[ExI] [Extropolis] My current take on emergence and causation. Is the universe pulled toward Life?

Wed Nov 17 17:12:57 UTC 2021

On 2021. Nov 17., Wed at 12:45, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:15 AM Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>> *> Everett aside, we have this problem all over mathematical physicsbased
>> on differential equations and real numbers. We insist thatthings unfold
>> deterministically from given initial conditions, but theinitial conditions
>> are real numbers,*
>
>
> But are they, are Real Numbers really real?  The Bekenstein Bound says the
> amount of information that can be packed inside a volume is proportional to
> the number of Planck Areas (the square of the Planck Length) needed to
> enclose it, and that number is an integer not a real number.  Of course we
> don't know for a fact that the Bekenstein Bound is true, and we don't know
> for a fact the time and space are quantized, but if they are and there is a
> smallest unit of time and a smallest unit of distance then Real Numbers are
> a sort of mathematical Harry Potter story and our physical world can be
> fully described without Real Numbers.
>

The Bekenstein bound is a quantum notion. Similarly, Heisenberg shows that
assigning classical initial conditions to a particle is out. But it can be
argued that real numbers are already a problem in classical physics,
because we can’t know an infinite amount of information.

> John K Clark
>
> ==
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 4:15 AM Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:12 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 10:54 AM Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2021. Nov 16., Tue at 13:08, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:15 AM Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> Perhaps we don't need an "explanation" of the probabilistic
>> nature of physical laws. Perhaps this is just how things work.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> >> Maybe. We know from Gleason's theorem that if quantum
>> probabilities are to make any sense, that is to say if all the
>> probabilities are real numbers between 0 and 1 and all the probabilities of
>> a predicted event add up to exactly 1, then all the probabilities must be
>> expressible by the square of the absolute value of the wave function just
>> as quantum mechanics says. So the real question is not why does the Born
>> rule exist but rather why must we use probabilities at all, why can't we
>> make exact predictions? Perhaps the answer is just as you say, that's just
>> the way things work; after all there's no law of logic that says every
>> event must have a cause.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Exactly. Btw I’m thinking about this. Think of a sequence of random
>> bits, call it R(n). Now think of the same sequence as the deterministic
>> unfolding of a random real number r given as initial condition. So the
>> sequence becomes D(n) = nth bit in the binary expansion of r. R is random,
>> and D is deterministic. But R and D are the same thing!!!
>> >
>> >
>> > It's not really deterministic because it depends on initial conditions
>> which are random; but then again maybe it is deterministic after all, Hugh
>> Everett would say every possible initial condition exists (and therefore
>> every random sequence is revealed), it's just that "you" only get to
>> observe one of them. After all , the quantum wave function is completely
>> deterministic but, because we can only observe a very small part of it,
>> things seem random to us, so we must resort to probability in our
>> predictions.
>> >
>>
>> Everett aside, we have this problem all over mathematical physics
>> based on differential equations and real numbers. We insist that
>> things unfold deterministically from given initial conditions, but the
>> initial conditions are real numbers, the vast majority of which
>> (besides a zero measure subset) are uncomputable and random. We may as
>> well think that experiments reveal or perhaps *define* or even
>> *create* the initial conditions in the past, and everything becomes
>> circular. Nicolas Gisin makes similar points in his recent papers
>> based on analogies with intuitionist maths:
>> https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author&query=Gisin%2C+N
>>
>> > John K Clark
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> John K Clark
>> >>> =============
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 2:15 AM Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 4:22 PM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 3:36 AM Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> > https://www.turingchurch.com/p/my-current-take-on-emergence-and
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> > Is life entailed by physics? Is the emergence and growth of
>> life a result of the kind of physics we are familiar with (known physics
>> and incremental improvements based on the reductionist framework of known
>> physics)? Or do we need a new framework?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I don't think a new physics framework would be of any use in
>> understanding how life works.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> >  or will they require an entirely new framework where other
>> forms of causation (e.g. backward, downward, top-down, teleological) play a
>> role alongside the efficient causation mechanisms of today’s physics?
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I rather doubt it but there's a possibility backward causality
>> might be important in very fundamental physics, but if it is I don't think
>> it would only be important only to physics that eventually involves life
