Re: Entropy and information
I have a severe cold,. I can not even calculate what is 27/2 (no
kidding). So due to lack of worthy arguments and to avoid to spread
the virus in this group, I will stay away for a week at least ;.)
On 3 mar, 00:32, "Stephen P. King" wrote:
> On 2/28/2012 8:20 PM, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> > Dear Stephen,
>
> > A thing that I often ask myself concerning MMH is the question about
> > what is mathematical and what is not?. The set of real numbers is a
> > mathematical structure, but also the set of real numbers plus the
> > point (1,1) in the plane is. The set of randomly chosen numbers { 1,4
> > 3,4,.34, 3} is because it can be described with the same descriptive
> > language of math. But the first of these structures have properties
> > and the others do not. The first can be infinite but can be described
> > with a single equation while the last must be described
> > extensively. . At least some random universes (the finite ones) can be
> > described extensively, with the tools of mathematics but they don�t
> > count in the intuitive sense as mathematical.
>
> Dear Alberto,
>
> I distinguish between the existential and the essential aspects
> such that this question is not problematic. Let me elaborate. By
> Existence I mean the necessary possibility of the entity. By Essence I
> mean the collection of properties that are its identity. Existence is
> only contingent on whether or not said existence is self-consistent, in
> other words, if an entity's essence is such that it contradicts the
> possibility of its existence, then it cannot exist; otherwise entities
> exist, but nothing beyond the tautological laws of identity - "A is A"
> and Unicity <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Unicity> - can be said to
> follow from that bare existence and we only consider those "laws" only
> after we reach the stage of epistemology.
> Essence, in the sense of properties seems to require a spectrum of
> stratification wherein properties can be associated and categories,
> modalities and aspects defined for such. It is this latter case of
> Essence that you seem to be considering in your discussion of the
> difference between the set of Real numbers and some set of random chosen
> numbers, since the former is defined as a complete whole by the set (or
> Category) theoretical definition of the Reals while the latter is
> contigent on a discription that must capture some particular collection,
> hence it is Unicity that matters, i.e. the "wholeness" of the set.
> I would venture to guess that the latter case of your examples
> always involves particular members of an example of the former case,
> e.g. the set of randomly chosen numbers that you mentioned is a subset
> of the set of Real numbers. Do there exist set (or Categories) that are
> "whole" that require the specification of every one of its members
> separately such that no finite description can capture its essence? I am
> not sure, thus I am only guessing here. One thing that we need to recall
> is that we are, by appearances, finite and can only apprehend finite
> details and properties. Is this limitation the result of necessity or
> contingency?
> Whatever the case it is, we should be careful not to draw
> conclusions about the inherent aspects of mathematical objects that
> follow from our individual ability to conceive of them. For example, I
> have a form of dyslexia that makes the mental manipulation of symbolic
> reasoning extremely difficult, I make up for this by reasoning in terms
> of more visual and proprioceptive senses and thus can understand
> mathematical entities very well. Given this disability, I might make
> claims that since I cannot understand the particular symbolic
> representations that I am a bit dubious of their existence or
> meaningfulness. Of course this is a rather absurd example, but I have
> often found that many claims by even eminent mathematicians boils down
> to a similar situation. Many of the claims against the existence of
> infinities can fall under this situation.
>
> > What is usually considered genuinely mathematical is any structure,
> > that can be described briefly. Also it must have good properties ,
> > operations, symmetries or isomorphisms with other structures so the
> > structure can be navigated and related with other structures and the
> > knowledge can be reused. These structures have a low kolmogorov
> > complexity, so they can be "navigated" with low computing resources.
>
> So you are saying that finite describability is a prerequisite for
> an entity to be mathematical? What is the lowest upper bound on this
> limit and w
Re: Entropy and information
Hi Evgenii, Any biological activity involves many chemical reactions that produce intermediate results, These reactions involve molecules whose structure are coded in DNA, transceribed and build by RNA . The produced protein respond to some need of the bacteria as a result of an internal or external event. Perhaps some food has been engulfed in the citoplasma and there is need for protein breaking enzimes. If you see the sequence of reactions in a piece of paper, it has the form of an algoritm. It does nor matter if it is executed in paralell, and several steps are executed at different times in different locations, but this does not change the algorithmic nature of the process, with the memorized set of instructions, the input the execution machinery and the output produced. Alberto On 29 feb, 21:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > How would you define "compute" in the sentence "a bacteria computes"? Is > this similar to what happens within a computer? > > Evgenii > > On 29.02.2012 15:58 Alberto G.Corona said the following: > > > > > > > > > Of course they compute. Even a plant must read the imputs of > > temperature, humidity and sun radiation to decide when sping may > > arrive to launch the program of leaf growing and flour blossoming. > > This computation exist because, before that, the plants discovered > > cycles in the weather by random mutations and natural selection, so > > the plants with this computation could better optimize water and > > nutrient resources and outgrown those that do not. Without a > > predictable linear environment, computation and thus evolution and > > life is impossible. > > > Alberto > > On 28 feb, 21:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > >> Alberto, > > >> I am thermodynamicist and I do not know exactly what is information and > >> computation. You have written that living beings perform computations. > >> Several questions in this respect. > > >> Are computations are limited to living beings only? > > >> Does a bacteria perform computations as well? > > >> If yes, then what is the difference between a ballcock in the toilet and > >> bacteria (provided we exclude reproduction from consideration)? > > >> Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Entropy and information
On 29 feb, 18:35, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 15:47, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > On 29 feb, 11:20, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >> On 29 Feb 2012, at 02:20, Alberto G.Corona wrote (to Stephen):
>
> >>> A thing that I often ask myself concerning MMH is the question
> >>> about
> >>> what is mathematical and what is not?. The set of real numbers is a
> >>> mathematical structure, but also the set of real numbers plus the
> >>> point (1,1) in the plane is.
>
> >> Sure. Now, with comp, that mathematical structure is more easily
> >> handled in the "mind" of the universal machine. For the ontology we
> >> can use arithmetic, on which everyone agree. It is absolutely
> >> undecidable that there is more than that (with the comp assumption).
> >> So for the math, comp invite to assume only what is called "the
> >> sharable part of intuitionist and classical mathematics.
