Emergent Beings Funk & Wagnalls Standard College (1974) Emergence n. 3. The appearance of something new and unpredictable in the process of organic evolution.
The paper you’re about to read is best described as controversial. It will fly in the face of all commonly accepted ‘scientific truths’. If you are satisfied with reality as it is currently understood, you may be better off not reading further. If, on the other hand, you sense huge gaps in the story of evolution and how the reality we share came to be, then please proceed with caution and an expectation of ‘surprise’.
This paper follows a previous one by this author: jarrokam called “Semiotic paradigm”.
[ Introductory Paper: "Semiotic paradigm" Semiotic paradigmhttps://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Semiotic paradigm ]
It also examines the nature of our shared reality by enquiring ‘What is information’? The author backs out of this topic without providing an answer to the question.
What follows then is expanding the matrix of enquiry from uniquely human to infinite.
My dissatisfaction with science, as I started to examine it, was the profound lack of balance.
Laws governed thought in much the same way religion did. One law in particular, the laws of thermodynamics and the resultant [what I insisted was only theory of] entropy, seemed to leave a huge probability canyon. Living beings were evaluating the universe but without accounting for life. Living, sentient creatures creating a matrix without admitting the possibility of life!
Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom. Victor E Frankl
Emergence, Energy and Precedence ===
"Emergent Phenomena" is a paper that explores the means to categorize and evaluate avenues of thought concerning the reasons for the differences between the micro and macroscopic universes as we apprehend them. It endeavours to go further by proceeding from a thought experiment taken from "Semiotic paradigm".
Richard Feynman, in the fifth of a series of seven lectures prepared for the Messenger series Cornell University 1964 entitled “The Distinction of Past and Future” begins:
“It is obvious to everybody that phenomena of the world are evidently irreversible”…
and later: ”…the most obvious interpretation of this evident distinction between past and future, and this irreversibility of all phenomena, would be that some laws, some of the motion laws of the atoms, are going one way - that the atom laws are not such that they can go either way. …that makes the whole phenomena of the world seem to go one way. (pg 106) Now run that section of the film backwards, ... it is reversible. The laws of molecular collision are reversible.”
A similar contribution from John Polkinghorne’s work [pg. 49]: ”…but at least one can correlate it with another… property of large systems. This is their irreversibility.
With one exception that genuinely is not significant for the present discussion, the fundamental laws of physics are reversible. To see what this means, suppose, contrary to Heisenberg, that one could make a film of two electrons interacting. That film would make sense if it were run forwards or backwards. In other words, in the microworld, there is no arrow of time…”
As far as we understand our reality, it may be fair to say that, at the sub-microscopic level, quantum events are entirely reversible and therefore chaotic, while the macroscopic has been processed by innumerable levels of emergence and therefore irreversible or deterministic. The search for quantifiable and deterministic explanations for quantum events is a futile quest. A better use of attention is invested in an examination of 'emergence'.
In describing collective behaviours, emergence refers to how collective properties arise from the properties of parts, how behaviour at a larger scale arises from the detailed structure, behaviour and relationships at a finer scale. Concepts: Emergence | NECSI _ necsi.edu/guide/concepts/emergence.html
Here I would like to acknowledge two brief texts, that together, have initiated the thought processes that inspired this paper:
The Character of Physical Law Richard Feynman 1965 Messenger lectures Cornell 1964
Quantum Theory - A Very Short Introduction John Polkinghorne 2002
From microscopic to macroscopic we obviously appreciate a change in scale. As one observes the hierarchy of scales, a multitude of scale transitions occur. The vantage point and reason for scrutiny determine the various scales that would pertain. Irreversibility is the constant measure of progress from quantum reality to our shared, emergent, reality of Classical Physics. How shall we examine this journey?
Let us agree that the Big Bang implies that all is energy. Matter emerges from energy. Emergence is the process that is the result of an event or series of events. How best to define an event? An event is the intersection where Superposition [Schrödinger] becomes position as a result of collapse [wave to particle]. If reality is primarily a wave form of superposition then determinism emerges as a result continuing collapse chains.
