The question, put simply, is if our definition of "machine" is not in some
way synonymous with the very nature of perception of space and time itself?
In which case, perhaps the full magnitude of the problem can be appreciated.
Here's the argument:
1. First, Don describes a "machine" as something that is realizable and
thus must depend on deterministic and finite states -- composed of models
that are all simulable and has a largest model that is the sum of the
others (i.e., reduction works).
2. Norm clarifies that we are talking about the non-simulability of
life.
3. Jixuan Hu says "A machine is a set of "natural laws" mapped into
physical "stuff," or materialized natural laws."
I suggest that Jixuan is saying essentially the same thing, although
its a little less obvioius. By "materialized" we must also mean "realized"
according to the laws of matter, where we equate "real" in this case with
the material and objective world. That world, governed by the rules of
perception (and thus the scale of perception, which is many-particle/state
systems), is a finite-state world that is discretized and materialized
(objectified by our definition and perception of matter), and thus conforms
to the definition of a "simple" machine.=20
So, is the root of the machine metaphor and mechanistic science actually a
part of space/time perception (of which all sensory input is a part)? Is
macroscopic space, as we know it, discrete and computable, being
essentially defined by the modeling relationship involved in sensory
perception?
In support of this view, I note that what is "not realizable" in quantum is
also not part of any concept of space and time. Same is true at cosmic
scales (i.e., the origin of the universe singularity). So space/time is
itself a very special viewpoint onto reality, and I wonder if this is not
the same thing we are talking about regarding simple systems. Also, sensory
perception (measurement) is defined within a space/time concept, which is
why Rosen says quantum physics is still formulated as part of the machine
paradigm.
Now, I go to the discussion between Ricardo and Mario regarding free
will:
Mario says: "And what do you mean by free will? It does not really
exist." =85 The question is ... are our actions only fruit of our
present/past experiences and inborn genetic program (without mentioning
the complicatedness of such function), or there is a plus - "free will",
in order to explain our actions ?
Ricardo interprets this as "the duality between matter and mind" that
"stems from our usage of words which makes that we always consider
matter as some inert substance. We look at an atom as a little ball
hanging around and that is it."
The point is perhaps being made by everyone that the problem is the
objective/perceptual world itself (world of finite-state objects existing
in space and time) to which memory and genetic programs are all confined.
It is determined by more than "our usage of words," but further by the very
nature of the only means at our disposal to sense the world - sensory
perception of finite-state objects in space and time.
So, lets now look at Mario's statement: "If we consider that the
behavior of a system (we, as systems) is due to ONLY the properties of
matter that constitutes the system, then we would say that free will can
not exist."
He is thus correct according to the definition of space/time, matter, and
objectivity, but that is circular. The "properties of matter" implicitly
involve an objective definition of matter and its finite states, and
Mario's conclusion is part of this view. The "something else" is left out.
So if this is not a general conclusion about the nature of reality, then
reality must extend beyond space/time and thus simulable or even realizable
concepts. To what extent are we trying to escape the inescapable, or
alternatively, to what extent can something that obviously exists in
space/time reality (an organism) incorporate the ability to transcend this
reality? Are there macroscopic physical structures that transcend the
physical, or alternatively, are we now to believe that all physical
structures actually transcend the physical - in which case what is the
difference between living and non-living?
-----------------------------------------------
John J. Kineman, Physical Scientist/Ecologist
National Geophysical Data Center
325 Broadway E/GC1 (3100 Marine St. Rm: A-152)
Boulder, Colorado 80303 USA
(303) 497-6900 (phone)
(303) 497-6513 (fax)
jjk@ngdc.noaa.gov (email)