fred h. wöhlbier. the evolution of meaning
DESCRIPTION
Fred H. Wöhlbier. The Evolution of MeaningTRANSCRIPT
-
The Evolution of Meaning
-
The Evolution of Meaning
-
The Evolution of Meaning
Fred H. Whlbier
-
Published by Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland
Copyright 2014 by F.H. Whlbier
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles and reviews.
For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book write to
Permissions, Trans Tech Publications Ltd Kreuzstrasse 10, CH-8635 Zurich-Durnten, Switzerland
www.ttp.net
For ordering books write to Sales Department, Trans Tech Publication Ltd.
Kreuzstrasse 10, CH-8635 Zurich-Durnten, Switzerland www.ttp.net
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum No. 2
ISBN 978-3-908158-96-7
-
Contents
Preface
Chapter 1
What is it All About? 3 The Scientific Method 4 The Tree of Nature 5 The Tree of Everything 9
Chapter 2
The Material Base of Nature 11 Atoms 12 Elementary Particles 14 Up Quark and Down Quark 15 Electron 16 Electron-Neutrino 18 Matter I 20 Three Families of Matter 22
Chapter 3
Information Processing Events 27 Gravity 27 The Electromagnetic (EM) Force 29 The Nuclear Forces 30 The Four Types of Forces 31 Something to Wonder About 34 The Interaction between Particles 39 The Information-Processing Triplet of Parameters 41
-
Chapter 4
Law-like Information 45 The General Information Cycle 46 The Reality Status of the Laws of Nature 51 The Emergence of Law-Like Information 54 Biological Events 56 Conscious Events 60 Mental Causation 68 The Conceptual Level 70 The Category of Conscious Events 73 Cultural Events 74 The Four Categories of Law-Like Information 78
Chapter 5
Universal History 83 Spacetime 85 The Spacetime Tetrad 86 Spacetime and Law-like Information 89 The History Triplet of the Tree of Everything 92 Subjectivity 94
Chapter 6
Subjectivity 97 Physical Perceptions 98 Elementary Feelings 99 Propositional Perceptions 101 Volitions 102 Four Aspects of Subjectivity 103
-
Chapter 7
The Essential Dimensions 107 Freedom 108 Truth, Goodness and Beauty 110 The Four Essential Dimensions 115
Chapter 8
What is it All About? 121 The Universe as a Meaning Circuit 122 The Superstructure of the Tree of Everything 126 Why Does the World Exist? 128 The Top Node of the Tree of Everything 131
Chapter 9
Predictions and Conjectures 133
Key Concepts and Definitions 148 Notes 154 Index 164
-
Table of Contents
Front PageContents
Chapter 1
Preface
What is it All About? 3
Chapter 2The Material Base of Nature 11
Chapter 3Information Processing Events 27
Chapter 4Law-like Information 45
Chapter 5Universal History 83
Chapter 6Subjectivity 97
Chapter 7The Essential Dimensions 107
Chapter 8What is it All About? 121
Chapter 9Predictions and Conjectures 133
Key Concepts and Definitions
Notes
Index
-
Preface The present book is based upon the premise that information is the
fundamental entity in Nature. The Universe, from this viewpoint, consists of an intricately interconnected network of information-processing events; information here being understood not in the blind thermodynamic sense, but in the active life/observation/meaning sense (P.W.C. Davies1).
This state of affairs can be formulated scientifically in terms of a general information cycle that is applicable to all observable processes taking place in the Universe. It turns out that there are just four categories of laws and law-like entities that describe the outcome of events.
This result is surprising insofar as it seems to imply a 4x4 structure of Nature of which we had hitherto been unaware. There are (1) four sets of material particles, (2) four types of forces, (3) four dimensions of spacetime and (4) four categories of laws and law-like information.
Further analysis led to the discovery of the Tree of Nature; an asymmetrical dyadic decision-tree featuring a basic structure of six fundamental parameters, a substructure comprising 24 individual parameters and a triadic superstructure. These findings were published last year in the book, The Tree of Nature.
The present work concerns an extension of this tree into the realms of subjectivity and value-oriented essential dimensions; thus leading to the construction of the Tree of Everything. The structure of this tree features four distinct realms of reality, one of which pertains to the topic of meaning.
-
For clarity, some of the results published in the Tree of Nature are recalled in the present book. In due course, it is our intention to combine the two books into a single volume, which would also feature criticisms and amendments.
This book has been edited by my friend David J. Fisher (B.Sc, D s Sc) who is the editor of a number of books and journals in the field of solid-state physics, and the author of several general science titles. I gratefully acknowledge Davids many comments and suggestions, and appreciate greatly his continued support of this work.
Fred H. Whlbier, January 2014
-
Chapter 1
What is it All About?
My goal is simple. It is
complete understanding
of the Universe,
why it is as it is and
why it exists at all.
Stephen Hawking
What is it all about? Where am I and what am I doing here? Above all, who
am I, anyway? Religions have answers to such questions, but philosophers
have doubts. Can science help? Science, at its basic physical level, is a
descriptive-predictive enterprise; interested only in reporting hard (i.e.
observable) facts and in analyzing why, and how, such facts can lead on to
other hard facts. Meaning in the sense of meaning and purpose beyond
the pure facts is not part of the scientific vocabulary. This may change,
however, as science begins to understand the structural features of Nature in
sufficient detail to allow extrapolation into the non-physical realm of
meaning and purpose.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 3-10 (2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerlanddoi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SMPF.2.3
-
The Scientific Method
The scientific enterprise has its roots in the 13th century; with scholars such
as Roger Bacon (1214-1294), who was one of the early promoters of
observation-based research. This approach bore its first mature fruits with
the astronomical discoveries of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes
Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who, in turn, prepared
the ground for Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and his famous three-volume
work Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published on July 5th,
1687.
Standing on the shoulders of giants, as he later said, Newton
achieved the final breakthrough with his discovery of a set of fundamental
rules: the three laws of motion, which form the foundation of classical
mechanics, and the law of universal gravitation, which describes the
workings of the first of the four natural forces that we know today; gravity.
By showing that the same natural laws govern both the orbiting of planets
around the sun, and the falling of an apple from a tree, and being able to
derive Keplers empirical laws of planetary motion on the basis of his
system, Newton initiated what is called today the scientific era.
We are all aware of the huge success story of this human enterprise.
With todays telescopes we can see backwards in time, almost to the
beginning of it all; to the beginning of space and time, that is, which
occurred pretty close to 13.7 billion years ago. The evolutionary story,
starting from the original hot-spot that constituted the Universe at that time,
and leading to the billions of galaxies which we observe today, is quite well
understood. Also understood is much of the evolution of life on Earth,
leading from the first living cell some 3.5 billion years ago to the
millions of species that fill all corners of the world, and to human
civilizations.
The fact remains, however, that all of the knowledge that has been
amassed by scientists around the globe is still at a purely descriptive level.
The scientific method of inquiry employs four steps in order to arrive at
reliable knowledge concerning the workings of Nature:
4 The Evolution of Meaning
-
(1) Observation of facts and processes; (2) hypothesis as to why these
facts and processes are the way that we observe them; (3) testable
predictions that follow from the hypothesis; (4) experimental verification of
the predictions as an indication that the hypothesis may be correct; this
conclusion remaining in force until new experimental results show the
hypothesis to be wrong.
If this is the approach, how could we possibly arrive at answers to
those questions that interest humans the most: What, if any, is the raison
dtre of the existence of the Universe? Is there any deeper meaning to the
phenomenon of life? What is consciousness good for? Could not all
processes function just as well without it? Above all: what is our place in
this strange world (Einstein)?
The scientific method has not been designed to tackle such questions.
It has however produced such a treasure trove of knowledge that we begin
to see structures that extend into the realms of meaning and purpose. This is
what the present book is all about.