As I conceive of it, the interactions at a molecular level are potential events. Compound this scale to whatever the next pertinent scale might be: let us bypass seed crystalline structures and select a virus, for example, a measure of determinism or irreversibility has been introduced. This due to a host of collapse events on two different scales. At some point we introduce life, bacteria for example. If anything qualifies as emergent, life, surely does. It also carries the burden of sentience, limited at first, but growing more sophisticated and complex at each successive level. With each level an increasing element of emergence and therefore deterministic enhancement of the result. Enter: The arrow of time.
Envision a stable constructed in 1850. Having fallen into disuse by 1895 someone decides to renovate and create a structure suitable for habitation. Well and good however, now water systems need to be modified with a hand pump installed in what is now the kitchen area. After the turn of the Century, a water-closet should serve in order to abandon the previous out-door facility. One can well imagine what comes in the succeeding seventy or so years. Modifications become exceedingly expensive and to avoid spoiling the exterior ambience a tunnelling beneath the reinforced foundation to allow for badly needed space and upgrades soon create interior spaces that in no way resemble the exterior.
Our modern scientific knowledge structure, seems to me, to resemble this house. As we encounter vast collections of discoveries we seek to adapt the old edifice. Hence, in spite of horizons of new understanding of the macrocosm, we try to renovate the Milky Way to accommodate black holes, dark matter and energy and cosmic microwave background. Isn’t it time that we chose to construct a bright new model on fresh conceptual territory?
Here I wish to introduce a pertinent paragraph or two from the Introductory paper mentioned above: Semiotic Paradigm.
Perhaps a thought experiment could contribute. Over centuries we have developed a conception of the universe that has reached a conclusion about its inception: The Big Bang. One thing that applies to information about beginnings is that it must change the narrative. The Big Bang: before it - nothing; after it - Inflation. The single fundamental and unifying force is Inflation. We should view our fundamental forces in the same way we speak of horizon or sunrise. Our universe of light, time and matter was an evolutionary precipitate of the cooling, for want of a better word, resulting from exponential expansion after the big bang.
Our four fundamental forces evaporate. As the exponential expansion continues its surge, the precursors of matter distil. Gravity as we understand it begins as a an inertial symptom of this development. Information, does not yet exist. Matter does not exist. Light does not exist therefore, duration and hence Time, does not exist.
Inflation is the only thing that exceeds the speed of light. We know this because in the big bang, everything that has existed, exists now or will come to exist, erupts from a point. As we know a point is pure location. It has no other dimension. Before time can exist light has to be able to move. At this earliest phase of existence, inflation is a superheated plasmic soup of superposition - hence no position. Light has yet to exist thus time is still on hold.
Thus matter emerges from energy. Our old house is based on a foundation that everything is inanimate and that life is an anomaly. It also assumes four fundamental forces. On our new building site we're assuming gravity is but a side effect of inflation. As a we understand matter is an emergent property of energy, why should we not assume that life is the ubiquitous norm, and the inanimate is an emergent property or excretion of it. That would mean that in fact stars are alive creating a peculiar environment about themselves and that they are aware that they are a part of a given galaxy. The Hubble deep field views seem to confirm a life-like series of behaviours that, but for our bias on the part of Classical Entropy and the inanimate nature of everything, would seem to present sufficient evidence that the universe is alive! A brand new building plot - but it's a brand new edifice.
A Universe that is alive… what would that mean? Well, a primary requirement would need to be a distinction between what we can apprehend and everything else. Why? Because if the universe is alive, it is emergent. By definition, then there must be attributes beyond our apprehension and therefore beyond even our ability to speculate, let alone anticipate. We too are emergent beings, why would not the most deeply evolved creature of our understanding, the black hole, be sentient as well, forming the centre and soul of a galaxy? Thus let us qualify that which we cannot apprehend, speculate on or anticipate as ’cosmos’, keeping the term universe for all else.
Next we need to revise old thought runs, based on entropic assumptions. Our universe is based on matter which has mass due, apparently to a “Higgs field” . If so, must there not be a profound connection twixt it and light? To locate a matrix of thought for speculation, it occurs to me that Martin Heidegger’s gem: “Being and Time” might propose a useful conceptual framework.