>
> > I do not thing in computations in terms of "minds of universal
> > machines" in the abstract sense but in terms of the needs of
> > computability of living beings.
>
> I am not sure I understand what you mean by that.
> What is your goal?
>
> The goal by default here is to build, or isolate (by reasoning from
> ideas that we can share) a theory of everything (a toe).
> And by toe, most of us means a theory unifying the known forces,
> without eliminating the person and consciousness.
>
My goal is the same. I start from the same COMP premises, but I do not
not see why the whole model of the universe has to be restricted to
being computable. I start from the idea of whathever model of an
universe that can localy evolve computers. A mathematical continuous
structure with infinite small substitution measure , and thus non
computable can evolve computers. well not just computers, but problem
adaptive systems, clearly separated from the environment, that respond
to external environment situations in order to preserve the internal
structures, to reproduce and so on.
> The list advocates that 'everything' is simpler than 'something'. But
> this leads to a measure problem.
>
> It happens that the comp hypothesis gives crucial constraints on that
> measure problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> The set of randomly chosen numbers { 1,4
> >>> 3,4,.34, 3} is because it can be described with the same
> >>> descriptive
> >>> language of math. But the first of these structures have properties
> >>> and the others do not. The first can be infinite but can be
> >>> described
> >>> with a single equation while the last must be described
> >>> extensively. . At least some random universes (the finite ones)
> >>> can be
> >>> described extensively, with the tools of mathematics but they don´t
> >>> count in the intuitive sense as mathematical.
>
> >> Why? If they can be finitely described, then I don't see why they
> >> would be non mathematical.
>
> > It is not mathematical in the intuitive sense that the list of the
> > ponits of ramdomly folded paper is not. That intuitive sense , more
> > restrictive is what I use here.
>
> Ah?
> OK.
>
>
>
> >>> What is usually considered genuinely mathematical is any
> >>> structure,
> >>> that can be described briefly.
>
> >> Not at all. In classical math any particular real number is
> >> mathematically real, even if it cannot be described briefly.
> >> Chaitin's
> >> Omega cannot be described briefly, even if we can defined it briefly.
>
> > a real number in the sense I said above is not mathematical. in the
> > sense I said above. In fact there is no mathematical theory about
> > paticular real numbers. the set of all the real numbers , in the
> > contrary, is.
>
> OK. Even for Peano Arithmetic, in fact. Basically, because a
> dovetailer on the reals is an arithmetical object.
> It looks like you define math by the "separable part of math" on which
> everybody agree. Me too, as far as ontology is concerned. But I can't
> prevent the finite numbers to see infinities everywhere!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> Also it must have good properties ,
> >>> operations, symmetries or isomorphisms with other structures so the
> >>> structure can be navigated and related with other structures and the
> >>> knowledge can be reused. These structures have a low kolmogorov
> >>> complexity, so they
Re: Entropy and information
Of course they compute. Even a plant must read the imputs of temperature, humidity and sun radiation to decide when sping may arrive to launch the program of leaf growing and flour blossoming. This computation exist because, before that, the plants discovered cycles in the weather by random mutations and natural selection, so the plants with this computation could better optimize water and nutrient resources and outgrown those that do not. Without a predictable linear environment, computation and thus evolution and life is impossible. Alberto On 28 feb, 21:31, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: > Alberto, > > I am thermodynamicist and I do not know exactly what is information and > computation. You have written that living beings perform computations. > Several questions in this respect. > > Are computations are limited to living beings only? > > Does a bacteria perform computations as well? > > If yes, then what is the difference between a ballcock in the toilet and > bacteria (provided we exclude reproduction from consideration)? > > Evgenii > > On 27.02.2012 12:16 Alberto G.Corona said the following: > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps a more basic, and more pertinent question related with > > entrophy and information in the context of this list is the relation > > of computability, living beings , the arrow of time and entropy, > > > What the paper (http://qi.ethz.ch/edu/qisemFS10/papers/ > > 81_Bennett_Thermodynamics_of_computation.pdf) that initiated the > > discussion suggest is that in practical terms it is necessary a > > driving force that avoids random reversibility to execute practical > > computations, this driving force implies dissipation of energy and > > thus an increase of entropy. This is so because most if not all > > practical computations are exponentually branched (Fig 10). > > > And here comes the living beings. As the paper says in the > > introduction, living beings perform computations at the molecular > > level, and it must be said, at the neural level. Therefore given the > > said above, life must proceed from less to more entrophy and this > > defines the arrow of time. > > > Besides the paper concentrates itself in what happens inside a > > computation some concepts can be used to dilucidate what happens with > > the interaction of a living being and its surrounding reality. The > > reality behaves like a form of ballistic computer at the microscopic > > level., with elemental particles ruled by the forces of nature instead > > of ellastic macroscopic collisions. At the macroscopic level, > > however, there is a destruction of information and irreversibility. > > > However in the direction of entropy dissipation, it is possible to > > perform calculations in order to predict the future at the macroscopic > > level. That s a critical function of living beings. An extreme example > > of the difference between macro and micro computation is to "predict" > > the distrubution of water in a water collector after rain. It is not > > necessary to know the position and velocity of every water molecule, > > not even the position and velocity of each drop of water. is this > > erase of information that the increase of entropy perform at the > > macroscopic level (that indeed is the reason of the mere concept of > > macro-state in statistical mechanics) the process that permit > > economically feasible computations. Since computation is expensive > > and the process of discovery of the world by living beings trough > > natural selection very slow, (trough the aggregation of complexity > > and sophistication by natural selection is in the order of magnitude > > of the age of the universe : thousands of millions years) Then the > > macroscopic laws of nature must be simple enough, and there must be a > > privileged direction of easy computation for life to exist. > > > The fact that evolution for intelligent life and age of the Universe > > are in the same magnitudes means that this universe is constrained to > > the maximum discoverable-by-evolution complexity in the > > computationally privileged direction of the arrow of time. > > > This is my brief presentation about this: > > >https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd5rm7qq_142d8djhvc8 > > > This is my previous post in this group about entrophy arrow of time > > and life: > > >http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg15696... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Entropy and information
On 29 feb, 11:20, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 02:20, Alberto G.Corona wrote (to Stephen):
>
> > A thing that I often ask myself concerning MMH is the question about
> > what is mathematical and what is not?. The set of real numbers is a
> > mathematical structure, but also the set of real numbers plus the
> > point (1,1) in the plane is.
