[Fis] Bill Miller's contribution: the "It" of a machine, truth and trust

[Louis Kauffman]

This is a response to a response of John Torday to the following paragraph of mine.

"A question about your point of view on gravity: From Einstein point of view gravity goes beyond being a “force” or an “energy” to being the principle that entities move along geodesics in spacetime, and that the mass-energy  of objects causes spacetime curvature as well as the possible intrinsic curvature of spacetime. Many of us, including Einstein, would like to deepen the theory so that all particles or observable entities are understood to be manifestations of the curvature of spacetime. In this way gravity would be seen to be the most fundamental concept in physics. It seems that this is in accord with your biological views.”

John responded as below and I make comments in his text below.

Note that this discussion is relevant to the question of Machines and th  Living in that it is a discussion of the relationship of life and physical law and how from Torday’s point of view spirituality and consciousness are the unfolding consequence of gravity and fundamental physical law.

This is my last FIS communication for this week!
Best,
Lou

> 
>  
> 
>> On May 19, 2025, at 7:02 AM, JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu <mailto:jtorday at ucla.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hmmm......I don't know if this is 'probative', but here goes (I think it is because the empiric data support it). If gravity is produced by following the geodesic curvature of space-time, it is ‘diagonalizing’

Lets slow this down and say the definitions of some terms. There are many examples of Cantor diagonalization. Suppose that L = {A_1,A_2,…} is a list of algorithms.
Each A_i can be applied to any natural number n = 1,2,… to produce another natural number A_i (n). In a given language (aka computer language or formal system) we might hope that L is a complete list of all the algorithms. But not so. We define a new algorithm A(n) by the equation A(n) = A_n (n) + 1. Then A(n) differs by 1 in the “n”th place for every A_i. So A is an algorithm that is not on the list L. Cantor diagonal process uses the structure of a situation to demonstrate its incompleteness.
The same pattern was used by Kurt Goedel to prove his incompleteness theorem.

Now you start to say that following a geodesic is like “diagonalizing the fabric of space time. I do not see that thought yet. But the fact that in general relativity “space tells matter how to move and matter tells space how to curve” is something like our dialoguing with formalism that makes that formalism incomplete or in other words, reactive to what we say and do. It is like the philosophical idea that Seer influences Seen and Seen infuences Seer in an eventual homeostasis that gives rise to a Universe equipped to see itself. 

>> the fabric of space-time, just like Cantor's diagonalizing sets of Real Numbers, or evolution as ontogeny/phylogeny

You are saying that evolution as ontogeny/phylogieny is “equivalent” to the periodic table of elements. I think here you are referring to you vision of the elements as occurring via a recursive Fibonacci-like process. But equivalent seems too strong here.


>> being the equivalent of the Periodic Table of Elements, both being algorithms for the integration of synchronic and diachronic, the

Again it is a nice discussion possible to compare synchronic/diachronic with explicate/implicate. This really does work in some instances. For example the pattern of a recursion is outside time, the performance of a recursion is the temporal and explicate version of that pattern.

>> Explicate and the Implicate, revealing the underlying properties of space-time, connecting classical and Quantum Mechanics

We would like to have a good theory connecting curved spacetime and quantum mechanics.

>> in the way that I explained consciousness as the homology between Symbiogenesis and Quantum Entanglement (see attached)

I have to read your attached or listen to that point of view.

>> as the homeostatic control of energy by both the former and the latter......that is to say that both of those processes are means for maintaining equipoise in both the Explicate and the Implicate Orders,


Ah. I like that notion of consciousness as maintaining an equipoise between implicate and explicate order.

>> i.e. they are one and the same, but in the Explicate we seek certainty, whereas in the Implicate we accept uncertainty (Heisenberg),

Perhaps, but also in the implicate we have the pattern or seed form for a process that unfolds in time and articulation in the explicate.
For example, the implicate form of the Fibonacci sequence is f_1=1=f_2, f_{n+1} = f_{n-1} + f_{n}. The explicate form of the sequence is 
1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,…


>> but we must first assimilate the material of the Synchronic to transcend it and enter the energy flows of the Implicate, like being in a 'dream state' while being awake- meditation, mindfulness, wakeful dreaming, where the classical and Quantum intermingle.

That is a good notion — you would identify dream state with the POSSIBLE.


>> [And by the way, this phenomenology is all due to Stellar Nucleosynthesis forming stars, the by-products of which are the Elements in their exact order of their atomic masses as the 'logic' of the Cosmos, which living organisms then appropriate through Symbiogenesis (see attached manuscript)].


The Stellar Nuleosynthesis is supported by those same principles of gravity, spacetime and quantum mechanics.

>> So I see the cell having formed as a topology to form a membrane boundary between 'inside and outside’,

Indeed.

>> which is GSB's 'mark’,

GSB’s mark is an indicated distinction, often formed with a boundary and quite analogous to a cell membrane.

>> as a means of understanding gravity as the unification of space-time,

Then we have this long story from the differential geometry continuity of spacetime through stellar nucleosynthesis to the forming of elements to the energetics of chemistry to the formation of living cells that can in their own form make distinctions and boundaries. And it continues on into higher organisms and minds that make distinctions in that realm of language.


>> and that as the cell's environment changes due to an expanding Cosmos,


Ah. How do you see the cell’s environment changing in relation to the expansion of the Cosmos?

>> it is able to maintain equipoise by recognizing the continuum because of the paradox of negative entropy v 'entropy entropy' (Schrodinger, "What is Life?"). Our physiology is the literal embodiment of all of the above as a rectification of the negative-positive entropy, from the mundane processes of physiology synchronically to the meta-state of consciousness diachronically as the vertical integration of physiology, through a common mathematics that has been realized through the adoption of Cosmic mathematics via Symbiogenesis (see attached).


>> So all of the above is why I think that "something greater than ourselves" is the force of gravity.

On the one hand we are seeing the gravity and spacetime are fundamental to our evolution and then you are seeing gravity as the source of our spiritual notions.
Many of these notions of what is greater have to do with abolishing difference. For example in Anselm’s Proof of the existence of G-d we have an erasure of the difference between Imaginary and Real.

1. G_d is the that of which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. If G_d is considered but not endowed with existence than we can conceive of a greater G_d that does exist.
3. Therefore G_d exists.

How do you see this argument/attitude/article of faith in terms of the “force of gravity”/


>> And why when you deprive an evolved, differentiated cell of the force of gravity, it loses its phenotypic identity.....hope that was helpful. BTW, I'm presenting this stuff at fis on Friday.....
>> 
>> Best, John
>> 
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20250519/db166822/attachment-0001.html>