Since the original paper on information declared: “I wish also to acknowledge that Aristotle’s categories were concerned primarily with substance. This automatically creates the category of ‘things of no substance’. This is a semantic feature of language … which implies that language cannot obtain or contain truth, however, it is an essential when exploring meaning. Thus, I wish here to depose that this text will be devoted to a search for meaning. Truth is a faith based conclusion which has no place, if unqualified, in a quantum mechanical reality.”
This exploration will simply focus speculation in an attempt to glean meaningful relationships between inflation, light, matter, the Higgs field, and emergence. A major effort of attention will be devoted to weeding out any entropic bias in the assumptions we find hiding within our matrix. As an example let us examine the new role for that which we call gravity. As a symptom of inflation, we no longer need to assume that gravity would necessarily be limited in effect. If inflation is ubiquitous, what we refer to as gravity could be as well. Here, it is important to acknowledge that as light was enabled gravity may well have been transformed to the limits of this new universe and therefore conformed to it's laws as we understand them. What is important is that all assumptions be examined.
**: Since announcement of discovery of Gravitational waves 
If matter emerges from energy then matter is the anomaly. Energy therefore exists ‘a priory’. If life emerges from matter then this is a reemergence. A reemergence implies the potential for a pattern. Once we know what to look for, we almost always find one, and in more than just one direction. Also, if we postulate the emergence of matter from the original element while assuming that inflation is in essence alive, the reemergence of life from matter carries a significance in ways not yet examined. A distinction between existence and ‘being’ would seem appropriate. A grain of sand, a salt crystal, a drop of water, a planet or moon, a galaxy - all can be said to exist. We would not, however, associate them with the concept of being with the exception, perhaps, of water.
Perhaps insight can be gained by examining the emergence of matter. Apparently Hydrogen [H as in H2O] was the first component to coalesce. As we know Hydrogen is the life blood of stars. As the first coalescence, it represents matter's first return vehicle to energy. It is the most abundant element in our present inventory of matter. Now how do we come to grips with sentience?
The ‘is’-ness of being implies sentience. It features awareness of context or environment. An embedded function of context is the recognition of ‘self’, others ‘like self’, and others ‘unlike self’. Both an amoeba and a jellyfish seem to function without what we think of as a brain. So, in the same fashion, do all plants. Yet conceivably all have the attribute of sentience.
sentience- Funk & Wagnalls: 2. Capacity for sensation or sense perception F&W Standard College
Before the release of some far-reaching conclusions that make one very uncomfortable let us explore some factors that gives one pause in the 'old house' model. Where did all the water come from? A recent spate of science documentaries have been devoted to this theme. Except for metal-iron asteroids there is a fair distribution of water contained within many, if not most of these objects. Comets are primarily ice. A recent documentary on vulcanism indicated that the type of eruption is dependant on the amount of water contained within the magma that is to say that, under unspecified conditions hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms are fused and comprise part of the plasma's makeup. Many of the giant planetary moons are definitely comprised of either surface or subsurface layers of H2O or water. Water that becomes lighter when turning solid and therefore freezes from the top down, a peculiar liquid! As to life, it appears that it had its start much earlier than previous assumptions would ever have anticipated. That and it found its roots without the help of the life-giving sun in the depths of the oceans around the natural vents and fissures of the planet.
What indications can we find that, when viewed in a new context, may support an intuition that the matrix of our universe is based on animate elements rather than inanimate ones? In addition to the fact that energy precedes matter, there is the necessary evolution of mass due to a Higgs field. Further, If the Higgs field is in fact what gives this new excretion of matter, mass, then it follows that it would come into being at the same time matter began to coalesce. Thus as the Higgs field begins to create matter with mass, what we refer to as gravity begins to display it's Newtonian properties. Is it not possible that it also expands to embrace light. Light however, is still imprisoned within the ‘plasmic soup of superposition’ we refer to as inflation. Hence Time does not yet exist.