The Tree of Nature
It has recently been shown2 that the workings of Nature are best understood
in terms of information-processing events. This is fully in line with the
thinking of some of our most prominent physicists, such as Anton Zeilinger
(information is the fundamental substance of the universe3), John A.
Wheeler (all things physical are information-theoretic in origin4) and Lee
Smolin, for whom the world consists of a large number of eventsand the
flow of information among events5. According to the physicist David
Deutsch6, a prominent proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics, The physical world is a multiverse, and its structure is
determined by how information flows in it. In many regions of the
multiverse, information flows in quasi-autonomous streams called histories,
one of which we call our universe.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 5
-
Figure 1.1 The Tree of Nature branches out from Nature (as a whole) to a
first immaterial level, made up of the parameters of Spacetime and Law-
like information; the latter being the starting point for another branching
process which leads to a second level featuring the parameters, Forces and
Matter I. A third, and final, level encompasses the two high-energy
variations of matter; Matter II and Matter III.
6 The Evolution of Meaning
-
The multitude of events taking place in our Universe (or Nature) can
be described in terms of a general information cycle in which the
applicable laws and law-like entities (e.g. rules, habits, norms and ordering
principles), subsumed here under the heading of law-like information,
play a decisive role (see Chapter 4).
It turns out that the laws and law-like entities can be classified into
four categories; the main classification criteria being degree of
intentionality, acquisition of knowledge and type of rationality. In this
monistic view, the processes involving life, subjective consciousness and
objective knowledge do not differ in principle from elementary physical
events, but instead refer simply to different types of information processing.
The fact that the events taking place in the Universe are describable in
terms of four categories of law-like information leads to a 4x4 structure of
Nature of which we had not previously been aware: There are
(1) four sets of elementary particles,
(2) four types of forces,
(3) four spacetime dimensions and
(4) four categories of laws and law-like entities.
The immediate conundrum was, Why always four?
Further study led to the discovery that the fundamental structure of
Nature can be pictured in terms of a simple decision tree, called the Tree of
Nature, as shown in Figure 1.1. The material base of the tree (bottom
triangle) comprises the three sets of material particles (Matter I, II and III).
The second triangle from the bottom refers to the topic of information
processing and comprises those items which are needed for any processes to
be able to take place in Nature: material aggregates, the forces acting
between them and the applicable laws and rules (law-like information). The
third triangle, labeled history, comprises those parameters that are needed to
describe fully all of the events that have ever taken place; in terms of the
location and time of their occurrence (spacetime coordinates) and their
causal relationship to other events (expressed by the applicable laws and by
other types of law-like information).
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 7
-
Figure 1.2 The Tree of Everything results from extending the Tree of
Nature by adding a fourth triangle at the top. The enlarged tree branches out
from Reality (at the top) to a total of eight fundamental parameters; each
of which being the starting point for two further splitting processes (which
are not shown here).
8 The Evolution of Meaning
-
In the top-down view, the structure of the tree is seen to result from
consecutive branching processes. Nature (as a whole) represents the top of
the tree, and the first splitting process leads to a first immaterial level
formed by the parameters of Spacetime and Law-like information; the
latter being the starting point for another branching process which leads to a
second level featuring the parameters, Forces and Matter I. A third, and
final, level encompasses the two high-energy variations of matter; Matter
II and Matter III (Fig. 1.1).
As we shall see below, at each of these six fundamental parameters
of Nature the tree branches again and produces, by means of two additional
splitting processes, four individual parameters. In addition to this
substructure, consisting of 24 individual parameters, the tree will be shown
to exhibit also a distinct superstructure consisting of three triads of
fundamental parameters.
The important point here is that the structural features of the Tree of
Nature are such that they suggest an extension of the tree by adding a fourth
triangle at the top, as is shown in Figure 1.2. The addition of the fourth
triangle yields a Tree of Everything including, as it does, those features of
Nature that are connected with the aspects of meaning and purpose.
The Tree of Everything
The Tree of Everything represents the ontological preconditions for the
becoming of the Universe, and its subsequent expansion and development.
It answers the questions, What are the fundamental factors that determine
the workings of the Universe? and How are these fundamental parameters
interrelated? The term, ontology, refers to the study of being, or
existence. It is concerned with the parameters that must be in place before
any events can begin to take place. The basic aim of ontological inquiry is
to determine what categories of existence are fundamental, and to discuss
the question of in what sense the items in those categories can be said to
exist in reality.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 9
-
The ontological structure of the tree is more fundamental, than is any
chronological description of the evolutionary process, because it also
contains time as one of its ontological parameters. The factor, time,
would have no place within a chronological order (in which events are
ordered along the time axis); rather, it is a precondition for any
chronological considerations.
In other words, the evolutionary story of the Universe can begin only
after all of the fundamental conditions have been set up. The setting-up of
the ontological parameters turns out to proceed by means of splitting
processes that begin at the top of the tree and end with the establishment of
the material entities at the base. The evolutionary story itself begins at the
bottom, at the material base, and develops from there.
In the following chapters we shall study each of these parameters of
Nature, and consider the structural relationships via which they are
interrelated. For reasons that will become clear later, we shall begin at the
bottom of the tree (the material base) and proceed, level by level, to the top.
The principle aim is to find out how Nature works, not only at the level of
physics, but also at the levels of life and consciousness, and whether we can
discern any deeper meaning in it all.
10 The Evolution of Meaning
-
Chapter 2
The Material Base of Nature
The first principles
of the Universe are
atoms and empty space
Democritus (460-370 BC)
In his famous Lectures on Physics1, Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman
argued that our most important piece of scientific knowledge is the fact that
the world is made of atoms: If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific
knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the
next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most
information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis
that all things are made of atoms little particles that move around in
perpetual motion
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 11-26 (2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerlanddoi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SMPF.2.11
-
Atoms
Atoms are the material basis of the Universe. The first to come up with the
atomic hypothesis were the ancient Greek philosophers Leucippus (first
half of 5th century BC) and his disciple Democritus (460- ca. 370 BC). The
ancient scholars arrived at their astonishing hypothesis by considering the
question of whether a given piece of matter could be cut into smaller and
smaller parts, ad infinitum, without ever reaching an end. It seemed to them
that the cutting process must end at some stage; that there had to be some
final grain which could not be split up into further smaller pieces.
Democritus called these uncuttable grains atomos (Greek for in-
divisible).
The atoms were thought to be invisibly small, unchangeable and
indestructible, and to move around in empty space. The Universe was made
up of atoms and empty space; everything else following from these two
ingredients. In the words of Democritus: By convention there is bitterness,
by convention hot and cold, by convention color; but in reality there are
only atoms and the void.
When the great Aristotle (384-322 BC), disciple of Plato and teacher
of Alexander the Great, discussed the atomic hypothesis he gave it an
interesting twist. Even though he actually rejected the theory, the
philosopher succeeded in giving the hypothesis a good deal of plausibility
by citing an analogy between atoms and the letters of an alphabet; a limited
number of which can be used to produce a seemingly infinite number of
words and sentences.
It took mankind more than two millennia to come up with scientific
proof that the atomic hypothesis is indeed correct. In 1643, the Italian
mathematician Evangelista Torricelli invented the barometer by showing
that air can push down a column of liquid mercury. In the following
century, the Swiss mathematician Daniel Bernoulli explained these findings
by conjecturing that air and other gases consist of invisibly small particles
that push each other around in otherwise empty space.
12 The Evolution of Meaning
-
In 1803, the English scientist John Dalton finally developed a fully-
fledged atomic theory according to which all forms of matter (and not only
gases) are composed of indivisible atomic particles. Even though Daltons
atomic approach was highly successful in understanding chemical reactions,
it took science another century before the theory became generally
accepted.