>
> Sure. Now, with comp, that mathematical structure is more easily
> handled in the "mind" of the universal machine. For the ontology we
> can use arithmetic, on which everyone agree. It is absolutely
> undecidable that there is more than that (with the comp assumption).
> So for the math, comp invite to assume only what is called "the
> sharable part of intuitionist and classical mathematics.
>
I do not thing in computations in terms of "minds of universal
machines" in the abstract sense but in terms of the needs of
computability of living beings.
> > The set of randomly chosen numbers { 1,4
> > 3,4,.34, 3} is because it can be described with the same descriptive
> > language of math. But the first of these structures have properties
> > and the others do not. The first can be infinite but can be described
> > with a single equation while the last must be described
> > extensively. . At least some random universes (the finite ones) can be
> > described extensively, with the tools of mathematics but they don´t
> > count in the intuitive sense as mathematical.
>
> Why? If they can be finitely described, then I don't see why they
> would be non mathematical.
>
It is not mathematical in the intuitive sense that the list of the
ponits of ramdomly folded paper is not. That intuitive sense , more
restrictive is what I use here.
>
>
> > What is usually considered genuinely mathematical is any structure,
> > that can be described briefly.
>
> Not at all. In classical math any particular real number is
> mathematically real, even if it cannot be described briefly. Chaitin's
> Omega cannot be described briefly, even if we can defined it briefly.
>
a real number in the sense I said above is not mathematical. in the
sense I said above. In fact there is no mathematical theory about
paticular real numbers. the set of all the real numbers , in the
contrary, is.
> > Also it must have good properties ,
> > operations, symmetries or isomorphisms with other structures so the
> > structure can be navigated and related with other structures and the
> > knowledge can be reused. These structures have a low kolmogorov
> > complexity, so they can be "navigated" with low computing resources.
>
> But they are a tiny part of bigger mathematical structures. That's why
> we use big mathematical universe, like the model of ZF, or Category
> theory.
If maths is all that can be described finitelly, then of course you
are right. but I´m intuitively sure that the ones that are interesting
can be defined briefly, using an evolutuionary sense of what is
interesting.
>
>
>
> > So the demand of computation in each living being forces to admit
> > that universes too random or too simple, wiith no lineal or
> > discontinuous macroscopic laws have no complex spatio-temporal
> > volutes (that may be the aspect of life as looked from outside of our
> > four-dimensional universe). The macroscopic laws are the macroscopic
> > effects of the underlying mathematical structures with which our
> > universe is isomorphic (or identical).
>
> We need both, if only to make precise that very reasoning. Even in
> comp, despite such kind of math is better seen as epistemological than
> ontological.
>
There is a hole in the transition from certain mathematical
properties in macroscopic laws to simple mathematical theories of
everything . The fact that strange, but relatively simple
mathematical structure (M theory) include islands of macroscopic laws
that are warm for life. I do not know the necessity of this greed for
reduction. The macroscopic laws can reigh in a hubble sphere,
sustained by a gigant at the top of a turtle swimming in an ocean.
>
>
> > And our very notion of what is intuitively considered mathematical:
> > "something general simple and powerful enough" has the hallmark of
> > scarcity of computation resources. (And absence of contradictions fits
> > in the notion of simplicity, because exception to rules have to be
> > memorized and dealt with extensively, one by one)
>
> > Perhaps not only is that way but even may be that the absence of
> > contradictions ( the main rule of simplicity) or -in computationa
> > terms- the rule of low kolmogorov complexity _creates_ itself the
> > mathemati
Re: Entropy and information
Dear Stephen,
A thing that I often ask myself concerning MMH is the question about
what is mathematical and what is not?. The set of real numbers is a
mathematical structure, but also the set of real numbers plus the
point (1,1) in the plane is. The set of randomly chosen numbers { 1,4
3,4,.34, 3} is because it can be described with the same descriptive
language of math. But the first of these structures have properties
and the others do not. The first can be infinite but can be described
with a single equation while the last must be described
extensively. . At least some random universes (the finite ones) can be
described extensively, with the tools of mathematics but they don´t
count in the intuitive sense as mathematical.
What is usually considered genuinely mathematical is any structure,
that can be described briefly. Also it must have good properties ,
operations, symmetries or isomorphisms with other structures so the
structure can be navigated and related with other structures and the
knowledge can be reused. These structures have a low kolmogorov
complexity, so they can be "navigated" with low computing resources.
So the demand of computation in each living being forces to admit
that universes too random or too simple, wiith no lineal or
discontinuous macroscopic laws have no complex spatio-temporal
volutes (that may be the aspect of life as looked from outside of our
four-dimensional universe). The macroscopic laws are the macroscopic
effects of the underlying mathematical structures with which our
universe is isomorphic (or identical).
And our very notion of what is intuitively considered mathematical:
"something general simple and powerful enough" has the hallmark of
scarcity of computation resources. (And absence of contradictions fits
in the notion of simplicity, because exception to rules have to be
memorized and dealt with extensively, one by one)
Perhaps not only is that way but even may be that the absence of
contradictions ( the main rule of simplicity) or -in computationa
terms- the rule of low kolmogorov complexity _creates_ itself the
mathematics. That is, for example, may be that the boolean logic for
example, is what it is not because it is consistent simpleand it´s
beatiful, but because it is the shortest logic in terms of the
lenght of the description of its operations, and this is the reason
because we perceive it as simple and beatiful and consistent.
.
> Dear Albert,
>
> One brief comment. In your Google paper you wrote, among other
> interesting things, "But life and natural selection demands a
> mathematical universe
> somehow".
> Could it be that this is just another implication of the MMH idea? If
> the physical implementation of computation acts as a selective pressure
> on the multiverse, then it makes sense that we would find ourselves in a
> universe that is representable in terms of Boolean algebras with their
> nice and well behaved laws of bivalence (a or not-A), etc.
