• Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    I don’t think it would be excessive if I asked for EnglishAverage

    thanks for your ideas and questionings. I probably am not good enough at explaining it, so I'm hoping others in the forum who are better than me can chime in with their take on your questions, and hopefully answer you and/or correct me.

    happy holidays!
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    Nevertheless, if you can dumb it down for me, maybe I can follow the logic of your topic. If not, I'll bow outGnomon

    Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I don't think it is a matter of "dumb it down" b/c I've come to realize that we have very different goals. So, there is science that supports your take, in that all matter is nothing more that quantum state configuration 'information', and that could be philosophically useful for you and them in the very abstract. It is just not useful (at least to me) in the realm of delineating and creating all the (mental/cognitive/algorithmic) transforms that go from measured scalar values to the transcendental wisdom achieved by metacognition. BTW, philo - sophia is the lover of 'knowledge' in the pursuit of 'wisdom', not lover of 'data' in pursuit of 'information'. So, I suspect the ancients, by implication, are telling your dictionary defs that everything is *not* Information.

    best we leave it there!
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    it doesn’t seem any way free will would simply appear at some point in ...these brains. But the feeling we have about ourselves, the others and animals that they have free will is so strong.Rotorblade
    exactly. Far from being a reason of no free will as you think, metacognition and qualia is the pinnacle achievement of sentience in providing sentient beings with objectified existence disassociated from the matter which it executes upon/within, thus having the property of self-determination path within any given set of constraints. So, our definitions would seem to diverge far more that you say, including b/c we end up with opposite conclusions and reasons.
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    If we accept the theory of evolution and we see how from simple mechanisms, lifeforms got more complex then developed a nervous system for centralized coordination then they simply got better and better ...Rotorblade
    they did not simply get better and better or more complex. Far more than that, in fact. They created ever more hierarchical, objectified, and disassociated layers, leading, at some point, to metacognition and qualia.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    If the expectations are unfounded and they are ultimately baseless what good do they do as a metric?Average

    Correct! If you live a life without learning how to build realistic expectations then dead ends and waste of time, effort and resources will be all you know. And you live more in the world of trivia And logistical information than Gaining useful of knowledge and wisdom, which can enable you to rise up the food chain. Information is like food, no one can give you a metric of what food you should eat, as you are the ultimate judge of what you put in your mouth That you expect will give you the best anabolic results, or not.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    What guarantees that the agent isn’t misguided or simply deceived?Average

    There is no guarantee. Hence why it takes so much time to gain the wisdom to know the difference between a waste of time/energy And practical/Useful things worth acquiring and focusing on Which can better lead you somewhere worthwhile.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    Why would the agents own expectations be a good indication of the practicality of knowledge?Average
    Because the agent must invest its energy and time into acquiring and transforming The information and knowledge in its own terms and in its personal Life path. So, if the agent does not have a good expectation that the knowledge would be practical then it would invest last effort/time in pursuing or integrating such knowledge. We do this all the time, so it is kind of obvious to me.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    But "information" is "knowledge" . . . and much more.Gnomon

    I do not agree with those dictionary definitions. It, as with the interpretations you proffer, do not account for the logical Distinctions and Transformations, which must occur To get from one cognitive step to the next. In your framework everything is Information So you miss and lose what operations must be performed And what cognitive structures/dynamics/Algorithms are needed To make and use those transformations.

    Thanks for your contributions here, yet we have to Agree to disagree on this one.

