Re: From Knowledge Animals to Information Beings

Luc Claeys (claeys@INNET.BE)
Sun, 21 May 1995 17:16:41 +0200


Reply to the question of Francis Heylighen on
"From Knowledge Animals to Information Beings" of Luc Claeys

#include <disclaimer.h>

Dear Francis,
Thanks for the tough question, it stimulates me.

>> I THINK THAT even THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE SUCH INDURATED
>> KNOWLEDGE BEINGS.
>
>This is a very interesting point. However, I would like to know whether
>your physical "knowledge beings" still have the property of replication,
>which is characteristic of animals or Memes. In other words, if the laws of
>physics are the same here on earth and on alpha centauri, is that because
>the information being that constrains movements on alpha centauri and the
>one that constrains it here are copies of each other? Or is there only one
>being that determines physical movement everywhere in the universe?

1) One or many ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First I will try to bring a part of the question closer to our daily life.
"Is there a single physical entity which represents a specific type
of Meme?" or,
"Is there a single physical entity which represents a specific type of
virus?"

In (our) physical space, there is clearly no such thing.
The information about a specific type of virus is not located at
one specific place in (our) space.

However, when we cannot find any difference between two virus,
we say it is the same virus (... the same Meme) although we talk
about thousands of individual viruses.
This is also the reason why we say that the *same* laws of physics
govern alpha centauri and govern our little blue planet.

I consider the laws of physics as inter-locked information. Every
structure based on these laws helps to keep them stable (lock them).
As such, the atoms on alpha centauri are indeed helping to keep our
atoms in-shape. They carry the information and contribute to the
survival of the information.

2) Are the laws of physics replicating themselves?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The laws of physics are an inter-locked system of structure.
Each new structure which is formed (e.g. an atom) is constrained by
the laws of physics and constrains the laws of physics.
In other words, each new structure which is formed is constrained
by all the structures which already exist.
In this way, the laws of physics are safeguarding their genetic
information in all the structures they govern. When a single atom
falls apart, there is no danger that some information of the laws of
physics would get lost, but in the unlikely event that all atoms
would fall apart at the same they could recombine in a different way
and form another set of laws of physics (I admit that this last part
is non-sense because "at the same time" makes no sense here, but it
indicates some direction towards my point of view).

Whether this influence is immediate or ``travels'' with the speed of
light, I don't know.
(This whole image of light that ``travels'' is very poor anyway,
I like to come back to this point some day).

We can indeed compare that with a Meme. Take for example a custom.
One specific custom is inter-locked in a complex of customs. A
pressure to change one custom is reacted upon by surrounding customs.

3) Is there still some evolution in the laws of physics?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think they are indurated not so long ago as you might expect
and are still slightly evolving
(I might loose some of my audience here, but I mean it).
I think major parts of the existing cosmos is formed while the
inter-locking of the laws of physics took place.
Before the formation of the cosmos, there was nothing to ``lock''
most of this information. In its turn, the formation of a cosmos is
of course an iterating process which is governed by a more abstract
process. That iteration requires that some information survives
from cosmos to cosmos in a more abstract form (In fact I think that
all knowledge is preserved in abstract form).
This kind of abstract information can be imagined as
``the principles used to form a cosmos''. This is also a set of
inter-locked information which is fine-tuned by the evolution of
cosmos after cosmos.

The inter-locking is a relative sudden and severe event. When things
are ready, events seem to enchain in an ever increasing rate and
cannot be stopped anymore.
There is of course an analogy with social and other revolution in
the world (are we not on the edge of such collapsing phase?).

>> Another example: Human beings express the way they work in the
>> tools they make. As a next step, even the making of the
>> machines is automated, as a next step, the design of new
>> machines is automated (Computer Aided Design), and an
>> increasing amount of Artificial Intelligence is integrated
>> in the design and manufacturing process.
>This is Val Turchin's classical example of the tool-making metasystem
>transitions (MSTs): tools making tools making tools ... making goods.
>(cf. Val's book "The Phenomenon of Science")

I read part of Val Turchin's "A Dialogue on Metasystem Transition".
As far as have understood, I think the main difference in our point
of view (only the point of view differs, we are observing the same
things) is a difference in the image of evolution.
Some of this difference in point of view will already show up in
my reply on the remark below.
I intend to have a closer look to Val's work to be able to use his
terminology in further discussions.
In two words:
Observed from one of my favorite points of view, the `component'
is a more `advanced being' than the Metasystem, and I think that
the same Metasystem looks more `advanced' than its components form
Val's point of view.

>>If we human beings express our knowledge in a recursive way,
>>
>> WHY WOULD WE BE THE FIRST STAGE IN A RECURSIVE CHAIN ?
>
>Of course we are not. To get to the human being you need a lot of MSTs
>going back at least to the levels of atoms and molecules. In this view,
>your "knowledge being" might be just what we call a "(meta)system". But I
>suppose there will be other differences (e.g. like replication), and I
>would like discover those.

I am glad to see that this recursion is taken for granted in the PCP
environment. However I wonder if we all have the same image of that
recursion.
Let me throw a stone in the pool to see what waves come up ;-)

We human beings succeed to express our structure in one or two
recursions. Consecutive attempts (iterations, not recursions)
improve the perfection and the quality of the image formed in the
second recursion.
We hope to learn to build systems that build systems that are
images of ourselves (to some extent).
We do not yet succeed in doing so, but progress is visible.

Molecules however, can do that since ages...
Molecules succeed first to reflect their structure in cells,
cells reflect their structure in organs, organs in a body,
the body in human behavior and from there the two or so more
externalization cycles.

I conclude from that that molecules are much more evolved beings
than human beings, because they succeed to externalize themselves
in more recursion cycles.
OK ?...

This leads also to one of my favorite sayings:
To see the past, use a telescope,
to see the future, use a microscope.

Luc

------------------------------------------------------
Luc Claeys claeys@innet.be
Antwerpen (Wilrijk) Belgium.

In search of new points of view
for better understanding of Nature.
-------------------------------------------------------