>
> Very interesting ideas.
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Entropy and information
Perhaps a more basic, and more pertinent question related with entrophy and information in the context of this list is the relation of computability, living beings , the arrow of time and entropy, What the paper (http://qi.ethz.ch/edu/qisemFS10/papers/ 81_Bennett_Thermodynamics_of_computation.pdf) that initiated the discussion suggest is that in practical terms it is necessary a driving force that avoids random reversibility to execute practical computations, this driving force implies dissipation of energy and thus an increase of entropy. This is so because most if not all practical computations are exponentually branched (Fig 10). And here comes the living beings. As the paper says in the introduction, living beings perform computations at the molecular level, and it must be said, at the neural level. Therefore given the said above, life must proceed from less to more entrophy and this defines the arrow of time. Besides the paper concentrates itself in what happens inside a computation some concepts can be used to dilucidate what happens with the interaction of a living being and its surrounding reality. The reality behaves like a form of ballistic computer at the microscopic level., with elemental particles ruled by the forces of nature instead of ellastic macroscopic collisions. At the macroscopic level, however, there is a destruction of information and irreversibility. However in the direction of entropy dissipation, it is possible to perform calculations in order to predict the future at the macroscopic level. That´s a critical function of living beings. An extreme example of the difference between macro and micro computation is to "predict" the distrubution of water in a water collector after rain. It is not necessary to know the position and velocity of every water molecule, not even the position and velocity of each drop of water. is this erase of information that the increase of entropy perform at the macroscopic level (that indeed is the reason of the mere concept of macro-state in statistical mechanics) the process that permit economically feasible computations. Since computation is expensive and the process of discovery of the world by living beings trough natural selection very slow, (trough the aggregation of complexity and sophistication by natural selection is in the order of magnitude of the age of the universe : thousands of millions years) Then the macroscopic laws of nature must be simple enough, and there must be a privileged direction of easy computation for life to exist. The fact that evolution for intelligent life and age of the Universe are in the same magnitudes means that this universe is constrained to the maximum discoverable-by-evolution complexity in the computationally privileged direction of the arrow of time. This is my brief presentation about this: https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd5rm7qq_142d8djhvc8 This is my previous post in this group about entrophy arrow of time and life: http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg15696.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: consciousness
On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Corona wrote: >. > > Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think > that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss > (although not necessarily self-conscious). > Hi again Right Consicence may be a less sophisticated version of self-consciousness.. I think honestly that all attemps of explaining conscience in terms of a certain degree of complexity or as a certain property of neurons or tissues goes the wrong path. Broadly speaking, this is like a medieval scientist trying to explain a video game console in terms of the complexity and colourfulness of the printed circuits. These views ignores the work of the hardware designer that creates the machine and the programmer that make the algorithms. In living beings the work of the hardware designer and the programmer are done by a guy called Natural Selection. and this guy builds things for a purpose: Survival. What is conscience for? A self preserving being with a central nervous system (an animal) must stablish a clear distinction between its body and the environment in order to preserve itself. If he do not know the status of each of its parts in relation to the environment, he can not determine the priorities for self preservation: does he must avoid a predator? does he must eat something? etc. The effect of the activity set of all these central nervous systems is the conscience in the most basic manifestation. No degree of "complexity" or neuronal-like machinery will manifest conscience without the proper algorithms (and the sensors-actuators too). As Theodosius Dobzhansky said: Nothing in Biology (and i suspect, nothing in anything) Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution. Honestly: Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: consciousness
On Jul 5, 1:07 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 05 Jul 2011, at 11:42, Alberto G.Coronawrote: > > > Jost to introduce another point of view about consciousnees. The one > > that I think its right: > > > According with evolutionary Psychology, Consciousness evolved as an > > adaptation to social life. > > Are you sure you don't confuse consciousness and conscience. I think > that solitary primitive animals felt pain, and are thus consciouss > (although not necessarily self-conscious). > Depending on the pain and depending on the animal and the context. Following the theory exposed, self consciousness of pain, exist when the animal know that other individuals can take actions to alleviate it. Social Animals grown t in isolation don´t cry (including humans). Of course either conscious or not, the animal must avoid the pain, but a non self aware animal may experiment pain just as you and me may experiment pain when we are deeply concentrated in an intellectual activity. the reactions to pain in this case are automatic. > > Broadly specaking, non social animals are > > unconscious and selfless. > > I tend to believe the contrary. The more an animal is social, the more > it could be self-less. Even humans can destroy the individual self by > using strong group identity. > That can happen sometimes. If you feel very good inside a group, why bother to control yourself?. Self awareness is not for social life as such, it is for avoiding conflicts and making profit of social interactions. If you are immersed in an activity where you feel free of conflicts, you dont need self awarenees. For example in a concert, or in a meeting with people who think like you, with your friends etc. Other situations where you feel selfless is when you travel to a foreign pacific place. where you are surronded by peaceful foreigners and your acts will not influence your future reputation at home. To feel selfless is probably one reason why people travel. > > interaction with them if I am aware of what the others expect from me. > > For this purpose, I must be aware and I must register, whathever I do > > that may affect to others. So I may unconsciously pick up a donut > > from the refrigerator and not even notice it, but I´m well aware of it > > when I´m fatty and my wife is looking. > > > Self conscious supervision of our acts is not for free. it adds an > > extra overload in the brain and in the way we do things that is > > visible to others. If the other that is looking is very important for > > us, we can experiment seizures. Conversely, the absence of self > > awareness is experimented as flowing. > > > To complete the picture, I must say that the awareness of spiritual > > beings that continuously supervise us is a further social instinct > > that make use of the self supervision machinery. This avoid > > machiavelic behaviours that may be deleterious for the group > > > Of course a machine can be designed to have such computational self > > awareness, but the question of if real self awareness is still open. > > In which theory? > This is more or less the theory of the evolutionary origin of self consciousness according with Evolutionary Psychology. This is more or less the consensus. Daniel Dennet wrote something about it. Pinker too. Evolution is parsimonious. It proceed step by step by accumulation functionalities in