    Happy holidays!
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    Information is Generic in the sense of generating all forms from a formless pool of possibility : the Platonic Forms.Gnomon
    In my DIKW definition framework, I expect generating the Platonic Forms are more about knowledge than information, as they are generic (ideal) knowledge about how to structure and constrain and use a category of imperfect yet very similar objects. Thus, Platonic Forms are very much like ideal models and general templates of expected/experienced objects.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    But I have a more general & pragmatic usage in mind. The concept of "Generic Information" can be applied to just about any philosophical question. But it's not formulated for use in chemistry or physics experiments.Gnomon

    that is fine, and could be interesting to me if useful and applicable to human thought or reasoning.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    "the difference that makes a difference".Gnomon

    that is too vague and conflicted to be useful approach. e.g., randomness can make a difference to something, yet have no tangible information.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    You invite criticism then insult anyone who dares criticize.Wayfarer

    I did not insult you. I think you have a 'thin skin' here. I just said that your "generic is meaningless" criticisms was an off-topic, not a useful, criticism for my practical definition goals, and I explained in detail why/how I reasoned your point was not useful. Not all criticisms are constructive... right?
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    If you say 'I have some information', the first question I'm going to ask is 'what information?' or 'what about?' 'Oh, nothing. It's just information.' Makes no sense.Wayfarer

    I disagree with your way of thinking; however, that is not a meaningful discussion (or rabbit hole) that interests me to debate as it is off topic here, and science disagrees with your personal philosophical view on that. "generic" is another way of saying a "high level of abstraction that is still distinguished and representative of the category in question.

    And, as I said, anything that is useful in at least one context/situation is accordingly meaningful; hence, generic definitions are very useful and meaningful to abstract reasoning.

    On the 'generic' subject, I suspect you are stuck in the (philosophical) weeds for some reason...

    However, if you have constructive contributions/critiques to my definitions then I'm all ears...
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    Of course information is real, but the question is, whether it is fundamental or derivative, the result of other processes. I’m inclined to think of it as derivative and specific.Wayfarer

    in my above DIKW framework it is generally derivative, yet some data (e.g., sensory data) in my definition structure might be fundamentally 'information' without having to derive/transform it further.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    Again, ‘generic information’ is an incoherent concept.Wayfarer

    maybe I misunderstood what you intend to mean by 'generic'. See my above re generic 'food' at let me know if I got you right or wrong on that.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    As I said, I believe information is always specific..., and I'm sceptical of the effort to make 'information' a fundamental or foundational category.Wayfarer

    seems like an unreasonable position to take. For example, your line of thinking would say that there is no meaningful generic definition of 'food', instead every molecule in the universe has to be specifically defined as food or not. whereas, we all know that a generic definition of 'food' as "anything consumed by an organism which may be digested to produce components and fuel needed to build anabolic structures and power metabolic processes of the organism", or such is very useful. So, if we observed an organism consuming a rock and it did not result in producing any fuel/energy or anabolic components then we could say that a 'rock' is not 'food' to that organism. I do not see a similar generic definition of 'information' as being any less useful as to categorizing the types of data that may be considered as 'information' to a specific organism or process.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    It's meaningless to talk about 'generic information'Wayfarer

    How is my DIKW framework, as defined, "meaningless" when it specifies exact structures, metes and bounds, inputs and outputs, and functions that a phenomenon must satisfy to be considered to be "Information".

    I would posit that anything that is useful in at least one context/situation is accordingly meaningful.

    So, what exactly is not useful about my proposed 'generic information' definition?:
    Information: any transformation or interpretation of data and/or other information, including sensory information, which makes it useful to build knowledge.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    I assume the referenced question is about "how the mechanism of organism works". And your "definition" makes the most obvious distinction between Mechanism and Organism : Mechanisms are passive media through which energy passes, while Organisms are active agents that turn some of that energy to their own personal purposes.Gnomon

    no. my definition of 'living' is not based on, thus does not assume, an Organism is present, as that would be a circular (dictionary like) definition. Instead, all my definitions are based on concreate, observable behaviors or measurable configurations/transformations which the matter must follow/perform to fit within my category as defined . So, please specifically read the definition you question and specifically point out where it is flawed in achieving the goals of an ideal definition (be it scientific or Philosophical).
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    this is an example of what I mean, as being way too vague and not even Philosophically well defined, to be helpful a more exact definition:
    Yes. I was led by my exploration of the Enformationism thesis to conclude that something like a Divine Creator -- or First Cause of our space-time sequence of secondary causes -- is reasonable to assume; perhaps even necessary to believe. But the very generality & universality of Information in the real world, does not specify any particular traditional deity concept. Nor does it imply any humanoid characteristics, such as motherly love or fatherly commandments.Gnomon