Here I rely on the necessity of deeming that Time and hence duration technically cannot exist until expansion evolves to allow light to move. Suddenly, and by that I mean something that had not happened before, the plasmic soup, cooled, for want of a better word, within this field, such that our universe was able to distill and light could move! Duration and therefore Time also came into being and Information was born. Perhaps a helpful analogy would be to conceive of this event as “Inflation’s first opportunity for self-awareness". Could we then refer to this as true emergence - the paradigm for all emergence in all scales? Now that we have introduced Time into the new Creation Myth, perhaps we can forgo Capital Letters. It is also time to see if “Sein Und Zeit” by Martian Heidegger can assist in further developing a conceptual framework. Before departing this paragraph I wish to highlight Pierce’s conceptual tools of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness.
I refer here to the text: PIERCE’S THEORY OF SIGNS AS FOUNDATION FOR PRAGMATISM by John J Fitzgerald . The primary tool he recommended for this purpose was sifting by concept differentiation through the application of “Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness”. By applying these categories we are able to locate ourselves and our perspective on this unique event. While both Peirce and Fitzgerald attempt explanation, for the 21st Century ear, these sound convoluted and feel obscure. This reader’s interpretation is as follows: Firstness is singularity; Secondness results in “other”; Thirdness is firstness and secondness in context hence the reason that no category of ‘fourthness’ needs be created. [From Semiotic paradigm]
If one admits that the distillation of our ‘universe’ could be considered Firstness, it follows that ‘other’ or Secondness immediately must apply as it would only result as the result of the discovery of other: hence the first sense of 'self'. Should some form of self-awareness come into being then context or 'other' is inevitable and its exploration demanded. This 'other', we have agreed for the purpose of this paper, that this other shall be referred to as cosmos as,at this point we have no clear perception of what this 'self' might experience. My hope is that with the exploration of 'inflation' clear ways to interpret what it might encounter in its evolution could then be examined with "Sein Und Zeit" in mind.
As for traditional scientific practice, it is stayed with assumption. As recently as 2011, fish biofluorescence was unknown. Assumption, bring white light to underwater exploration, when for years we’ve known about loss of spectrum at depth, however to bring the light [blue] and arm the cameras with yellow filters never occurred presumably because the basic assumption was invisible: [in order to see a man must bring white light]. One can readily see how this assumption would lead to behaviour that deprived a man from experiencing how the inhabitants might perceive reality.
Compared to the terrestrial environment, marine organisms reside in a spectrally restricted visual domain. The red, orange, yellow, and green components of sunlight are selectively removed with depth resulting in a narrow, near-monochromatic, band of blue light between 470 and 480 nm - The Covert World of Fish Biofluorescence: A Phylogenetically Widespread and Phenotypically Variable Phenomenon:http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140972 Doesn’t the fact there is Bioluminescence at depth and Biofluorescence as part of the makeup of living plants and animal structures (e g coral) imply that two forms of life coexist - one at depth and the other form, a creation at surface [land and sea]?
How much else about our environment remains unknown due to assumption? Until 1920, accepted wisdom limited our universe to the Milky Way, in spite of speculations by eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant that Messier’s nebulae [discovered while observing Comet 1779] were in fact, distant “island universes”. The naming of dark energy and dark matter [Zwicky/Smith Coma and Virgo clusters 1930’s] precedes the verification of Black Holes. The extensive mapping of peculiar movement of stars about other galaxies [Vera Rubin 1970's] and the need to add mass to map the creation of virtual galaxies in computer modelling, all contribute support for Dark Matter. It has become such a well worn path of investigation that no one has stopped to consider that we now know that every galaxy investigated to date appears to have at least one black hole [Supermassive] at centre [Julie Comerford, Assistant Professor in the Department of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder]. Would not this attribute serve to account for the missing mass? Dark energy or vacuum energy may well be a hint from the cosmos that indeed something else is underway, but potential structures in the supposed mapping of Dark Energy may prove useful once conceptually repurposed.
If we assume emergent beings, is it not fair to infer transcendental beings? Creatures almost as old as time itself? Might their previous existence be inferred from how we have come to apprehend black holes and the ‘Latin’ dance moves two galaxies undergo when they encounter each other? This speculation is just that. An attempt to force open the windows of awareness to embrace new possibility. Is it not conceivable, then that our universe appears to be Euclidean because it is embedded in the surface of a black hole as information retained?