respionse to evolutionary pressures, in this case, mental modules that correspond to computational hardware in the brain. This is the most logical path that evolution may have follow. There are psico-phisical experiments that is according with this theory. There are experiments where the activity of both the motor signal of a hand and the cortex tissue that "control" the hand are measured. The "control" signal in the cortex appears one second after the motor signal when the test individual received the order to move the hand. this means that some other unconscious part does the real control, and the cortex just take note of the movement and assign the action to the self, when in reality, the action has been done already unconsciously. This is described by Pinker in some of its books. Presumably in "how the mind works". So, by definition, consciousness is causally efective. it is a mind module. Mind modules are not located in specifin spatially conected parts of the brain, they are distributed, in the same way that the file search in Microsoft windows is not located in a concrete zone of the PC hardware. In this case self consciousness is distributed in the human cortex. > Bruno > > > > > On Jul 1, 1:23 pm, selva kumar wrote: > >> Is consciousness causally effective ? > > >> I found this question in previous threads,but I didn't find a answer. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Everything List" group. > > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: consciousness
Jost to introduce another point of view about consciousnees. The one that I think its right: According with evolutionary Psychology, Consciousness evolved as an adaptation to social life. Broadly specaking, non social animals are unconscious and selfless. In social life, before self awareness, other awareness evolved. Other awareness is necessary to optimize interactions with other members of the group. for this purpose, other- awareness functionality idientiifies individuals and register past interactions with each individual. Wen social interactions were more sophisticated, self awareness evolved as a response to others' other-awareness: If other individuals have a detail register of my behaviour, I can optimize my interaction with them if I am aware of what the others expect from me. For this purpose, I must be aware and I must register, whathever I do that may affect to others. So I may unconsciously pick up a donut from the refrigerator and not even notice it, but I´m well aware of it when I´m fatty and my wife is looking. Self conscious supervision of our acts is not for free. it adds an extra overload in the brain and in the way we do things that is visible to others. If the other that is looking is very important for us, we can experiment seizures. Conversely, the absence of self awareness is experimented as flowing. To complete the picture, I must say that the awareness of spiritual beings that continuously supervise us is a further social instinct that make use of the self supervision machinery. This avoid machiavelic behaviours that may be deleterious for the group Of course a machine can be designed to have such computational self awareness, but the question of if real self awareness is still open. On Jul 1, 1:23 pm, selva kumar wrote: > Is consciousness causally effective ? > > I found this question in previous threads,but I didn't find a answer. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Consciousness is information?
Hi Bruno. Thanks for the link. As an physicist and computer researcher I have knowledge of some of the fields involved in UDA, but at the first sight I fear that I will have a hard time understanding it. > > and my subjective experience is the most objective fact > > that I can reach. > t > I see what you mean, but the subjective experience, although real and > true, and undoubtable, is subjective. It exists as far as you cannot > prove to an other that it exists. To communicate you have to bet on > tools and on others, and other many doubtable (yet plausible) mind > constructions. > Hence, qualia are subjective and , as such, I cannot assure that you have it. But I'm sure that you have it and therefore that my knowledge of qualia is objective simply for one causal reason: natural selection; Our brains, shaped by very similar genetic programs, share the same architecture and therefore produce very similar phemomenologies. This follows of course if you admit matter-> mind (or better math- >matter->mind) and admit natural selection as the "entropic pump" that creates structure and function (and computer structures) in living beings. I know no other testable alternative. > > > > I cannot support this Kantian notion consciousness -> matter. > > The problem is that if you are ready to attribute consciousness to a > device, by its virtue of simulating digitally a conscious brain at > some correct level of description, you will be forced to attribute > that consciousness to an infinity of computations already defined by > the additive and multiplicative structure of the numbers (by UDA). A > quasi direct consequence is that if a machine look at herself below > its substitution level, it will build indirect evidences of a flux of > many (a continuum) of computational histories (a typical quantum > feature, I mean for QM without wave collapse). But comp forces the > structure of those many realities (or dreams) to be determined by > specifiable number theoretical relations. Those relations are either > extensional relations (like in number theory), or intensional > relations (like in computer science, where number can also points > toward other numbers, and effective set of numbers). It makes > computationalism testable. The genral shape of QM confirm it, but > cosmogenesis remains troubling ... > I cannot understand this until I read your paper, but, just one question ¿what is the nature of the process that reduces local entropy (sculpt chaos, poetically speaking) so that in creates life and intelligence starting from unanimated matter along the arrow of time?. Is it of a mathematical nature; is it some general principle of change? Is it natural selection with some additional principle? I just want to know what your context in relation with mine is. Of course if you support Mind-> matter -> math, then you mechanism for such evolution should be quite different. > > > > > > The final words that I can say about the "hard problem" of > > consciousness is that any conversation with a robot, with the self- > > module that I described in the previous post, will give answers about > > qualia indistinguisable from the answers of any of you. He would > > indeed doubt about if you are indeed robots and he is the only > > conscious being on earth. Just as any of you may think. > > > Its self module would not say "I perceive the green as green" because > > he has this as an standard answer, like a fake Turing test program, > > but because it can zoom in the details of every leaf, grass etc and > > verify that the range of ligh frecuencies are in the range of > > frequencias that a computer programmer assigned to green and a > > trainer later told him to call it "green". He even can have its own > > philosophical theories about qualia, the self etc. He even may ask > > himself about the origins of moral and self determination, and even > > all of this may force him to believe in God. So we must conclude that > > he have its own qualia and all the attributes of consciousness. in no > > less degree than I could believe in yours. > > A priori I have no problem, although I could pretend you have solved > only the easy problem. > The hard problem is: why do *we* (and not just a robot) have those > qualia, if robot can have the same talk and behavior? You have still > to explain the nature of the qualia, and why we have to experience > them, given that a mechanical explanation seems to make them > unnecessary, especially if you invoke Darwinian natural selection. And > then, by UDA you have to (re)explain what is matter and how to relate > them with the qualia. Eventually matter will appear to be a sort of > sharable qualia (or comp is false). Yes I said that this is all that I can say without pretending to solve the problem. That is because the problem qualia is so interesting. But in the absence of natural selection, as I said, I can not be sure if you have
Re: Consciousness is information?