By the end of the 19th century, the physicists James Clerk Maxwell
and Ludwig Boltzmann had provided convincing evidence that the theory
was correct but there were still many scientists, including giants such as
Ernst Mach, who adamantly rejected it. This on the grounds that science
was based upon observable facts and that unobservable things, such as
hypothetical atoms, could not possibly be part of serious scientific theory.
In 1906, the fierce and bitter ongoing debate drove the depression-prone
Boltzmann to commit suicide. Only two years later, the work of Albert
Einstein, at that time still an unknown clerk at the Swiss patent office in
Berne, and Jean-Baptiste Perrin, convinced the scientific community that
atoms must really exist.
Then 1905, later to be called Albert Einsteins Annus Mirabilis
(miraculous year), saw the great physicist publish four papers which
radically revised our views of space, time and matter. One of these papers
explained the hitherto inexplicable phenomenon of Brownian motion in
terms of atomic theory. Brownian motion is named for the Scottish
botanist Robert Brown who, during microscopic studies made in 1827, had
noticed that small particles floating in water were jiggling around as if
something was pushing them. Einstein, convinced that the atomic
hypothesis was true, surmised that the particles were kicked around by
water molecules and provided the mathematical equations that correctly
describe this behavior. Three years later, the atomic hypothesis was
experimentally confirmed by French scientist, Jean-Baptiste Perrin.
Nobody had still ever actually seen atoms of course. One ten-millionth
of a millimeter in size, they are just too small to show up in our
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 13
-
conventional microscopes. It was only in 1981 that this shortcoming of
observational atomic theory was finally resolved when Gerd Binnig and
Heinrich Rohrer developed the scanning tunneling microscope. This is
based upon quantum-physical phenomena and allows us actually to see
the surfaces of atomic and molecular arrays. In 1986, these two scientists
were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for this work.
Elementary Particles
Now that we can actually see them, it is undisputable that atoms exist.
There are 92 types of atoms to be found in Nature; each type representing
an element. In addition, 20 other types of atoms (elements) have been
synthetically produced during scientific experiments. Atoms can combine to
form the millions of different substances (molecules) which we observe in
Nature; ranging from hydrogen and water molecules (consisting of two and
three atoms, respectively) all the way to the unbelievably complex
biological substances in which thousands of atoms combine to form
intricately structured molecules (DNA, proteins etc.).
Democritus had actually thought that each substance is constituted of
its own type of atom, but Nature apparently operates much more
economically in that it needs only 92 types of atoms, which can combine to
form the millions of substances in the world as we see it. If Nature functions
so economically, could it not be that the approximately 100 atoms are made
up of a limited number of smaller particles? Could it not be that there are
only a handful of elementary particles of which atoms are made?
This is indeed so. We know today that atoms are made up of a heavy,
and positively charged, nucleus which is surrounded by various numbers of
negatively-charged electrons. The nucleus consists of one or more
positively charged protons and (zero or more) neutrons (carrying no
charge). As we shall see below, protons and neutrons are in turn made up of
two types of quarks. Atoms are thus made up of only three types of
14 The Evolution of Meaning
-
elementary particles: two types of quarks (called up quarks and down
quarks) and electrons.
For some reason, Nature has also provided us with a fourth type of
elementary particle; the neutrino, which is similar to the electron but which
carries no electric charge (whereas the electron carries a negative electric
charge). The world in which we live consists only of these four types of
matter particles: neutrino, electron, up-quark and down-quark.
Up Quark and Down Quark
The up and down quarks are the elementary particles that occur commonly
in Nature. As we shall see below, there are two additional sets of quarks
(charm/strange and top/bottom) that are formed in high-energy collisions
and can be studied in particle accelerator experiments. The existence of
quarks was conjectured independently by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and
George Zweig in 1964; and confirmed experimentally, one after another, in
the period 1968-1995.
One of the curious aspects of quarks is that, even though they are the
tiniest of the elementary particles, they make up most of the mass of the
Universe, by far. Another odd finding is that the attractive forces acting
between them become stronger as the particles move apart; in surprising
contrast to the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, which
decrease in strength as the aggregates involved are separated by larger and
larger distances. Another unique property of quarks is that they cannot exist
by themselves; isolated from other quarks, that is.
Quarks are so different from other material particles or aggregates
(ions, atoms, molecules, crystals) that they certainly deserve to be
characterized by such unusual names as up and down, charm and strange,
bottom and top. And it comes as no surprise that these six varieties are not
referred to as different kinds or types, but as different flavors.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 15
-
The name quark is due to Gell-Mann who was inspired by the
nonsense-word quark which occurs in James Joyces scurrilous novel,
Finnegans Wake; in a passage beginning with
Three quarks for Muster Mark!
Sure he has not got much of a bark
And sure any he has its all beside the mark.
Another one of their peculiarities is that quarks possess an electric
charge that is a fraction of that of an electron. The up quark carries a charge
of +2/3, whereas the charge of the down quark is -1/3. Quarks are the
building blocks of positively-charged protons (charge +1) and uncharged
neutrons (charge 0). Thus, in order to form a proton, two up quarks and one
down quark need to combine whereas, for the formation of a neutron, two
down quarks and one up quark are required. To get this result, one simply
needs to add the charges.
Up quarks and down quarks cannot exist in isolation. They can never
be observed individually, that is. In other words, the two types of particles
complement each other in a very strong way. We shall see more of such
complementarities as we study the other parameters of the Tree of
Everything.
Electron
The name of the third elementary particle, the electron, is connected with
the findings of the ancient Greek scholar, Thales of Miletus (ca. 624-546
BC), who had noticed that amber, when rubbed with silk, attracted light
objects. Amber is fossilized pine resin and, as we know today, the rubbing
charges its surface electrostatically. But Greek mythology held a more
poetic view of amber: When Phaeton, the son of sun-god Helios also
called Elector was killed, the tears of his mourning sisters became the
origin of electron, the Greek word for amber.
16 The Evolution of Meaning
-
In the mid-19th century, the British chemist Richard Laming suggested
that an atom is composed of a core at the center, surrounded by particles
carrying electric charges. Two decades later, Irish physicist George
Johnstone Stoney studied the phenomenon of electrolysis and conjectured
that there exists a single definite quantity of electricity, the charge on a
monovalent ion. On the basis of Faradays laws of electrolysis, he was then
able to estimate the value of this elementary charge and suggested that it be
called an electron; a combination of the words electr(ic) and (i)on.
The final breakthrough came when British physicist J.J. Thomson
succeeded in showing experimentally that electrons are particles. For the
first time it became clear that atoms are composed of smaller parts. Today,
we know that atoms consist of a nucleus at the center, and a shell of
electrons surrounding it. The size of an atom arises from the fact that the
electrons are at a certain distance from the nucleus. One can thus picture an
atom as consisting of three ingredients: a small nuclear core, one or more
surrounding electrons and empty space; most of it is empty space.
The shape of the electron has been shown to be almost perfectly
spherical, and its mass to be nearly 2000 times smaller than that of a proton;
the nucleus of the smallest atom (hydrogen). Almost all of the mass of an
atom is thus located in the nucleus.
What makes electrons important is that they carry a negative electric
charge. Because of the electric charge, the number and distribution of the
electrons determine the chemical properties of an atom. The bonds that hold
atoms together in molecules, crystals and other substances are completely
determined by the number of electrons of the respective atoms.
This is to say that all of chemistry is due to electrons and their charge.
