ;-))
Hi Lev,
Oh, yes, I know. :-)
I'm a fan of yours, and I haven't forgotten to post a note in your forum. It's just that I'm still groping for the right words. The idea of identity between time and information still binds us two. The choice of computable representation still hangs me up.
All best,
Tom
Tom,
"The idea of identity between time and information still binds us two. The choice of computable representation still hangs me up."
May I help?
May be all one needs to say is that information is embodied in the *temporal* flow of events.