Hi Bruno On May 19, 7:37 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > ... UDA is an argument showing that the current > paradigmatic chain MATTER => CONSCIOUSNESS => NUMBER is reversed: with > comp I can explain too you in details (it is long) that the chain > should be NUMBER => CONSCIOUSNESS => MATTER. Some agree already that > it could be NUMBER => MATTER => CONSCIOUSNESS, and this indeed is more > locally obvious, yet I pretend that comp forces eventually the > complete reversal. Do you have any reference where this is developed? I try to be as close to facts as possible, and the most plausible explanation for me, trough natural selection, is that consciousness is a processing device made by natural selection as an adaptation to the physical environment, social environment included. So I support matter-> consciousness. Dualism is the result of my subjective experience, and my subjective experience is the most objective fact that I can reach. I cannot support this Kantian notion consciousness -> matter. The final words that I can say about the "hard problem" of consciousness is that any conversation with a robot, with the self- module that I described in the previous post, will give answers about qualia indistinguisable from the answers of any of you. He would indeed doubt about if you are indeed robots and he is the only conscious being on earth. Just as any of you may think. Its self module would not say "I perceive the green as green" because he has this as an standard answer, like a fake Turing test program, but because it can zoom in the details of every leaf, grass etc and verify that the range of ligh frecuencies are in the range of frequencias that a computer programmer assigned to green and a trainer later told him to call it "green". He even can have its own philosophical theories about qualia, the self etc. He even may ask himself about the origins of moral and self determination, and even all of this may force him to believe in God. So we must conclude that he have its own qualia and all the attributes of consciousness. in no less degree than I could believe in yours. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Consciousness is information?
That is also my case. I wonder how the materialist hypothesis has advanced in a plausible explanation of consciousness, and I think that this is the right path, and I follow it. But at the deep level, my subjective experience tells me that I must remain dualist. I think however that for evolutionary purposes, the consciousness, being designed by natural selection for keeping an accurate picture of how the others see us, must naturally reject a materialist explanation because this is not an accurate picture. The other people do not see us as a piece of evolved mechanisms, but as moral beings. An adaptive self must be, and is, fiercely dualist, with a strong notion of self autonomy and unit of purpose. So all of us feel that way when not thinking about that. Thus, maybe if ever a robot is made to simulate our behavior must incorporate an inner rejection of materialist explanation about the nature of his higher level circuits, and a vivid notion of subjective experience. That is not difficult at a certain level of technology, to create a central “self” module that receives the filtered, relevant information, plus information of the commands and actions of other decision modules. This self module must be capable of "inventing" (and that´s the tricky thing) a self centered, socially plausible, moral history that link together such perceptions and such actions. Then, when someone ask him "do you have subjective experience, qualia and so on" the robot will answer, “of cause, yes, I have a very strong sensation of unity of mind, perception and I´m a moral subject capable of self determination”. Otherwise, he will be inconsistent or non functional as human simulation. By the way, the role of the self process as a creator of self centered histories that are credible for the rest of us, that tend to show a favorable moral image of the self has been checked in different experiments, especially with lobotomized people (that invent two different histories of the same perception-action in each hemisphere). It also explains many mental disorders: compulsive liars and crazy overhyped egos made of fantastic histories (reincarnations of Napoleon) for example. It also explains many effects in social life of sane people. How hard is to achieve objectivity, for example? On May 18, 4:50 am, Kelly Harmon wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> Generally I don't think that what we experience is necessarily caused > >> by physical systems. I think that sometimes physical systems assume > >> configurations that "shadow", or represent, our conscious experience. > >> But they don't CAUSE our conscious experience. > > > So if we could track the functions of the brain at a fine enough scale, > > we'd see physical events that didn't have physical causes (ones that > > were caused by mental events?). > > No, no, no. I'm not saying that at all. Ultimately I'm saying that > if there is a physical world, it's irrelevant to consciousness. > Consciousness is information. Physical systems can be interpreted as > representing, or "storing", information, but that act of "storage" > isn't what gives rise to conscious experience. > > > > > You're aware of course that the same things were said about the > > physio/chemical bases of life. > > You mentioned that point before, as I recall. Dennett made a similar > argument against Chalmers, to which Chalmers had what I thought was an > effective response: > > ---http://consc.net/papers/moving.html > > Perhaps the most common strategy for a type-A materialist is to > deflate the "hard problem" by using analogies to other domains, where > talk of such a problem would be misguided. Thus Dennett imagines a > vitalist arguing about the hard problem of "life", or a neuroscientist > arguing about the hard problem of "perception". Similarly, Paul > Churchland (1996) imagines a nineteenth century philosopher worrying > about the hard problem of "light", and Patricia Churchland brings up > an analogy involving "heat". In all these cases, we are to suppose, > someone might once have thought that more needed explaining than > structure and function; but in each case, science has proved them > wrong. So perhaps the argument about consciousness is no better. > > This sort of argument cannot bear much weight, however. Pointing out > that analogous arguments do not work in other domains is no news: the > whole point of anti-reductionist arguments about consciousness is that > there is a disanalogy between the problem of consciousness and > problems in other domains. As for the claim that analogous arguments > in such domains might once have been plausible, this strikes me as > something of a convenient myth: in the other domains, it is more or > less obvious that structure and function are what need explaining, at > least once any experiential aspects are left aside, and one would be > hard pressed to find a substantial body of people who ever argued > otherwise. > > When
Re: Consciousness is information?
The hard problem may be unsolvable, but I think it would be much more unsolvable if we don´t fix the easy problem, isn´t? With a clear idea of the easy problem it is possible to infer something about the hard problem: For example, the latter is a product of the former, because we perceive things that have (or had) relevance in evolutionary terms. Second, the unitary nature of perception match well with the evolutionary explanation "My inner self is a private reconstruction, for fitness purposes, of how others see me, as an unit of perception and purpose, not as a set of processors, motors and sensors, although, analytically, we are so". Third, the machinery of this constructed inner self sometimes take control (i.e. we feel ourselves capable of free will) whenever our acts would impact of the image that others may have of ourselves. If these conclusions are all in the easy lever, I think that we have solved a few of moral and perceptual problems that have puzzled philosophers and scientists for centuries. Relabeling them as "easy problems" the instant after an evolutionary explanation of them has been aired is preposterous. Therefore I think that I answer your question: it´s not only information; It´s about a certain kind of information and their own processor. The exact nature of this processor that permits qualia is not known; that’s true, and it´s good from my point of view, because, for one side, the unknown is stimulating and for the other, reductionist explanations for everything, like the mine above, are a bit frustrating. On May 16, 8:39 pm, Kelly Harmon wrote: > I think your discussing the functional aspects of consciousness. AKA, > the "easy problems" of consciousness. The question of how human > behavior is produced. > > My question was what is the source of "phenomenal" consciousness. > What is the absolute minimum requirement which must be met in order > for conscious experience to exist? So my question isn't HOW human > behavior is produced, but instead I'm asking why the mechanistic > processes that produce human behavior are accompanied by subjective > "first person" conscious experience. The "hard problem". Qualia. > > I wasn't asking "how is it that we do the things we do", or, "how did > this come about", but instead "given that we do these things, why is > there a subjective experience associated with doing them." > > So none of the things you reference are relevant to the question of > whether a computer simulation of a human mind would be conscious in > the same way as a real human mind. If a simulation would be, then > what are the properties that those to two very dissimilar physical > systems have in common that would explain this mutual experience of > consciousness? > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 3:22 AM, Alberto G.Corona wrote: > > > No. Consciousness is not information. It is an additional process that > > handles its own generated information. I you don´t recognize the > > driving mechanism towards order in the universe, you will be running > > on empty. This driving mechanism is natural selection. Things gets > > selected, replicated and selected again. > > > In the case of humans, time ago the evolutionary psychologists and > > philosophers (Dennet etc) discovered the evolutionary nature of > > consciousness, that is double: For social animals, consciousness keeps > > an actualized image of how the others see ourselves. This ability is > > very important in order to plan future actions with/towards others > > members. A memory of past actions, favors and offenses are kept in > > memory for consciousness processing. This is a part of our moral > > sense, that is, our navigation device in the social environment. > > Additionally, by reflection on ourselves, the consciousness module can > > discover the motivations of others. > > > The evolutionary steps for the emergence of consciousness are: 1) in > > order to optimize the outcome of collaboration, a social animal start > > to look the others as unique individuals, and memorize their own > > record of actions. 2) Because the others do 1, the animal develop a > > sense of itself and record how each one of the others see himself > > (this is adaptive because 1). 3) This primitive conscious module > > evolved in 2 starts to inspect first and lately, even take control of > > some action with a deep social load. 4) The conscious module > > attributes to an individual moral self every action triggered by the > > brain, even if it driven by low instincts, just because that´s is the > > way the others see himself as individual. That´s why we feel ourselves > > as unique in
Re: Consciousness is information?
No. Consciousness is not information. It is an additional process that handles its own generated information. I you don´t recognize the driving mechanism towards order in the universe, you will be running on empty. This driving mechanism is natural selection. Things gets selected, replicated and selected again. In the case of humans, time ago the evolutionary psychologists and philosophers (Dennet etc) discovered the evolutionary nature of consciousness, that is double: For social animals, consciousness keeps an actualized image of how the others see ourselves. This ability is very important in order to plan future actions with/towards others members. A memory of past actions, favors and offenses are kept in memory for consciousness processing. This is a part of our moral sense, that is, our navigation device in the social environment. Additionally, by reflection on ourselves, the consciousness module can discover the motivations of others. The evolutionary steps for the emergence of consciousness are: 1) in order to optimize the outcome of collaboration, a social animal start to look the others as unique individuals, and memorize their own record of actions. 2) Because the others do 1, the animal develop a sense of itself and record how each one of the others see himself (this is adaptive because 1). 3) This primitive conscious module evolved in 2 starts to inspect first and lately, even take control of some action with a deep social load. 4) The conscious module attributes to an individual moral self every action triggered by the brain, even if it driven by low instincts, just because that´s is the way the others see himself as individual. That´s why we feel ourselves as unique individuals and with an indivisible Cartesian mind. The consciousness ability is fairly recent in evolutionary terms. This explain its inefficient and sequential nature. This and 3 explains why we feel anxiety in some social situations: the cognitive load is too much for the conscious module when he tries to take control of the situation when self image it at a stake. This also explain why when we travel we feel a kind of liberation: because the conscious module is made irrelevant outside our social circle, so our more efficient lower level modules take care of our actions --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The arrow of time is the easiest computational direction for life in the manifold
Brent: I tried to clarify my point of view in my previous response. This is my answer to these questions. On Jan 25, 5:53 am, Brent Meeker wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > 2009/1/24 Alberto G.Corona : > > >> But the fact is that in our univese, glasses do recompose themselves, > >> the flame of the candles do recombines liberating oxygen and make grow > >> the candle, objects lighter than water sink. Why? because these events > >> exist in our space time; Just go in the reverse time dimension in our > >> space-time manifold to see them. The laws of physics permits them. > >> They are just reversible chemical reactions, reversible object > >> collisions at the particle or macroscopic level. > > >> In terms of our perception of time, the outcomes we see happens just > >> because they are cuasi-infinitely probable and the reverse > >> counterparts, cuasi infinitely improbalbe. But, that is also an > >> illlusion of the arrow of time, because , In terms of time-agnostic > >> spacetime manifold reasoning, our life vector in space-time go along > >> the increase of entrophy, not the other way around. That is: the > >> outcomes of probability laws are a consequience of our trajectory in > >> space time. Why our life follow this direction?. The reason is > >> computational, as I said before. > > > The question is often asked, why does time seem to progress in the > > increasing entropy direction? But if time were in fact progressing in > > the decreasing entropy direction, we would know no different. For > > example, if we were living in a simulation where 2009 is run first and > > 2008 is run second according to an external clock, we would not be > > able to tell from within the simulation. The real arrow of time > > question should be: why does entropy increase in the same direction in > > every observed part of the universe? > > Right. It's generally thought that the direction of increasing entropy is > defined by the expansion of the universe since the expansion increases the > available states for matter. But it's hard to show that this must also > determine the radiation arrow of time. > > But at the micro-level of QM there is presumably no change in entropy, the > evolution is unitary. So then the question becomes: Why the approximately > classical world, in which the coarse-gained entropy does increase? > > Brent > > >For only if the glass shattering > > occurred in a direction different to that of the mind of the observer > > would something unusual be noticed. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The arrow of time is the easiest computational direction for life in the manifold