All molecules, beginning with the simplest, such as hydrogen or water, and
ranging up to such ridiculously complex aggregates as proteins and genes,
are due to the behavior of the negatively charged electrons. When it comes
to our everyday life, it is the electrons that count. This is in complete
contrast to the neutrino, the fourth (and last) kind of elementary particle,
which hardly seems to matter.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 17
-
Electron-Neutrino
The most entertaining fact about the electron-neutrino (one of the three
neutrino-types) is the way it was discovered. In the nineteen-twenties, the
concept of the atom was generally accepted and quite well understood. One
of the few remaining puzzles were radioactive beta-decay processes in
which electrons are emitted from an atomic nucleus. The energies of such
electrons were shown experimentally to exhibit a continuous rather than a
discrete spectrum; thus apparently contradicting the law of conservation of
energy.
To solve the problem, Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli came up
with the idea that, in such processes, a hitherto unknown elementary particle
was emitted whose properties were such that the continuous energy
spectrum could be explained without running into conflicts with well-
established conservation laws.
Pauli proposed his daring idea in a letter sent to a meeting of atomic
physicists (addressed by Pauli as radioactive ladies and gentlemen), held
in Tbingen (Germany) in 1930. Here are some excerpts from the text,
which has become one of the most famous pieces of physics history:
Dear Radioactive Ladies and Gentlemen,
As the bearer of these lines, to whom I graciously ask you to listen, will
explain to you in more detail I have hit upon a desperate remedy to save
the law of conservation of energy Namely, the possibility that in the
nuclei there could exist electrically neutral particles, which I will call
neutrons The continuous beta spectrum would then make sense with the
assumption that in beta decay, in addition to the electron, a neutron is
emitted such that the sum of the energies of neutron and electron is
constant.
But so far I do not dare to publish anything about this idea, and
trustfully turn first to you, dear radioactive people, with the question of how
likely it is to find experimental evidence for such a neutron I admit that
18 The Evolution of Meaning
-
my remedy may seem almost improbable But nothing ventured, nothing
gained, and the seriousness of the situation, due to the continuous structure
of the beta spectrum, is illuminated by a remark of my honored predecessor,
Mr Debye, who told me recently in Bruxelles: Oh, It's better not to think
about this at all, like new taxes. Thus, dear radioactive people, scrutinize
and judge.
Unfortunately, I cannot personally appear in Tbingen since I am
indispensable here in Zrich because of a ball on the night from December
6 to 7. With my best regards to you, and also to Mr. Back, your humble
servant signed W. Pauli.2
Pauli had called his new particle neutron but this name was later
changed, by the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, to neutrino which is Italian
for little neutron. The neutrino is indeed extremely small and its mass has
since been shown to be 4 million times lower than that of an electron3.
Today we know that neutrinos do exist and that they are not only very
small but extremely elusive. They are smaller and much lighter than
electrons, but the decisive difference between the two types of particles is
that neutrinos are electrically neutral, i.e. they do not carry an electric
charge.
This feature has the consequence that the interaction between
neutrinos and other forms of matter is so minimal that they can pass through
the entire Earth without hitting another particle. Each second, billions of
these curious particles pass through our bodies without leaving any trace.
Because of this evasiveness of the ghostly particle, as it is often referred
to, it took 26 years to prove its existence experimentally; and another 40
years to confirm experimentally that it has some mass (albeit infinitesimal).
The American writer John Updike aptly summed up the situation in an
often-cited poem; beginning with the words,
Neutrinos, they are very small.
They have no charge and have no mass
And do not interact at all.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 19
-
The earth is just a silly ball
To them, through which they simply pass,
Like dustmaids through a drafty hall
Or photons through a sheet of glass.
Matter I
As we have seen above, the material aggregates of the world around us
consist of just four elementary particles: the elusive electron-neutrino and
the three particles of which atoms are made: the electron (responsible for
the shell) and the up and down quarks (forming the nucleus).
The two types of quarks can be said to complement each other
because they cannot exist alone; without the presence of the other type of
quark that is. The electron-neutrino and the electron also seem to be
complementary to each other because, as we shall see below, their
controlling forces (the weak force and the electric force) have been shown
to be different aspects of the so-called electroweak force.
We are interested here not so much in the individual types of
elementary particles that make up the Universe but, rather, in the general
structural features of the Tree of Nature (Fig. 1.1) which permit us to
extend this tree into the dimensions of meaning and purpose (Fig. 1.2); thus
offering a first glimpse of the central question with which mankind has seen
itself confronted for at least six millennia: What is it all about?
The four types of elementary particles point to three structural features
that we shall meet time and again as we proceed toward the top of the tree:
(1) There is always an odd-man-out parameter which differs
greatly from the other three parameters. In the case of elementary particles,
the odd one is the neutrino because it has minimal mass, carries no electric
charge and interacts minimally with other particles.
20 The Evolution of Meaning
-
(2) After setting aside the exception, there remains a triplet of
parameters that are, in some important way, connected to each other. In the
present case, the electron and the two types of quarks are strongly
interacting particles that have the potential to form atoms.
(3) There are always doublets of parameters that are closely
connected and, in some sense, complementary to each other. In the case of
Matter I, the complementary couples consist of (i) the electron-neutrino and
the electron and (ii) the up and down quarks, respectively.
This can be better visualized by arranging the particles in the form of
a decision tree, as shown in Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1 The four elementary particles constituting Matter I.
Odd one out: Electron neutrino.
Triplet: Electron, up-quark and down-quark.
Complementary Doublets: (i) Electron-neutrino and electron; (ii) up and
down quarks.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 21
-
Three Families of Matter
Who ordered that? This is one of the celebrated quips that we meet time
and again in historical accounts of the story of physics. It is due to Galicien-
born American physicist and Nobel Laureate Isidor Isaac Rabi; expressing
his surprise and indignation at the discovery of the muon, a kind of heavy
electron with a mass about 206 times greater than that of the electron. That
was in 1936. At that time physicists had learned to understand the world in
terms of atoms which consist of protons and neutrons at their core, plus a
shell of electrons. Nobody needed a heavier version of the electron. It just
didnt fit into the physical worldview of the day.
Figure 2.2 The elementary particles constituting Matter II.
22 The Evolution of Meaning
-
Figure 2.3 The elementary particles constituting Matter III.
Almost 40 years later, American physicist Martin Lewis Perl
discovered a still heavier version of the electron; the tau, which has a mass
3500 greater than that of the electron. Perl was awarded the 1995 Nobel
Prize in physics for his discovery. Today we know that not only the electron
comes in three versions, but also the neutrino and the two types of quarks.
Here are the three groups, usually called families', of the elementary
particles:
Family I: Electron-neutrino, electron, up-quark, down-quark (Fig. 2.1)
Family II: Muon-neutrino, muon, charm-quark, strange-quark (Fig. 2.2)
Family III: Tau-neutrino, tau, top-quark, bottom-quark (Fig. 2.3)
The particles of families II and III are produced in high-energy
collisions but are extremely unstable and short-lived; decaying within a
fraction of a second. For example, the muon has a mean lifetime of two
microseconds, and the tau decays within 10-13
seconds.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 23
-
Nobody knows why Nature has provided us with these additional
varieties of elementary particles. They have the same properties as the
particles that make up the world in which we live (family I), but they have
higher mass; and they form only in very high energy environments. These
high-mass particles must have existed in abundance in the early stages of
evolution; at the time, that is, when the Universe was still a small and
unbelievably hot spot.
In his bestselling book, The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene4 poses
questions, such as Why are there three families? Why not one family or
four families or any other number? The systematic approach which we are
presenting here does not yield an answer to the first question, but it does
have a reply to the second.
It would be consistent with the Tree of Everything (Fig. 2.4) if there
were only one family. However, if there are to be additional families, there
must be at least a doublet of additional families, branching out from family
I. Thus the tree does not explain why there should be three families, but it is
consistent with the occurrence of three families. If there were a total of two
or four families, this would not be consistent with the general structure of
the tree.