>> but rather to everything and all of physics; there would be nothing special
>> about life in that regard.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I agree. Life "works" like the rest of physics. If new principles are
>> >>>> needed to explain life, those new principles apply to the rest of the
>> >>>> world.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > As for teleology,  if things happen because of the purpose they
>> serve rather than causes that produce them then that leaves open the
>> question of whose purpose? There doesn't seem to be a universal answer to
>> that question and if something claims to be the ultimate answer to
>> everything then it should be true in every frame of reference, and
>> teleology is not.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> > Kauffman bets on a concept due to Maël Montévil and Matteo
>> Mossio (2015) called “Constraint Closure” as an organizational principle
>> that builds order “faster than that order can be dissipated by the second
>> law of thermodynamics.”
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I don't see how that could be true. If there's one law of physics
>> that  would hold true in every universe in the multiverse I'm convinced it
>> would be the Second Law Of Thermodynamics, that's because it's based on
>> logic and not on other physical laws,  it's simply true that there are more
>> ways something can be chaotic than ways it can be well ordered.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But you agree with "Producing physical systems that keep low entropy
>> >>>> locally (e.g. living systems) is the fastest way for the universe to
>> >>>> increase global entropy" below, which is essentially the same thing.
>> >>>> Pockets of local order are the fastest way to grow overall disorder
>> >>>> (by eating free energy from the environment and giving back high
>> >>>> entropy waste), and that's how thermodynamics favors life (or so
>> these
>> >>>> people think).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> > the efficient causation laws of the physics we know are
>> strictly followed, but leave the actual evolution of physical systems
>> under-determined.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > Yes, but if Hugh Everett's many worlds idea is correct then that
>> would explain why at the smallest most fundamental level we can only make
>> probabilistic predictions not exact ones.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps we don't need an "explanation" of the probabilistic nature of
>> >>>> physical laws. Perhaps this is just how things work.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >> > it can be argued that classical mechanics is under-determined
>> as well, and that under-determination might follow from Gödel’s theorems.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > If quantum mechanics is under-determined at the sub microscopic
>> level (and it is) then things at our everyday macroscopic level must be
>> under-determined too. Godel told us that there are true statements in
>> arithmetic that have no proof (the Goldbach Conjecture maybe?); I hope not
>> but perhaps in a similar way there are true things about physics that have
>> no experimental verification.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Yes.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >> > I think definable natural laws only scratch the thin surface of
>> a thick reality that can’t be reduced to a finite description
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > If so then it's a waste of time to even talk about an ultimate
>> description of reality.  As Wittgenstein said "What we cannot speak about
>> we must pass over in silence".
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There's scratching the surface, and there's scratching the surface a
>> >>>> bit deeper. We can't know everything at a given time, but we CAN know
>> >>>> (and do) more than we could before.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> > physical laws maximize overall entropy production rates.
>> Producing physical systems that keep low entropy locally (e.g. living
>> systems) is the fastest way for the universe to increase global entropy,
>> and that’s it.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I agree with that.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> > [The] universe is rationally governed in more than one way -
>> not only through the universal quantitative laws of physics that underlie
>> efficient causation but also through principles which imply that things
>> happen because they are on a path that leads toward certain outcomes -
>> notably, the existence of living, and ultimately of conscious, organisms.”
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > If Hugh Everett is correct and everything that is not logically
>> self-contradictory (such as a violation of the second law of
>> thermodynamics) does happen, then it's not surprising that intelligence
>> finds itself in a universe in which stable structures that can process data
>> (Turing Machines) are possible. As for consciousness, after saying
>> consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed I don't
>> think there's much more that can be said about it.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > John K Clark
>>
>
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAKTCJydDrhP%2BZy88wbnLtTFbng0_7Pz%3DPYPYPoxtuScJgjNcRg%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "extropolis" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv38D1Mu6gAgU7kXCnwr07LYfaEda9xd%2B7MOy5uv0b6qiA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv38D1Mu6gAgU7kXCnwr07LYfaEda9xd%2B7MOy5uv0b6qiA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20211117/07e1d925/attachment.htm>