Emergent reality and indivisible information

I believe that if we are to ever fully understand reality then we must also incorporate unknowable [indivisible] information

My regular readers know that I believe all phenomena, including thought construction are both implicit and explicit. My word implicit means information that we all know is real [such as consciousness] but which at the same time it cannot be tested. This is the reason why I have classified metaphysical phenomena such as consciousness as being indivisible information. We can describe indivisible information like consciousness, but physics science generally cannot incorporate consciousness in its modelling. This is because consciousness cannot be defined or measured. I think this is a shame because this means that science models do not seriously incorporate our whole of life experiences, which also means reality.

I recently read an article written by George F. R. Ellis, who talks about this same dilemma in science and I feel you should be aware of Ellis’s ideas as I strongly identify with them. Below you will find the conclusions of Ellis’s essay entitled “On the Nature of Emergent Reality”. I have emboldened sections of the conclusion from the document that I feel  are most pertinent to my argument and you might like to know about them as well. If you have the opportunity to read much of Ellis’s ideas about reality I think that you will feel richly rewarded.

Quote:

“…Conclusion

Reprise: I have given above a view of emergent complex systems where there are structuring relations, triggering relations as well as environmental influences and internal variables, summarised in Figure 9.

Figure 9: The system and its situation: contextual and triggering influences

Ellis daigram 2nov17

Function takes place in the context of a social and physical situation that, together with the values of internal variables, is the current operating environment. Structure is constant on the relevant timescale, enabling the input (triggering events that operate in the given situation – they are varying causal quantities) to have a predictable result. Thus function follows structure. The environment sets the boundary conditions and the internal variables (memory and learnt behaviour patterns) result from past experience. Noise or chance represents the effects of detailed features that we do not know because they are subsumed in the coarse graining leading to higher level descriptions of either the system or the environment. The system structure is determined by developmental processes that use genetic information, read in the context of the system-environment interaction occurring in the organism’s history,  to determine its structure. For example, genes develop a brain capacity to learn language that then results in adaptation of the brain to that specific language. The genetic heritage leading to this result is comes into being through evolutionary adaptation over very long timescales to the past environment. This language then forms the basis of complex symbolic modelling and associated understanding, taking place in a social context,  that guides future actions. Thus human understanding of events and their meanings govern their actions, which then change the situation around them. Symbolic systems are causally effective.

Strong reductionist claims, usually characterised by the phrase `nothing but’ and focusing only on physical existence, simply do not take into account the depth of causation in the real world as indicated above, and the inability of physics on its own to comprehend these interactions and effects.  These claims represent a typical fundamentalist position, claiming a partial truth (based on some subset of causation) to be the whole truth and ignoring the overall rich causal matrix while usually focusing on purely physical elements of causation. They do not and cannot be an adequate basis of explanation or understanding in the real world. Consequently they do not represent an adequate basis for making ontological claims.

This paper has outlined a view of emergent reality in which it is clear that non-physical quantities such as information and goals can have physical effect in the world of particles and forces, and hence must be recognised as having a real existence (Ellis 2003). Associated with this there is a richer ontology than simple physicalism, which omits important causal agencies from its vision. That view does not deal adequately with the real world…”

The original Ellis document online

I have also attached a pdf document to this blog for your added convenience

Irreducible mind theory and the falsity of reductive interpretations of the mind and body relationship

Irreducible Mind is the title of a book that was first published in 2007

The authors are: Edward F. Kelly, Emily Williams Kelly, Adam Crabtree, Alan Gould, Michael Grosso and Bruce Greyson

The book’s contents remain defining and important ones in psychoanalysis to this day

The purpose of this blog is not to talk so much about the book and it’s contents but to look more closely as an extended review of the book by Ulrich Mohrhoff. Mohrhoff’s review discusses the implications of the book Irreducible Mind in relationship to what he considers to be metaphysical nexus between our minds and brains. Mohrhoff introduces sub-quantum ontological physics into his review ideas as he talks about the mind/brain relationship.

In future in my website I will be referring to not only the Irreducible Mind book but more especially so Mohrhoff’s words. I see both these items as being pertinent to not only my physics Awareness model but also my Dual Consciousness [Imiplicit and Explicit] model as well.

You will find Mohrhoff’s review paper here.

You will find another document of reviews relating to the perceived quality nature of the Irreducible Mind book as well.

If you have not heard about the book Irreducible Mind before I feel strongly that you will appreciate me introducing you to both the book as well as Mohrhoff’s ideas.