It belongs to the structural features of the Tree of Everything
(including the Tree of Nature) that parameters always come in doublets and
that such doublets arise from a source parameter with which they share a
common aspect. The source parameter here is family I. The parameters
branching out from this source are families II and III, which represent
simple variations of family I. The common aspect of the three families is
that they represent the material basis of the Universe, each version referring
to a given energy state; the higher the energy environment, the higher are
the masses of the respective particles.
24 The Evolution of Meaning
-
Figure 2.4 The material basis of the Tree of Everything is constituted of the
three families of Matter.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 25
-
Let us consider it the other way around. Let us suppose that we had
discovered families II and III first. As the particles of one family have
exactly the same properties as those of the other family, differing only in the
respective masses, we would have concluded that this could not possibly be
due to chance. Our best guess would have been that both sets of particles
were variations of a common mother set of particles. This would have
turned out to be correct (in a way).
The three sets of material particles (Figs. 2.1-2.3) make up the
material base of the Tree of Everything (Fig. 2.4). We would know nothing
of these particles if their presence was not communicated, by means of
force particles, to the rest of the world. This will be the subject of the next
chapter.
26 The Evolution of Meaning
-
Chapter 3
Information Processing Events
Information is the
fundamental substance
of the Universe.
Anton Zeilinger
In the preceding chapter, we have introduced the twelve elementary matter
particles1 that are known to us. We would know nothing of any of those
particles if they did not interact with the world around them. These
interactions are mediated by a total of four forces; gravity, the
electromagnetic force and two types of nuclear forces.
Gravity
Modern science begins with Isaac Newton who, supposedly inspired by the
phenomenon of apples falling down from trees, discovered the most
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 27-43 (2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerlanddoi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SMPF.2.27
-
visible of the four forces via which material objects can interact with each
other: gravity.
One of the first biographers of Newton, the antiquarian and
archeologist William Stukeley, tells us how the great scientist explained to
him, in April 1726, the type of thinking that had led him to discover
gravitation: Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the
ground? Why should it not go sideways, or upwards? Assuredly, the reason
is that the earth draws it. There must be a drawing power in matter, and the
sum of the drawing power in the matter of the earth must be in the earths
centreif matter thus draws matter; it must be in proportion of its quantity;
therefore the apple draws the earth, as well as the earth draws the apple."2
In the late 1660s, Newton had begun to consider the idea that
terrestrial gravity, due to which an apple falls from a tree, might extend all
the way to the Moon and other celestial objects. It took him another two
decades, however, before he was able to present his law of universal
gravitation in a book titled Philosophi Naturalis Principia
Mathematica, published on July 5th, 1687: Every point mass in the
Universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly
proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between them. Point mass here refers to the fact that
the force of gravity of a material object can be regarded as being located at
the center of the object. The expression universal gravitation indicates that
gravity acts everywhere, even in outer space, and between every object.
Newton arrived at the law of universal gravitation by combining his
concept of gravity with Keplers laws of planetary motion. In this way he
was able to improve the accuracy of predictions resulting from Keplers
original planetary laws. This confirmed Newtons theory. There was only
one big problem: nobody knew how the conjectured force of gravity could
possibly extend over large distances and influence the behavior of celestial
objects. Today, more than three centuries later, there is still no general
agreement as to how gravity actually works. We shall come back to this
problem below.
28 The Evolution of Meaning
-
What we do know is that the interactions between material particles
(and their aggregates) have much to do with the transfer of information. In
fact, it becomes ever clearer that the Universe does not consist of material
entities per se, but of information-processing events. This will be discussed
in more detail in Chapter 4.
The Electromagnetic (EM) Force
As we have seen above, the existence of what we call today electrostatic
forces was already known to the ancient Greek scholars of the 6th century
BC: amber, when rubbed with cloth or fur, exhibits the property of
attracting small objects.
The earliest literary reference to magnetism was made in the 4th
century BC in China. In the 11th century AD, the Chinese scientist, and head
official of the Bureau of Astronomy, Shen Kuo discovered the magnetic
north pole and, in 1088 AD, described the magnetic needle compass and its
usefulness for navigation. The first reference to the magnetic needle
compass in Europe was made almost exactly 100 years later (1187) by
English teacher and scholar, Alexander Neckam.
Somewhat more than six hundred years later, in 1820, Danish
physicist Hans Christian Oersted discovered by chance that a compass
needle is deflected by a nearby wire carrying an electric current. At that
time, nobody was able to explain what then became known as, and is still
called, Oersteds Experiment. It took scientists another four decades of
intense research by such giants as Andr-Marie Ampre, Carl Friedrich
Gauss and Michael Faraday before the Scottish theoretical physicist James
Clerk Maxwell was able to show that electricity and magnetism are
different aspects of one and the same entity; the electromagnetic field.
Maxwells theory is based upon a set of 20 differential equations
which describe the propagation of electric and magnetic fields which
regenerate each other as they travel through space. Using these equations,
and plugging-in experimental data from electrical experiments, Maxwell
was able to calculate the rate of propagation of electromagnetic fields.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 29
-
Much to his surprise, this turned out to be very close to the speed of
light, leading him to conclude courageously, that light and magnetism are
affections of the same substance, and that light is an electromagnetic
disturbance propagated through the field according to electromagnetic
laws"3.
Maxwell had thus managed to unify our views of electricity,
magnetism and light; exposing the three phenomena as being various
aspects of one and the same entity, the electromagnetic field. On the
centennial anniversary of Maxwells birth, his achievement was praised by
Einstein as being the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has
experienced since the time of Newton.
The Nuclear Forces
In addition to gravity and the EM force, which play important roles in our
daily life, there are two other types of forces of which we have no personal
experience at all: the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, also
called the strong force and the weak force, respectively.
The strong force is responsible for holding quarks together in the
protons and neutrons which make up the nuclei of atoms. It is the strongest
of the four types of fundamental forces; being about one hundred times as
strong as the EM force and a whopping 1039
times as strong as the force of
gravity. On the other hand, whereas gravity and the EM force have un-
limited reach, the strong force does not extend to distances exceeding 10-13
centimeters; roughly the size of an atomic nucleus.
The weak nuclear force is about one hundred thousand times weaker
than the strong force, and its range is at least one hundred times shorter. The
weak force is important for explaining nuclear transformations and
interactions, as well as certain radioactive processes, such as the beta-decay
mentioned in Chapter 2. The force is also responsible for the hydrogen
fusion processes taking place in the sun and other stars. What interests us
most, however, is the fact that the weak force and the EM force can be
30 The Evolution of Meaning
-
considered to be different facets of a single unified force, called the
electroweak force.
At first glance, the two types of forces seem to be very different. The
EM force has unlimited reach (light waves reach us from galaxies billions
of light-years away), whereas the weak force is limited to distances smaller
than the radius of atomic nuclei. Moreover, its strength decreases extremely
rapidly with distance: at a range of about 10-15
cm it is already 10,000 times
weaker than the EM force. And yet, at energy levels of about 100 GeV
(Giga electron volt), the two forces unite naturally to form the electroweak
force.
This energy level, corresponding to temperatures of the order of 1015
degrees Kelvin, must have existed in the early Universe during the small
fraction of a second (10-12
seconds that is) after the Big Bang which began it
all. As the Universe expanded and cooled down the combined electroweak
force split up into the two forces that have existed ever since: the EM force
and the weak force.
The physicists Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg
were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics for their contributions to
electroweak theory. Final experimental proof of the theory was obtained in
1983. The upshot here is that the EM force and the weak force are closely
related to each other (in terms of electroweak theory) and are, in a way,
complementary to each other. This is an interesting point with regard to
fitting the two forces neatly into the general structure of the Tree of
Everything.