> The question is often asked, why does time seem to progress in the > increasing entropy direction? But if time were in fact progressing in > the decreasing entropy direction, we would know no different. For > example, if we were living in a simulation where 2009 is run first and > 2008 is run second The key here is that neiter our universe is simulated nor time has meaning outside our psichology. There are simulaton, but this simulation is carried out by us, the living beings. We are the ones that simulate in advance the events along a direction fo the manifold in order to advance actions for the next point in this coordinate. Why? because we need to planify furter actions in order to grow and reproduce in succesive progression in this direction. This progression along this direction is what we perceive as time. Because living beings are the ones that must simulate in advance what comes next, at the chemical, instinctive, rational level, this iimposes very serious computational restrictions to the direction of time. Simply, the reverse simulation , along the enthropy increase demands infinite or near infinite resources computational resources. It is also possible simulate in any lateral direction, any direction in the manifold, but I hipotesize that they are also very heavy to calculate. Thinking in terms of Natural Selection: The living beings that tried to progress along other directions are extinct, They needed too much computational resources!!!. Or even never appeared in the first place!. For this reason, the perception of time, enthrophy and probability, and the initial conditions of the universe are a byproduct of this restriction of computability in living beiings. living beings are like fractals that grow, reproduce and die along the temporal coordinate. There are two ways to express a trajectory , and here I use the Max Tegmark coined frog/bird view; The frog view is time dependent and uses the input of the previus step, wich is the view of computers, living beings and us, and the other is the bird view that contemplates the manifold or part of a manifold . The first type of beings strugle for anticipating the next step,. The second see the enlarged mandelbrot figure of all our life, and this figure is part of the manifold described maybe by a single formula The M formula or whatever may be the grand unification theory. This is not so difficult to understand: This is the difference between the expression of a integral in mathematical terms versus the step that a computer must perform along the integrration coordinate to calculate its numerical value. >according to an external clock, we would not be > able to tell from within the simulation. The real arrow of time > question should be: why does entropy increase in the same direction in > every observed part of the universe? For only if the glass shattering > occurred in a direction different to that of the mind of the observer > would something unusual be noticed. > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
The arrow of time is the easiest computational direction for life in the manifold
Hi, THis is my third post in this group. The other three were about four years ago, when this list was allocated in eskimo.org. Here an then I knew Bruno and some others. In the meantime, I remained deeply interested in life, the universe and everythng, and this is literal, because I remained convinced that life, and the phenomenon that generates it, Evolution with Natural Selection, is the key to understand the concrete nature of the mathematical universe in which we live. For this reason I have been learning about evolution, and deeply related phenomena such are the real nature of enthropy and computation. Now I thing that I have my puzzle starting to be completed. It is not all of my own. I just mix pieces, but I think that no one has formulated it before in clear terms by mixing these pieces togeter. Let me share something I wrote not much time ago. Sorry for the extension: http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com/2008/09/entrophy-arrow-of-time-and-life.html The Arrow of time is, at last, a common subjective experience experimented by living beings. According with the laws of physics, time is just a dimension.. or not even that . The solutions of the equations of General Relativity are cuasy arbitrary four dimensional manifolds.where time is just a local dimension. That is, can be approximately suppossed that in a certain point, the time could be considered as a dimension, but the direction of this dimension can change from point to point. Superstring theory suggest even more bizarre 11-dimensional, geometrical figures. No intuition about the arrow of time or any other subjective experience can be extracted from phisical theories. The only natural law that lthat links with subjective experience is the anthropic principle applied to life in general. Life imposes strong restrictions in the particular form that our Universe (or portion of Universe) has in the infinite sea of optional solutions of General Relativity and String Theory. These restrictions also applies to the initial conditions. of this universe. The observed increase of entropy with time in our visible universe means that it started with a very improbable configuration. But this reasoning is circular: If we try to elucidate what really is the arrow of time, we can not use concepts that presupose a certain direction of the arrow of time !! The quesition, reformulated in strict physical terms is as such: In the four or eleven-dimensional manifold described by the equations of relativty or the superstring theory respectively, why our lifes follows a line from less to more probable configurations of matter, that is, from less to more entrophy, that is, from less microstates to more microstates for each observable state?. Why ? This last view in terms of micro-states is the key for the explanation: causes are in the side of less microstates. Effects are in the side of more microstates, because there are less causes than effects. In the other side, life is all about prediction of the future. An organism can not make use of the environment for its own ends if he can not predict what will follow at the chemical, biological, instinctive or rational levels. Computationally, it is much more easy to simulate the evolution of a system where entrophy increse than in the opposite direction. The precision demanded for a reverse simulation is much higuer: The calculus of the fragmentation of a glass is not very difficult. Essentially, the results are not very different using a precission or another. But a reverse simuation from a broken glass never will reach the re-composition of the glass, no matter how precise the measure of the real position of the pieces from a real case were introduced in the simulation. But the fact is that in our univese, glasses do recompose themselves, the flame of the candles do recombines liberating oxygen and make grow the candle, objects lighter than water sink. Why? because these events exist in our space time; Just go in the reverse time dimension in our space-time manifold to see them. The laws of physics permits them. They are just reversible chemical reactions, reversible object collisions at the particle or macroscopic level. In terms of our perception of time, the outcomes we see happens just because they are cuasi-infinitely probable and the reverse counterparts, cuasi infinitely improbalbe. But, that is also an illlusion of the arrow of time, because , In terms of time-agnostic spacetime manifold reasoning, our life vector in space-time go along the increase of entrophy, not the other way around. That is: the outcomes of probability laws are a consequience of our trajectory in space time. Why our life follow this direction?. The reason is computational, as I said before. The essence of life is to identify risks and opportunities, that is, to identify causes to react accordingly in order to achive efffects that permit survival and reproduction, while maintaining the internal disorder controlled. This happens at