David Bohm believes there is life, mind and wholeness in all things

It seems that the eminent physicist David Bohm was profoundly affected by his association with both Albert Einstein and the internationally respected philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti

I feel that this is interesting. In this short thirteen minute video presentation Bohm talks about his implicate order theory in physics as it relates to all things. This includes both the universe as well as wider reality as well. You will notice that the Dalai Lama was present at different times during this discussion. I have not included this video into my other blog entitled “Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm talk about life and philosophy” because I believe that this video is more to the point and easier to understand. Readers should note that Bohm died in 1992.

Two respected scientists talk about life and nothing

It is likely most of my readers have heard about the views of Lawrence Krauss regarding cosmological nothing

I introduce you to what I consider to be a very important scientific and philosophical video that incorporates both Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins. The video is a general discussion between these two great scientific and philosophical minds about not only reality but also what may be cosmological “nothing”. This program is now around six years old but I feel that its contents remain relevant today.

Because of what I consider to be the importance of the information contained within the conversation between these two scientists I have also prepared a pdf file of the same conversation. I feel that by me doing this that I am giving Mums, Dads, and Kids a better understanding of what these two men are both talking about as well as mean in terms of everyday life. If you find yourself enjoying this video presentation I also strongly suggest that you also view my blog entitled “Do some people think that science is a belief system?“. The themes between both videos are much the same, i.e. all three presenters are down to earth presenters of information relating to everyday life, the meaning of life and wider reality.

The video

The pdf file

Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm talk about life and philosophy

I present to my readers two rare videos that were recorded sometime in the early 80’s

Unfortunately the quality of these videos is not great. Jiddu Krishnamurti was a highly respected Indian philosopher who died in 1986 and David Bohm was a highly respected physicist who died in 1992. The significant part of these two videos is that Bohm attempted to introduce eastern philosophy into his wider physics model. Krishnamurti was partly responsible for Bohm going down this track in physics and it subsequently destroyed Bohm’s professional physics career. I think that my readers should know about these things.

David Bohm is my favorite physicist.

Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm talk about philosopy and life [part 1]

Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm talk about philosopy and life [part 2]

Is it a fact that not all facts are facts?

Why facts aren’t always more important than opinions

I like the manner in which Peter Ellerton has addressed this topic

Quote:

“The Conversation By Peter Ellerton, University of Queensland

Updated 19 Apr 2017, 12:17pm

Which is more important, a fact or an opinion on any given subject? It might be tempting to say the fact. But not so fast …

Lately, we find ourselves lamenting the post-truth world, in which facts seem no more important than opinions, and sometimes less so. We also tend to see this as a recent devaluation of knowledge. But this is a phenomenon with a long history. As the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov wrote in 1980:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”

The view that opinions can be more important than facts need not mean the same thing as the devaluing of knowledge. It’s always been the case that in certain situations opinions have been more important than facts, and this is a good thing. Let me explain.

Not all facts are true

To call something a fact is, presumably, to make a claim that it is true. This isn’t a problem for many things, although defending such a claim can be harder than you think. What we think are facts — that is, those things we think are true — can end up being wrong despite our most honest commitment to genuine inquiry. For example, is red wine good or bad for you? And was there a dinosaur called the brontosaurus or not?

The Harvard researcher Samuel Arbesman points out these examples and others of how facts change in his book The Half Life of Facts. It’s not only that facts can change that is a problem. While we might be happy to consider it a fact that Earth is spherical, we would be wrong to do so because it’s actually a bit pear-shaped. Thinking it a sphere, however, is very different from thinking it to be flat. Asimov expressed this beautifully in his essay The Relativity of Wrong.

For Asimov, the person who thinks Earth is a sphere is wrong, and so is the person who thinks the Earth is flat. But the person who thinks that they are equally wrong is more wrong than both.

Geometrical hair-splitting aside, calling something a fact is therefore not a proclamation of infallibility. It is usually used to represent the best knowledge we have at any given time. It’s also not the knockout blow we might hope for in an argument. Saying something is a fact by itself does nothing to convince someone who doesn’t agree with you. Unaccompanied by any warrant for belief, it is not a technique of persuasion. Proof by volume and repetition — repeatedly yelling “but it’s a fact!” — simply doesn’t work. Or at least it shouldn’t.

Matters of fact and opinion

Then again, calling something an opinion need not mean an escape to the fairyland of wishful thinking. This too is not a knockout attack in an argument. If we think of an opinion as one person’s view on a subject, then many opinions can be solid.

For example, it’s my opinion that science gives us a powerful narrative to help understand our place in the Universe, at least as much as any religious perspective does.

It’s not an empirical fact that science does so, but it works for me. But we can be much clearer in our meaning if we separate things into matters of fact and matters of opinion.Matters of fact are confined to empirical claims, such as what the boiling point of a substance is, whether lead is denser than water, or whether the planet is warming.