The Four Types of Forces
After having briefly introduced the four fundamental forces with which
Nature works, let us see how they fit into the three structural features of the
Tree of Everything as we have stated them in Chapter 2 for the four types of
material entities: (1) An odd-one-out parameter, (2) a triplet of closely
related parameters and (3) two doublets of closely related and, in some way,
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 31
-
complementary parameters. Figure 3.1 shows the structural relations for the
forces tetrad:
Figure 3.1 The four fundamental forces.
Odd one out: Gravity (extremely weak, least understood, does not
noticeably participate in nuclear or atomic processes).
Triplet: EM Force, strong force and weak force (compared with gravity,
these are relatively strong forces; all three forces are engaged in atomic and
nuclear processes, and are describable within the framework of the
standard model of particle physics).
Complementary Doublets: (i) Gravity and the strong force (conjectured
below to be complementary to each other); (ii) EM force and weak force
(both unify naturally, at energy levels of 100 GeV, to form the combined
electroweak force)
32 The Evolution of Meaning
-
Odd one out: Gravity
The oddity of the four forces is undoubtedly gravity. When compared to the
other three forces, gravity is a force of almost zero strength. For example,
the gravitational force with which two electrons attract each other (on
account of their mass) is 4 170 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
000 000 000 [1042
] times weaker than the electromagnetic force acting
between them, and causing them to repel each other. Not only is the force of
gravity unbelievably weak, it is also the least understood of all of the forces
and its hypothetical messenger-particle, the graviton, has not yet been
confirmed experimentally. Moreover, gravity does not have any noticeable
effects on the processes taking place at the nuclear or atomic level.
Triplet: EM force, weak and strong force
The triplet is made up of the EM force, the weak and the strong force.
These are the three forces that are applicable when describing the processes
taking place in atoms. The workings of all three forces can be described by
the so-called Standard Model (or Standard Theory) which is based upon
the concept of charges (electric charge, weak charge, strong charge).
1st Doublet: Gravity and strong force
The first doublet of complementary parameters refers to gravity and the
strong force. Unfortunately, gravity is not yet fully understood. General
relativity pictures this force in a way that is not compatible with our present
view of quantum mechanics. It is generally believed that an overarching
quantum gravity theory may solve the problem und yield a deeper
understanding of the gravitational force. Intense research is in progress. The
Tree of Everything predicts here that an ultimate solution will involve a
strong complementarity between gravity and the strong nuclear force (see
also Chapter 9).
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 33
-
2nd
Doublet:EM force and weak force
The EM force and the weak force represent different facets of the
electroweak force and are thus very closely and mutually related; each
presupposing the other in electroweak theory.
Something to Wonder About
We know a lot about the material particles and the forces acting between
them. But it is exactly this detailed knowledge that leads to a great many
surprising, even perplexing, questions. Is there any explanation for the fact
that two forces have unlimited reach (gravity and EM) whereas the other
two are limited to distances of the order of 10-13
cm or less? Why is gravity
1039
times weaker than the strong nuclear force?
How would the world change if the force of gravity were twice as
strong as it actually is? What effect would it have if we were to double the
strength of the EM force? What, at first glance, may look like a high-level
scientific pastime turns out to be a very serious undertaking with far-
reaching philosophical implications. The remarkable fact is that we would
not be here if the various properties of the elementary particles were
somewhat different than what they actually are.
In the words of one of todays best-known physicists, Brian Greene:
the detailed features of the elementary particles are entwined with what
many view as the deepest question in all of science: Why do the elementary
particles have just the right properties to allow nuclear processes to
happen, stars to light up, planets to form around stars, and on at least one
such planet, life to exist? [Italics by Greene]4 Greene refers here to the so-
called Anthropic Principle which states the surprising, and much
discussed, fact that the properties of the particles and forces of Nature, and
the various constants of the laws of physics, happen to have almost exactly
the values they need to have in order to allow for the eventual evolution of
life, consciousness and human culture.
34 The Evolution of Meaning
-
Here are some examples of the facts supporting the validity of the
principle. If the weak force were only a few percent stronger than it actually
is, all of the neutrons would have decayed shortly after the beginning of the
Universe and we would have ended up with a Universe of 100% hydrogen.
There would have been no cosmic and terrestrial evolution processes which
eventually paved the way to the human culture of our day. If, on the other
hand, the weak force were to be even somewhat weaker than it is, only a
small portion of the neutrons would decay before being bound up with
protons to form helium nuclei, and the resulting Universe would consist of
almost 100% helium; another dead end.
The strong nuclear force holds together the nuclei of the atoms.
Should this force be only 1% stronger, hydrogen would not exist because
the protons would have become bound up, with other protons and neutrons,
to form heavy nuclei. The disastrous result would have been that there
would now be no water in the Universe, and no life. On the other hand, if
the strong nuclear force were a little bit weaker than it is we would get into
two other problems: (1) Hydrogen-based nuclear fusion would no longer be
possible and we would be left without the sun or other stars to serve as
energy sources. (2) Only hydrogen atoms would be stable, no chemical
evolution could take place and the Universe would have remained a dead
place for all eternity.
The electromagnetic (EM) force is vital for all of chemistry because it
determines the strength with which the electrons of atoms are bound to the
nucleus. Were this force to be only a few percent stronger than it actually is,
the electrons would be much too strongly bound to the nucleus for any of
the more complex molecules to form. Sophisticated assemblies, such as
DNA or the proteins of living organisms, would have never had the slightest
chance of coming into existence. If, on the other hand, the EM force were
somewhat weaker than it is, the electrons would bind much too loosely to
the nuclei, with essentially the same result: no DNA, no proteins and no life.
The most mysterious of the forces is gravity; a force of almost zero
strength when compared to the other three forces of Nature. Gravity is so
incredibly weak that one might be tempted to consider it a negligible
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 35
-
quantity. It is, in fact, a quantity that one does not need to consider when
studying the interaction of elementary particles or the behavior of small
entities, such as atoms and molecules. However, it turns out that we would
not be here if the force of gravity were much different from what it actually
is. Let us see why.
From the viewpoint of any living organism, stars are needed for two
things. Firstly, it is the nuclear reactions in the stars that produce the heavier
elements needed for the formation of the complex molecular and biological
structures that are required for the evolution of living organisms. Secondly,
the stars provide the continuous stream of energy which an organism needs
in order to develop and maintain these complex structures. In both cases
there are stringent conditions which the stars must meet in order to fulfill
their task.
On Earth, for example, it has taken life a period of more than three
billion years to evolve creatures as complex as man, with his unbelievably
intricate brain structure. For this to happen, most of the elements we are
made of, such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, must have previously been
produced in stars, so that they were available on Earth and ready for
chemical evolution to begin. Secondly, the sun must be of the right size,
contain the right components and be in a stable condition, so that it can
provide us with a constant stream of energy for more than three billion
years.
Here is some of the fine-tuning required to fulfill these requirements.
If the force of gravity were somewhat stronger than it is, the nuclear
reactions in the sun and all of the other stars would be much more violent
and the stars would burn out much faster: life would not have the billions of
years it needs in order to evolve to the human level.
On the other hand, if the force of gravity were a little weaker than it
actually is, the effect would have been twofold. For one thing, stars and
galaxies would most likely have never been able to form in the first place.
Secondly, if stars had indeed formed at some place in the Universe, gravity
would have been too weak to press the hydrogen gas atoms together to
beyond the critical point needed for nuclear reactions to take place: The
36 The Evolution of Meaning
-
heavier elements would thus never have had a chance of seeing the world;
and stellar energy sources could not have arisen.
Another problem is the production of the heavier elements in stars.
We have already seen that the weak force needs to be almost exactly as it is,
or we would end up with a world that contains either only hydrogen, or only
helium. Once a Universe reaches such a state, nothing happens anymore and
no further chemical evolution is possible. Only if the Universe succeeds in
generating, in its very first evolutionary stages, a carefully adjusted mixture
of hydrogen, deuterium (a hydrogen isotope) and helium, will it be possible
to synthesize the heavier elements needed for complex structures, such as
living organisms.
