|
It strikes me that
questions and speculations based on "hypothetical universes" which
contain no observers asking the questions suffer from a dangerous flaw
which render them generally nonsensical and useless. The underlying
assumption is that our asking questions from outside this universe is
always an acceptable proxy for an observer asking questions from
within that universe. But this is fallacious. Questions
posed about such a universe by us are being asked from a position external
and utterly isolated from the events of the universe - from a
"god-like" perspective. This tacitly asserts that the subjective can indeed
always be completely fractionated from the objective without consequence. [There
is much about this in Rosen's work. See EL 84-85 for one discussion.] We can
thus ask all our questions about entities in this hypothetical universe
without ever disturbing those entities: we need make no
measurements on them which perturb them nor are we restricted in which
information about them we can simultaneously obtain. There is no
"measurement problem" in such a universe. In short, it assumes a universe in
which all entities and all its properties must
be entirely objective - sanitized of any subjectivity.
Therefore, in the
example proposed (the "single-atom universe") the question regarding
"intelligence" necessarily presupposes that "intelligence" is an entirely
objective property within this universe. Otherwise, we could not sensibly ask
questions of this universe about intelligence. For we are
presuming that the answer to this question will come entirely from
information within the hypothetical universe, and not be tainted
by our subjectivity, which rests entirely outside of this hypothetical
universe. So, then, to proceed, one must first state a definition
of intelligence which will rest on entirely objective grounds within this
hypothetical universe. Only then it will be possible to ask a question about the
so-defined "intelligence" in this hypothetical universe.
Similarly, in
order to answer the question "can information exist in such a universe?"
requires that one first define "information" such that the definition rests on
entirely objective grounds within that hypothetical universe.
As will be seen,
the main difficulty that arises is that in order for these "objective
definitions" to be objective, they must rest on entirely syntactic
criteria. Because clearly, to have any semantic content to the criteria
will be to involve our subjectivity into the criteria. But since we are
outside of this hypothetical universe, this is not allowable. Therefore, any
definitions and the criteria they involve, will have sense only when they are
entirely syntactic in nature. So, the result is that we are creating
definitions, and asking and answering questions of this universe of an entirely
syntactic nature - with no more intrinsic significance or richness than if
we were asking questions of the universe of symbolic logic or Euclidean
geometry. The upshot is that the resultant syntactic definitions and criteria
may be possible to create, but they will quite likely be irrelevant or
unsatisfactory for usage in our actual universe, where observers and
subjectivity reside nonfractionably within the universe and where semantic
endowment of definitions is more the rule than the exception; and conversely, it
will be found that attempting to proceed from the other direction and gain a
syntactic definition by stripping our semantically endowed definitions
entirely of their semantics in order to be able to utilize them for
these hypothetical universes, will generally leave one with a barren carcass,
rather than a usable "objective" definition.
Regards,
Tim
I'm also cross posting
to the Rosen list, as we entered a discussion about time there...
Just
to add to Jamie's comments:
I did a paper (actually two) in 2000 on the
nature of space-time and information which I believe revealed some
interesting systemic possibilities. These are based on a consideration of what
light is (Einstein admitted at the end of his life that he still didn't know),
and what information is (also poorly defined by science).
For the sake
of argument, lets say "intelligence" (another poorly defined concept) in the
most rudimentary form suggested by James' "one-atom / nanosecond" question,
and "information" might be roughly equated for the purposes of this question
(or at least be equally interesting in this regard). Then we can ask: "can
information exist in such a universe?"
First some brief background: The
paper suggests that space (distance) and time are mutually defined (basic
relativity); there being no other "standard" available for either. That being
the case, the speed of light is clearly the relationship between these
relative measures. We also have no standard for the speed of light, except
that inside local space-time (units calibrated by the apparent speed of
light), we must measure a constant ratio of distance to time. This means,
nowever, that we have no means of ascertaining any absolute scale of space. It
turns out that this reasoning leads to a model where the scale of intrinsic
space-time (and light) is a log relation to observed time, and this
establishes a hyperbolic space time (similar to E.A. Milne's kinematic
relativity) that is fully consistent with special relativity (and general
relativity, although not as commonly calibrated). In such a model, the light
path becomes the means of connecting separate local space-times, and when
graphed properly it looks like a logistic spiral, with no origin.
Now
back to the question: The above cosmology applies to current astronomy quite
well, but also to the idealized case of two objects in space-time. It is not
possible to define a one-atom universe logically, because there would then not
be any reference point to establish or "know" about its existence. It would be
like having "up" without "down." Essentially that means there can be no
information in a one-atom universe, and so knowledge anywhere in that universe
that it can exist. But if there are two objects, the above universal reference
frame is immediately implied, and light becomes not just the conversion
constant between local distance and time measures, but the medium of carrying
information between the two separated local space-times (or objects), so that
they can "know" about each other's existence, and thus have a basis to claim
existence. I think of this as the most primitive act of perception, and
percepts seem to be at least necessary for intelligence.
Perhaps that
is at least a relevant speculation???
John Kineman
James N Rose
wrote:
On another listserv [avoidl] where scientific
and semi-scientific cosmologies are debated,
I wrote the following today (4 Nov 2003).
I cc my posting to this listserv because it is
relevant to properties which are most likely
involved or present in systems generally, and in
complex relationships. Information corresponce
capacity. Within levels of organization, among
nested levels of emerged organization, between
companioned members of organization.
Thank you for reading.
Jamie Rose
====================================================
11/4/03
Jonathan Colvin [avoidl-list] wrote:
Could a universe consisting only of a single atom,
or existing only for nanoseconds be capable of
sustaining intelligence? It seems unlikely. In the
absence of your being able to provide some reasonable
mechanism whereby such an intelligence could have arisen,
rationale carries no weight. We can only extrapolate
>from what we know.
John, all,
So this brings some questions ..
What characteristics are ascribed to 'intelligence'?
In the grand arena, is it reasonable to pinpoint a
condition, state or level of organization where
'intelligence' sudden appears, where before that,
'intelligence' was absent from systems or organizations
in the universe?
In a prosaic venue, are human infants 'intelligent',
or are they unintelligent because we tend to use a
standard of judging which is biased to the 'adult state'
and some arbitrary protocol standard of 'reasoning'?
Is it some sort of human arrogance that strains to
maintain 'intelligence' as some sort of sacrosanct
capacity?
If we are open to 'generalizing' intelligence
isn't 'encounter ~ reasoned response' only a
refined subset of 'encounter ~ response'?, which
is only a refined subset of 'event ~ reaction'?,
which is a subset of 'action ~ reaction'?
A universe consisting of only a single atom or
enduring for only a nanosecond cannot be excluded from
having the capacities mentioned. It's existence -is-,
for however long or of whatever organization, 'sustained
intelligence' .. applicable of and appropriate to its
own form, functionality, or special universe.
James
Ceptual Institute
11/4/03
|