Matters of opinion are non-empirical claims, and include questions of value and of personal preference such as whether it’s ok to eat animals, and whether vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate. Ethics is an exemplar of a system in which matters of fact cannot by themselves decide courses of action.

Matters of opinion can be informed by matters of fact (for example, finding out that animals can suffer may influence whether I choose to eat them), but ultimately they are not answered by matters of fact (why is it relevant if they can suffer?).

Backing up the facts and opinions

Opinions are not just pale shadows of facts; they are judgements and conclusions. They can be the result of careful and sophisticated deliberation in areas for which empirical investigation is inadequate or ill-suited.

While it’s nice to think of the world so neatly divided into matters of fact and matters of opinion, it’s not always so clinical in its precision.

For example, it is a fact that I prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate. In other words, it is apparently a matter of fact that I am having a subjective experience.But we can heal that potential rift by further restricting matters of fact to those things that can be verified by others.

While it’s true that my ice cream preference could be experimentally indicated by observing my behaviour and interviewing me, it cannot be independently verified by others beyond doubt. I could be faking it.

But we can all agree in principle on whether the atmosphere contains more nitrogen or carbon dioxide because we can share the methodology of inquiry that gives us the answer. We can also agree on matters of value if the case for a particular view is rationally persuasive.Facts and opinions need not be positioned in opposition to each other, as they have complementary functions in our decision-making. In a rational framework, they are equally useful. But that’s just my opinion — it’s not a fact.

Peter Ellerton is a lecturer in critical thinking at the University of Queensland and director of the university’s Critical Thinking Project.

Originally published in The Conversation”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-18/why-facts-arent-always-more-important-than-opinions/8449438

My favorite philosophical quotation

Profound Einstein quote

I enjoy thinking and writing about philosophy. I also know I am not particularly professional at it. I feel most readers would agree with me this particular verse is written by Albert Einstein would have to rank amongst the most beautiful words that have ever been written in human history. Furthermore it is written in a manner most people are likely to understand.

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man… I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence — as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.”

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

Pretend you are God for a while

Can you imagine designing reality at every level?

I very much enjoy reading the works of the philosopher/physicist Thomas J. Chalko. He wrote and published an article in 2001 entitled “Is chance or choice the essence of nature?” The article is pertinent to space-time only, but I’ve taken the liberty of extending Chalko’s hypothesis one step further by applying it to all of reality as best as we can generally conceive it to be.

It is not my intention to attempt to write a science-based article relating to Chalko’s ideas except to say that they are consistent with my belief that there exists an overlapping fourth dimension to space-time that is the home of all possibilities to do something. In my blog entitled ‘My Cosmological Pantry’ I talk about a cosmic aether that flows through all things, including ourselves and our Earth. I believe as well that we are also constructed from this same aether. I claim all of reality is no more than patterns of information that add up to being all that exists at every level, and that in our space-time the process is parallel to this but is different because it can be scientifically observed. By this I mean that the particle-wave phenomena in space-time can be observed, can be seen to be non-deterministic and at the same time can be linked to an inherent cosmic intelligence that is entwined in all things i.e. like, a creator of some kind. I have copied and pasted a section of Chalko’s work with the idea that my readers may care to pretend they are God for a while and create all things [reality] by using Chalko’s guidelines. This includes the future as well. The article is easy to read but you will need a good imagination and a couple of spare hours to fully appreciate the rich contents of the text.

Chalko’s discussion about God article:

Chalko Extract

Albert Einstein fully trusted his intuition

Some people live almost entirely by intuition

These are the sorts of reasons Einstein was a scientific genius

Quotes:

“I believe in intuition and inspiration. … At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason. When the eclipse of 1919 confirmed my intuition, I was not in the least surprised. In fact I would have been astonished had it turned out otherwise.”

“I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.”

“When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”

“Invention is not the product of logical thought, even though the final product is tied to a logical structure.”

“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am”

“Perhaps we live best and do things best when we are not too conscious of how and why we do them.”

“Indeed, it is not intellect, but intuition which advances humanity. Intuition tells man his purpose in this life.”

“An intuitive child couldn’t accomplish anything without some knowledge. There will come a point in everyone’s life, however, where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without ever knowing precisely how. One can never know why, but one must accept intuition as a fact.”

“Fairy tales and more fairy tales. [in response to a mother who wanted her son to become a scientist and asked Einstein what reading material to give him]. The mother protested that she was really serious about this and she wanted a serious answer; but Dr. Einstein persisted, adding that creative imagination is the essential element in the intellectual equipment of the true scientist, and that fairy tales are the childhood stimulus to this quality.”

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honours the servant and has forgotten the gift.”

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein