We Must Move Beyond the Representation of Information
The assumption that information is the basis for the representation of existence is incorrect. The assumption that information is the basis for the representation of thought is also incorrect. On what basis do I make these claims?
1) Set theory and the representation of information are indirect. The universe is direct.
2) I have discovered two entirely new classes of representation that are not based on the representation of information. One is combinatorially less complex than the representation of information. It appears to be the direct representation of existence. It provides direct intuitive interpretations for the foundations of quantum physics with minimal complexity. It provides direct answers for many of the deepest unsolved mysteries in Physics. For example, it explains the first cause of symmetry and the cause of the quantization of existence. It explains the cause of the universal consistency and completeness of existence and proves it mathematically. From the axiomatic definition of existence, it derives the meaning of nonexistence, the meaning of infinity, the meaning of universe and their relationships mathematically. The second representation is geometrically less complex than the direct representation of existence. Therefore, it is geometrically combinatorially less complex than the representation of information. It is more powerful than the representation of information, logic, and mathematics. It is complete and consistent. It is the representation of thought. The representation of thought is direct and indirect. Its ontology is isomorphic to neural morphology at the level of individual neurons and at the level of the overall pattern of neural connectivity in the human neocortex. It explains the neural basis for the representation of thought, meaning, perception, awareness and consciousness. Unlike the representation of information, the representations of existence and thought are both provably complete and consistent. The representation of thought is based on the direct representation of the ontology of abstraction. The ontology of abstraction is direct and indirect, and unlike information or logic, it is both intensional and extensional. It consists of a single universal of computation, a single representational primitive, and a single ontology, all of which are represented by the same thing. Neurons are isomorphic to the ontology of abstraction. From a high- level perspective, neural connectivity in the human neocortex is logically organized as a top down hierarchy of concepts where each node in the hierarchy contains a bottom up hierarchy of abstractions. The hippocampus is located at the top of the concept hierarchy and the sensory receptors and nerves that control the muscles are located at the bottom. The association cortices are located in the interior. This allows us to think abstractly, it allows us to think conceptually, and it allows us to think in context. It also allows us to represent and understand meaning from the first person direct perspective in context at multiple levels of abstraction simultaneously. Papers that describe both of these representations in detail are currently in preparation.
3) Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems [8,9,10] prove information based formal systems incomplete. The complement of an indirect, incomplete representation is a direct, complete representation.
4) Indirect formal systems are only complete in domains of discourse of limited size. To avoid incompleteness we must limit and fix the size of the domain of discourse. This causes domain limitations. Domain limitations lead to a combinatorial increase in complexity because they force us to resort to the use of multiple domains, multiple representations, multiple ontologies, and multiple sets of ontological consistency constraints to cover the representation of the universe as a whole. In such a system, there is no known way to ensure the global consistency or completeness of the representation of the universe as a whole.
5) Information is represented from the perspective of an observer. The universe cannot represent itself from the perspective of an observer. Existence is logically prior to observation. From what observers’ perspective could the first thing in the universe have been represented? We know there had to be a first thing. The universe has a lower size limit[1]. Therefore, it is finite. Therefore, time had a beginning. Therefore, there had to be a first thing. If there was a first thing, it could not have had an observer. Furthermore, there could not have been any perspective to view it from because the perspective itself (i.e., spacetime) would have had to preexist. Furthermore, without an observer, there would have been nothing to ask yes-or-no questions, no basis for the formulation of the questions, nothing to measure the results with, and nothing to record the binary answers on or in. Since existence is logically prior to observation, existence had to be created before it was observed. Since information is dependent on an observer, either the representation of existence is not based on information, or existence does not exist. Since the universe exists, we must conclude existence cannot be based on the representation of information.
6) ON.2 It from bit.[1] Otherwise put, every “it” — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence (even if in some contexts indirectly) from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe. (Wheeler [1990], 5);
While this argument seems plausible on the surface, it is deeply flawed. First, the premise is ambiguous because it fails to distinguish between the direct physical existence of particles, fields of force and the space- time continuum, and their indirect representation as information. While an indirect, set theoretic, information based description of the function, meaning and existence of particles, fields of force and the space time continuum may be derived from the answers to yes-or-no questions and represented as bits, that representation is only an indirect description, or model, of reality. It is information intended to describe reality indirectly; it is not reality or a direct representation of reality itself. It cannot be a direct representation of reality. The axiomatic definition of ‘set’ makes it impossible for a set to represent reality directly. In addition, the meaning of the information is only in the mind of an observer. The direct representation of the actual physical existence of particles, fields of force and the space-time continuum itself is not abstract. It is not symbolic. It is not based on bits. It is not indirect. It is direct. It is physical. Reality itself is composed of the direct physical existence of fermions, bosons, and their interactions, not bits. Reality is a direct representation, not an indirect representation.
Second, relative to the first thing in existence, who or what is going to formulate the yes-or-no questions?
Third, relative to the first thing in existence, who or what is going to measure, interpret and record the answers as bits?
Fourth, relative to the first thing in existence, where are the bits going to be recorded and stored?
Fifth, relative to the first thing in existence, what is going to interpret their meaning?
Sixth, yes-or-no questions are abstract, but the representation and process of abstraction are not immaterial. The representation and process of abstraction are carried out in the mind of an observer who thinks. Neurons represent thought. Neurons are physical, not immaterial. Therefore, the representation of yes-or-no questions is not immaterial, nor is the representation of the bits by the neurons that represent their answers. Furthermore, if ON.2 argues for the immateriality of the representation of thought, it contradicts ON.1.
ON.2, “It from bit” is almost correct. The fundamental direct physical representation of the universe is bivalent, and at the deepest level, it is immaterial, but the immateriality and bivalence are not based on the answer to yes-or-no questions. The basis for the bivalence is not one or zero or true or false. During the Big Bang there was no apparatus for formulating yes-or-no questions. There were no observers to ask yes or no questions. There were no observers to record any answers. No observer could possibly have existed to observe the creation of the first stars at the time of their creation. The quarks, gluons, photons, electrons, protons, neutrons, and other subatomic particles cannot be physically composed of information. The meaning of the immaterial basis for the bivalence of the universe has been misinterpreted. Therefore, the meaning of the bit has been misinterpreted. As currently defined, the bit is isomorphic to the foundations of mathematics and logic. It is isomorphic to the representation of information and human communication. It is a natural outcome of a formal analysis of mans use of symbolic communication and natural language. Man uses information for communication. We must use information with a fixed context free encoding and publicly understood syntactic rules in order to communicate. Information encoded in the form of English is one of man's communication protocols in the same way information encoded in TCP/IP is one of a computer's communication protocols. The cells in our bodies are not composed of English words, any more than the logic gates in a computer chip are composed of bits. Bits and words are just information. They are just a communication mechanism. That is all they are. Information has absolutely nothing to do with the physical composition of existence. Information is just man's method for encoding, transmitting, storing, recalling, and receiving the data in communication. Information is a way to encode and represent data about physical existence. It is not physical existence itself. It is not fully isomorphic to the direct physical representation of existence.
7) The representation and encoding of information is context free. The representation and encoding of existence are context dependent. Representing direct context dependent systems using indirect context free representations increases complexity combinatorially in the number of contexts (and the number of representations) used to represent them.
8) The representation and encoding of information is indirect in that bits represent that which they encode indirectly; i.e., they are a substitute or label for that which they represent, they are not the thing they represent. The representation and encoding of existence are direct. Representation = Existence. The physical representation of existence is existence; it is not information about existence.
[1] The lower size limit is the Planck length.
No comments:
Post a Comment