Thoughts on the Principle of Efficient Language





Our program at Quantum Gravity Research has one overarching principle that subsumes the principle of least action. It is called the principle of efficient language.
The universe, as a self-organizing code, evolves toward optimal efficiency of meaning relative to its binary actions, where meaning includes the self-referential geometric symbolism of physicality along with the more subjective meaning of emergent phenomena, such as humor. And where binary actions, as energy, are conserved, meaning is not. Ergo, the meaning output of the universe is not the sum of its underlying code theoretic actions.
In semiotics, symbols are defined as objects that represent objects different than themselves. In emergence theory, the name of the physics framework we are developing, we allow a special class of self-referential symbols. For example, I can symbolize the meaning of a geometric “square” with the geometric symbols known as the Latin letters of the English language that I just used. Or I can symbolize it geometrically in 3-space as a sound front of interacting waveform defined by a sequence of coordinate changes of air molecules. All symbols are geometric, as are all objects in physical reality. Even the probability plot of the quantum wave function for some system fills in an elliptical geometric dipolar volume. Every measurement we do is based on geometry in one way or another. It is important for the sake of understanding in this discussion to establish that physical reality is deeply geometric and symbols used in this reality are geometric. If you hold in your mind the notion of “happy”, it is represented in your body by various waveforms you feel in your stomach and heart that can be measured. It lights up geometric pathways forming shapes in the neural network within your cranium. And those geometric forms correlated to “happy” are different than the forms that can be measured for the experience of the idea of “Donald Trump” in your consciousness.
However, to find a first principles unification theory (note string theory, general relativity, etc are not first principles theories), we realized we must first establish our axioms.
We had to start with an ontological question:
Is physical reality information theoretic or not?
As Wheeler, Tegmark and others have argued, it seems that the more conservative guess is that it is information theoretic. Reality seems to be made of information.
The second question we then dealt with is:
How can information exist without some substrate of consciousness to actualize it?
We deduced then that the panconsciousness scientific viewpoint is valid and not crackpot science. There are many works on this from rigorous physics perspective. The physical logic is that consciousness appears to have emerged here in the universe on Earth. And it must have done so through self-organization of the geometric constituents of reality and the syntactical rules and freedom therein (waveform, particle positions etc). There appears to be no upward limit on what percentage of the energy in the universe can self-organize into conscious systems and networks of conscious systems. Given enough time, what can happen generally does happen. And so if we look at spacetime as an overall object, then at some coordinate therein, panconsciousness has emerged. That’s not proof. It is simply a discussion of logical plausibility.
The next question we dealt with is: Did this panconsciousness emerge from the physical universe or did it create the physical universe?
We like the old definition of universe before the term was ruined by the term “multiverse”. “Universe” should mean “everything that exists”. So we use it that way and ask:
“Did this hypothetical panconsciousness self-actualize itself from aspects of the universe we are familiar with, such as the waveform of quantum mechanics, gravity, etc or are those things plus this panconsciousness created by something else that is included in a larger universe?”
We are conservative, even though we speak of the plausibility of panconsciousness. We have no interest in inventing too many things for which have no evidence. We like to take what we can observe, such as the universe we have at our disposal. So we take all the physical things we know of and we allow the one exception of universal consciousness because of the logic thread I outlined above. Once more – if physical reality is information theoretic, consciousness must be a fundamental component of it. And it certainly is not human consciousness. It logically would be a sort of panconsciousness. This is our most aggressive assumption. From that point it gets more down to Earth, as we ask the next question:
 “How could a panconsciousness emerge from a physical universe?”
So, we must establish what we mean by “information” and “meaning” and “symbols”.
Object: As defined in set theory, an object is anything that can be thought of. Because all objects represent other things, including themselves, all objects are symbols.
Information: Information is meaning in the form of symbolism. Accordingly, all meaning is a comparison of one object to another or itself – the recognition of a symbolic relationship.
Meaning: Meaning is the recognition of information or comparison of symbols/objects – even the comparison of two identical symbols/objects, as with self-referential symbols. We symbolic meaning into two fundamental classes.