Let us now turn to the basic components of atoms; protons, neutrons
and electrons. The masses of the proton and the neutron are quite similar:
938.3 MeV (million electron volts) and 939.6 MeV, respectively. The small
difference between them is very important in many ways. For example, the
deuterium mentioned above would not form if the difference between the
masses of the proton and the neutron were to be even slightly different from
what it actually is; with the result that the heavier elements needed for the
evolution of life could not have been synthesized in the stars.
In addition, it is good that the mass of the electron is smaller than the
already small neutron-proton mass difference. If this were not the case, the
neutron would be a stable particle and would not decay as it actually does
to form a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The result would have been
that most of the protons and electrons in the early Universe would have
combined to form stable neutrons; leaving too little hydrogen to act as the
fuel of the stars.
The processes by which the various heavy elements are formed, in the
center of stars, often depend upon very special physical properties of the
particles taking part in these reactions. For example, there is the famous
prediction, of the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, that the carbon nucleus
must have an excited energy level of 7.7 MeV; otherwise it would be
impossible that the Universe could contain as much carbon as it actually
does. As all forms of life depend critically upon the abundant availability of
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 37
-
carbon, with its very special chemical properties, this energy level is a pre-
requisite for our being here.
Hoyle had noted that the stellar carbon-manufacturing process
combines three helium atoms into one carbon atom. As it is quite unlikely
that three atoms should meet, under the proper energetic conditions, to
combine in this way Hoyle suggested that two helium nuclei first interact to
form a beryllium nucleus and that this beryllium nucleus could then interact
with another helium nucleus to yield carbon. For this to happen in
appreciable quantities, carbon would need to have a 7.7 MeV excited state
in order to provide for the high reaction probability required for this two-
step process5. When experimental investigations showed that carbon indeed
had such an excited state, at 7.66 MeV, Hoyle shot to fame and science was
enriched by the experimental confirmation of yet another very special
condition which our Universe has to fulfill in order for us to be here.
In fact, Hoyle himself was so impressed by his discovery that he
wrote: I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would
fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been
deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside
the stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part
of a deep-laid scheme. If not, then we are back again at a monstrous series
of accidents6.
There are dozens of characteristic twists of this sort, all of them
being required to be in place if life is to evolve on Earth. These include
relatively unspectacular, more or less hidden items, such as Hoyles 7.66
MeV excited state for the carbon nucleus and the finely-tuned mass ratios of
the elementary particles. Other prerequisites for life include the large-scale
properties of the Universe as a whole, such as its very special geometry, the
somewhat mysterious cosmological constant (which governs the expansion
of the Universe) and the highly improbable initial rate of cosmic expansion
following the so-called Big Bang; the beginning of the Universe. If any of
these parameters were much different, galaxies, stars and planets could
never have formed.
38 The Evolution of Meaning
-
There is no question among physicists that the argument behind the
Anthropic Principle is real. "A life-giving factor lies at the center of the
whole machinery and design of the world" concludes John A. Wheeler; one
of the most towering figures of 20thcentury physics
7
We shall not discuss here further the implications of the Anthropic
Principle, nor do we see any immediate connection with the structural
features of the Tree of Everything. Still, these are important scientific
findings that are in need of study and clarification.
The Interaction between Particles
How exactly do material particles interact with each other? According to
quantum field theory, elementary particles can be pictured as constantly
emitting, and re-absorbing, force-carrying virtual particles. The latter are
not directly observed, but their existence can be indirectly verified. These
virtual particles, also called messenger particles, communicate the forces
that are characteristic of the elementary particle by which they are emitted.
The messenger particles of the electromagnetic force, for example, are
virtual photons. One can picture the electromagnetic field of an electron as
being a cloud composed of virtual photons carrying the message here is a
negatively-charged particle.
The interaction between two electrons can thus be described as
follows. A given electron A continuously emits, and re-absorbs, virtual
photons; thus building up an electromagnetic field around itself. If another
electron, B, happens to come close to A, it will absorb photons that have
been emitted by A and thus notice that it is approaching another
electron. Of course, B also emits photons and these are absorbed by A.
The overall process can thus be described as involving an exchange of
photons between the two particles; resulting in the effect that the two
electrons move away from each other (because both electrons carry the
same charge, thus repelling each other).
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 39
-
Figure 3.2 The information-processing triplet of the Tree of Everything.
40 The Evolution of Meaning
-
The physicist Brian Greene8 likens the process to an ice-skater who
affects a fellow ice-skaters motion by hurling a barrage of bowling balls at
him. An important failing of the ice-skater analogy, Greene points out, is
that the exchange of bowling balls is always repulsive it always drives
the skaters apart. In the case of two electrons, this analogy works well. But
if we have two oppositely charged particles, a negatively charged electron
and a positively charged positron, for example, the result of the photon
exchange is exactly the opposite, i.e. the particles are drawn together. Its
as if the photon is not so much the transmitter of a force per se, but rather
the transmitter of a message [emphasis by Greene] of how the recipient
must respond to the force in question. The message is either move apart
or come together.
It follows that the interaction between two electrons, A and B, is
equivalent to an information process in which each electron absorbs a
photon emitted by the other electron, and both react in accordance with
the applicable physical laws by moving away from each other.
In other words, interactions between particles are best described in
terms of communication and information-processing events. In the same
way that the EM force is communicated by means of virtual phonons, the
strong nuclear force employs eight types of gluons, which are exchanged
between quarks with the result of gluing these tightly together. The weak
force is transmitted via electrically charged W+ and W
- bosons, and the
neutral Z boson, and gravity can be pictured as being communicated by
means of virtual gravitons. Gravity is not yet fully understood however and,
so far, the graviton has not yet been observed experimentally.
The Information-Processing Triplet of Parameters
There exists a strong complementarity between matter and forces. On the
one hand, the material particles emit virtual force-communicating particles;
and on the other hand, these messenger particles communicate the presence
of the normal particles to the rest of the world. In other words, the
messenger particles are due to normal particles and the latter cannot be said
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 41
-
to exist unless the messenger particles communicate their presence. This
complementarity is shown in Figure 3.2, second level from the bottom, to
originate from the law-like-information parameter (to be discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 4).
As we shall see below, the information processing triplet (Fig. 3.2)
exhibits the same general features that also characterize all other triplets of
the Tree of Everything. The unifying view of the three parameters (matter,
forces and law-like information) is given by the fact that all three items
taken together are needed to produce observable reality. We have already
noted that interaction processes require both material particles, and virtual
force-communicating particles. But there is also a third item involved here:
the laws that describe the interaction process.
We present reality here in terms of information processing events.
This is in line with the thinking of a number of todays physicists, such as
Lee Smolin who tells us that it is an illusion that the world consists of
objects the Universe consists of a large number of events and the flow
of information among events.
According to John A. Wheelers it from bit doctrine, all things
physical are information-theoretic in origin: Otherwise put, every it
every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself
derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely even if in
some contexts indirectly from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no
questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every
item of the physical world has at bottom a very deep bottom, in most
instances an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality
arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the
registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical
are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory Uni-
verse9.