If we can, for a moment suspend belief in the entropic desert of current scientific dogma and entertain the notion that the matrix of existence is essentially alive, then to cope with this notion one requires new terms of reference. As mentioned before Martin Heidegger wrestled with existence in his 1953 work “Being and Time”. I refer to the translation of Sein und Zeit by Joan Stambaugh (1996) page 43.
"Historiographically, the intention of the existential analytic can be clarified by considering Descartes, to whom one attributes the discovery of the cogito sum as the point of departure for all modern philosophical questioning. He investigates the cogitare of the ego - within certain limits. But the sum he leaves completely undiscussed, even though it is just as primordial as the cogito. Our analytic raises the ontological question of the being of the sum. Only when the sum is defined does the manner of the cogitationes become comprehensible."
Now from ”Martin Heidegger BASIC WRITINGS Editor: David Farrell Krell
Up to now the necessity of a recapitulation of the question was motivated partly by the dignity of its origin but above all by the lack of a definitive answer, even by the lack of any adequate formulation. Does it remain solely, or is it at all, only a matter of free-floating speculation about the most general generalities - or is it the most basic and at the same time most concrete question?
To speak meaningfully, agreement must be reached on terminology and implications to limit meaning. Therefore, let me address virtuality: a neural net whether mechanical, electronic, or biological, constructs a virtual model that pre-exists prior to that experience being “Real-ized” [sic]. That is to say all reality, as we perceive of it exists because of a pre-existing “Virtual” model created by a neural net. [2 sentences that pertain from 'Semiotic paradigm']
The ability to learn is a fundamental trait of intelligence. Although a precise definition of learning is difficult to formulate, a learning process in the ANN context can be viewed as the problem of updating network architecture and connection weights so that a network can efficiently perform a specific task. The network usually must learn the connection weights from available training patterns. Performance is improved over time by iteratively updating the weights in the network. [weight is presumed to refer to relative significance]
Artificial Neural Networks: A Tutorial Anil K Jain Michigan State University, Jianchang Mao K.M. Mohiuddin IBM Almaden Research Center
If we assume that inflation as it evolved, began to form the essentials of a neural net of pure energy, then the virtual model created, would of necessity be a construction of experience. The consequence of a virtual model of experience is a realization of experience [sic]. It is important to remember that at this point, time does not yet exist. If experience is realized in whatever form then Heidegger’s da-sein becomes a useful tool to express the answer to the question: - who is having this experience?
Hold! - let us recapitulate.
We start by assuming that the universe is alive because an inanimate matrix does not allow for the anomaly of life also, matter is an emergent phenomena of inflation. In addition we assume that a neural net would be a consequence of a living matrix as all living forms comprise a neural net. This is especially true where no ‘brain’ can be identified, a neural net engenders, stimulus-response life behaviour. With inanimate objects the word behaviour does not even apply. Planck length is about 10 -20 times the radius of a proton! The representation at left is an attempt to visualize what quantum reality might look like or as John Wheeler poetically describes as: "foaming rush of waves on a seashore".
May4th2016: Gravity and Light
I’ve been devoted to understand as much of the universe as I can comprehend.
I am amazed at the height, width and breadth of what there is to understand.
I do have a bias for things I like on principle and try to take that into account…
So thank you for this!
Seeing gravity as an Entropic result of how parts of things so small that we have a hard time
even to conceive of them, leave our time-space - pass from universe to cosmos.
[Erik Verlinde] ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyomGtZCsmI )
Before him apparently, accounting for this passage, was ignored.
He uses them instead as the basis for accounting, and with his theory, arrives at a formulate mathematical manipulation that coincide with results reached with Newtonian calculations.
Recent reports of a majestic light source that was all but simultaneous with the event registered
with event September 14, 2015 LIGO detector system for gravity waves makes a convincing
argument that gravitational waves are limited to the speed of light.
It leads one to ask can we surmise anything from the minor discrepancy?