CLASS I MEANING – Class I meaning is self-referential and therefore virtually non-subjective. It is always geometric. By contrast, “humor” in its abstract form in a mind is itself an object. But it cannot represent the generalized notion of humor or dog or any abstract idea of a physical on non-physical object because each is different from mind to mind. When we write “humor” here, the text is geometric but not self-referential. A square in geometric form representing a square has low subjectivity because it has approximately intrinsic qualities such as the diagonal of the square root of 2. Accordingly, only meaning as form – geometric form – can have this unique quality of being intrinsically true according to geometric axioms. So only form – symbolism – is class on meaning. And this is because only mathematics is a true universal language.
To simplify, class one meaning is physical. Wheeler believed, as do many scientists today, that physical reality is made of information – symbolism.
CLASS II MEANING – This is highly subjective meaning, such as humor. It always has its origin in class I meaning. For example, one cannot hold in their mind the idea of humor without it being associated with particle positions and electromagnetic waves in space – geometric form.
If you want to know how the panconsciousness can hold the Class I symbol of a square in its mind and therefore make it real, just think of a square yourself. Is it not real? Or do you require atoms or photons for it to be real? Indeed in the EM spectrum and in atomic configurations, there were distinct geometric objects ordered in spacetime when you hold the idea of that square in your mind.
If you want to know how a panconsciousness can emerge from a geometric code that it holds in its mind, then you may not get that answer exactly. The notion of non-computable emergence wherein the ontologically real emergent object is in no way the sum of its parts and in no way can be computed is important to keep in mind because this is what consciousness is. In fact, this is what everything other than the base objects of our code are. The interactions of 75 atomic oscillators generate a real physical system. But it cannot be computed by a hypothetical computer made of all the energy in the universe that is give a time of computation of, say, 1 trillion times the current age of the universe. This is because of how strongly exponential processes work, such as factorial progressions.
An emergent thing from the interactions of a larger number of oscillators, such as the photons, electrons and atoms in your skull, goes so deeply into the abyss toward infinity, that this emergent thing, so ontologically real has a good word to describe it “ineffable”. And those oscillators are connected classically to every other particle in the universe via gravity and electromagnetism. Quantum mechanically, they are connected in a network of quantum entangled particles. The early universe is generally known to have been a Bose Einstein condensate, wherein entanglement was established. As things separated, entangled groups became delocalized. This is intractable but seems to be real if we follow the cosmological models and quantum mechanics carefully. You may know that in 2014, a group in Israel established experimentally that quantum entanglement exists over time. It was established spatially a few years prior.
A few years ago at TSC (The Science of Consciousness conference) a good plenary session neuroscientist explained evidence that brain based consciousness may emerge relative to secondary, tertiary, etc EM waveform interactions in the brain. This is interesting because that is such an abstract mathematical space – this waveform space and this cascade of secondary and beyond interactions in that space.
I’ve explained that we use a non-arbitrary geometric language called a quasicrystal because generating one of those codes by projection of a slice of the E8 lattice will encode the realistic gauge symmetric unification physics of all particles and forces except for gravity. This leans toward answering your question on how in the world our language based framework will eventually lead to a new scientific view, along with the requirement of making predictions and elegant explanations.
So this quasicrystal is dynamical with a frame rate of 10^44 times per second, the Planck time. And the isomorphic Fourier domain of this space is always existing ontologically with it. The Mandelbrot set fractal is generally considered to be the most complex object known. We have just shown at a scientific conference this week our discovery that the Fourier space of our quasicrystalline spin network is composed of a 3D dynamical fractal. Here is an image from the conference presentation showing the Mandelbrot set on the left. In the middle is the superposition of the Fourier transform of a 1D space within our 3D object (the quasicrystalline spin network) onto the Mandelbrot set. And on the right is just our fractal alone. So you can imagine a dynamical 3D fractal that is the Fourier space of our framework.
-Klee Irwin, Quantum Gravity Research

Extensive website on Emergence Theory, Quasicrystalline Cold Fusion, Golden Ratio : http://www.kleeirwinphysics.com   lee Irwin. Director, Quantum Gravity Research.

Comments

Popular Posts