Fundamentally speaking, reality is made up of information processing
events that lead to observable changes. Such events are based not only upon
material entities that communicate with each other (via virtual messenger
particles), but also require the existence of law-like entities such as
42 The Evolution of Meaning
-
fundamental laws, rules, habits, norms and ordering principles; subsumed
here under the heading of law-like information. This will be the topic of
the next Chapter.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 43
-
Chapter 4
Law-Like Information
The laws of Nature are of a
stronger and more explicit reality
than the objects to which they refer
Henning Genz
Law-like information has a special status in the structure of the Tree of
Everything (Fig. 3.2) constituting, as it does, the connection between the
two matter-related triplets of the lower part of the tree and the two upper
triplets which refer to immaterial parameters. Even though laws and law-
like entities are clearly immaterial in nature, they have some features that
connect them closely to the material aspects of the world. This will become
clearer below. Let us first consider the nature of information-processing
events, and the reality status of laws and law-like entities.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 45-82 (2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerlanddoi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SMPF.2.45
-
The General Information Cycle
One can differentiate between three aspects of information: (1) syntax refers
to the occurrence of individual units of information (the letters of an
alphabet, for example); (2) semantics is concerned with the meaning of a
given set of information units; and (3) pragmatics describes the effect of the
information units (after their meaning has been recognized). In his standard
text on information theory, the philosopher Holger Lyre emphasizes that
these three kinds of information are inseparably unified; merely
representing different aspects of the fundamental information concept1.
In short, information is a dynamic concept representing a sequence
of three different items; (1) existence of information units (syntax), (2)
understanding (semantics) and (3) production of information (pragmatics).
On the basis of these three aspects it is possible to formulate a general
information cycle that can be applied to all observable events taking place in
the Universe. The cycle is based upon the following key concepts2.
(1) An Information Processing Entity (IPE) is any entity that is
capable of sensing information, and reacting accordingly. The simplest
processors are elementary particles, e.g. electrons and quarks. These can
combine to form physical aggregates such as atoms and molecules. The
most complex processors that we know of are found in the realm of life;
living cells, multi-cellular organisms, conscious creatures and humans.
(2) Potential Information is latent information that transforms into
factual information once it is taken up and understood, in some way, by a
given processor (IPE). Potential information is communicated by material
entities, such as photons (light) reflected from a traffic sign. Its actual
meaning, in a given event, depends upon both the IPE and the situation at
hand. A traffic sign, for example, carries quite different actual information
depending upon whether the respective IPE is a car driver or a buzzard.
According to Jeremy Campbell3, information is in essence a theory
about making the possible actual. Prior to being charged with meaning, all
kinds of interpretations of a given situation are available. It depends upon
the receiver of the information (the IPE), and upon the corresponding
46 The Evolution of Meaning
-
context, which factual semantic information will be generated from a given
potential setting.
(3) Factual Information results from sensing, and understanding, a
given situation in some way. It refers to the meaning that the potential
information has for a given processor in a given context. Factual
information can be questioned as to its truth value (true or untrue?). There is
no need for such information to be true, but it is always possible to question
its truth value. The adjunct, factual, thus does not refer to some absolute
truth; it refers rather to what the processor holds to be true.
(4) Law-like Information refers to such entities as laws, rules,
algorithms, norms, habits, rational behavior, decision fields or patterns of
order that guide, or describe, the actions of an IPE; once a given situation
has been understood in one way or another. Law-like information refers to
the pragmatic level of description of an event and is given by an if-then
structure; the information simply describes what is being done, or prescribes
what is to be done.
(5) The Real Effect represents the observable result of an information
process. A car may stop in front of a traffic sign; a buzzard may settle on
top of it. If there is no noticeable effect, no information processing has
taken place.
The above concepts are related to each other by the following general
information cycle; the denomination IPE indicating that the respective
information depends upon the IPE in question:
Potential Info + Factual InfoIPE + Law-like InfoIPE Real Effect
The basic premise here is that Nature is made up of causally-related,
information-processing events. The potential information of a given
syntactic situation is interpreted by an information processing entity (IPE)
in terms of the factual situation at hand (as understood by the IPE) and the
corresponding action to take (as guided by IPE-specific law-like
information). The three items together yield an observable effect, i.e. a
physical, or mental, change due to the information process. The observable
effect may concern the environment or the IPE, or both. The term
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 47
-
environment here is relative to the IPE; everything that is not the IPE
represents part of the environment. The real effect may be regarded as
being the most important aspect of the overall process. It represents
potential information for other information cycles to begin with (Figure
4.1).
The crucial point is that the four parts of the information cycle form
an indivisible whole. The potential information of a given situation
represents (syntactic) information only if it is understood (taken up) by
someone, or something, in some way. The factual interpretation of the
situation at hand leads the processor to act in a way that can be described in
terms of laws or other law-like entities; e.g. when nearing a stop sign,
apply the brakes (if the IPE is a car driver), or when coming close to an
electron, change the direction of flight (if the IPE is a negatively charged
particle).
The factual information of a given setting cannot be defined in
absolute terms. According to Lyre4, the probably most important
characteristic of information is the fact that it is, ultimately, information for
somebody [emphasis by Lyre]. Information is information for somebody,
or something (the IPE). The virtual photons of an electromagnetic (EM)
field, for example, potentially carry information for those particles that are
capable of interacting with EM fields, such as electrons or protons. For
other particles, e.g. neutrinos, they do not carry any information (because
neutrinos cannot take up virtual phonons). Information must be understood
in order to be information. The word understanding is here used in a broad
way and includes the unconscious sensing of physical data.
For living creatures, factual information is that information which, in
a given context, is held to be true. It does not need to be true (e.g. for other
creatures), but it is the kind of information that can be questioned as to its
truth value. In the realm of life, the concept of meaning is useful only in
reference to an individual, and his interpretation of a given situation.
Meaning develops at the interface between an IPE and the rest of the world.
48 The Evolution of Meaning
-
Figure 4.1 The general information cycle begins with the syntactic
information that is encapsulated in a given situation and whose potential
information content is interpreted, in some way, by a processor (IPE). The
corresponding factual information (as understood by the IPE) leads to a
reaction, which can be described in terms of an if-then rule (law-like
information). The resulting real effect (an observable change in the world)
concludes the cycle and confirms the reality status of the first three items of
the process (syntactic-potential, factual and law-like information). The real
(i.e. observable) effect not only constitutes potential information for further
cycles to begin with but also represents the sine qua non condition for an
information process to take place at all.
Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 49
-
Once a processor has interpreted a given situation, he is bound to act
in some way. Even the decision simply to discard a piece of information is
an action which concludes the information process with an effect. The
action of an IPE may be described by a simple if-then rule; e.g. If I see a
stop sign, then I apply the brake. Such a rule may already exist in the mind
of the processor (e.g. if the IPE has learned the rule in driving school), or he
generates it spontaneously. All actions can be formulated in terms of if-then
rules.
It is important to note that the basic laws of physics, and the
additionally emerging rules, are not causing the outcome of an event; rather,
it is the triad of potential information, factual understanding and pertinent
law-like information that leads to an observable result. Here is an example.
Let a wild beast run towards me (potential information); I notice the beast
(factual information) and my logical reasoning leads me to the rule, In case
of danger, try to escape (law-like information); and here I am on the run
(real effect). It is not only my decision to escape that causes me to act.
Rather, this is just one of a triad of items which together cause the event.
Without the wild beast running towards me, and without my noticing this
state of affairs, I would not have run away. All three factors together
produce the causal background that results in the observable effect of my
flight.
In higher animals, and especially in humans, the relationship between
potential information, factual interpretation and law-like action is often
highly complex, so that these three steps are intricately interwoven, rather
than being strictly ordered in this sequence. In any case, the decisive
element of the information cycle is always the real effect, i.e. the change in
the world that the cycle produces. What counts is realized reality (Sartre).
We can tell that the potential information of a given situation has been
understood and reacted upon, if some noticeable effect results. If there is no
observable effect, there is no event, no information processing. In the words
of physicist H.C. Baeyer, unless information leads to significant conse-
quences, it is not really information at all5. The observable effect makes a
cycle become reality; thus creating new potential information. The potential
50 The Evolution of Meaning
-
setting with which an information cycle begins is the result of all of the
previous cycles that have ever taken place.
This line of thought overcomes