    So, to reiterate: please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information" in functional terms that is consistent with and predicts all known observations, and point out how it performs that better than my proposal. Thx.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    If you have any interest in a Philosophical framework & definition of "Information", the linked thread below discusses the Epistemological & Ontological status of that traditional & technical term.Gnomon
    A Philosophical framework & definition of "Information" would be fine, but I read your comments in that thread and could not find any clearly stated definition of "Information" at all, just allot of arm waving about Enformationism, Teleological Attractors, etc. So, I tend to agree w/ @Wayfarer where he responded to you:
    Well, all due respect, I don't think you've really clarified it.Wayfarer

    So, please clearly state your Philosophical definition of "Information" in functional terms that is consistent with and predicts all known observations, and point out how it performs that better than my proposal. Thx.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    How do we measure the practicality of knowledge or the suitability of pathways?Average
    one measure of potential utility (a kind of practicality) would be if the information/knowledge is expected to be useful in creating, or bridging to, any wisdom the agent would expect to be valuable. A measure of 'practicality' might be the degree that the information increases the agent's (expected or actual) negentropy or total potential energy, maybe after working out obvious/monotonic implementation/contextual problems.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    This definition strikes me as impractical. Maybe it’s just the way it was worded but it’s not clear what optimization actually means in this context.Average
    optimization is typically done to do the classic "smaller, faster, better, cheaper" , or less errors, more efficient/effective, less harm to others, more morally pure, etc. Wisdom level 'optimization' generally is the optimal balance of identifying and achieving a goal that is most aligned with the agent's areas of concerns, desired affordable costs/efforts, and desired gains in potential energy or getting closer to a truth.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    Yours lives more room for interpretation in the sense you define something that may be possible although I don’t see how it could do it, I can’t exclude it with certainty.Rotorblade

    While top level, conceptual, definitions have to be broad to cover all means of implementation of the key distinguishing principles, I do give functional limits, dynamics, and outputs that 'free will' must achieve. For example, for 'data', see where I define it as serving a type of free will, in re "wherein the values are used as inputs to molecular programs, computational state-machines, and to calculate and/or carry out, potential path(s) to carry out Primitive Free Will"

    in my 'free will' thread I define how to implement calculating suitable path(s) that carry out Primitive Free Will (in re locally violating PLA).
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    It seems a better definition. At least mine doesn’t make room for free will./quote]

    not sure what you mean. why are you apparently arguing that free will does not exist in the brain? My definitions are completely based on "free will" and enacting it in a way that is consistent with and predicts all known observations.
    Rotorblade
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    So you mean the brain as a machine creates the thoughts but then these thoughts can cause nature to veer off it’s normal course?Rotorblade

    no. not "cause nature to veer off it’s normal course", which may happen under acts of free will to modify the environment as a way to locally violate the PLA, but primarily free will causes the matter under the living ("thinking") agent's control to "act" in ways that veers the agent's matter off it’s normal course that nature would otherwise prescribe (e.g., per the PLA).
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    Since these "energies" have not been found by Physical Science, the names must refer to some Meta-physical power. In the Frankenstein novel, even the raw power of lightening was imagined as the vitalizing force. But nobody knows exactly how the "mechanism of organism" works. It seems to be related to the phase change from a collection of parts, to a single unified organic biological Whole.

    I can't specify all the transitional steps from Matter to Life to Mind, but it seems to be merely a highly-evolved kind of Phase Transition --- like liquid to gas to solid.
    Gnomon

    towards answering your question above, please review my proposed "Scientific Definition of Living vs inanimate matter" here:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9733/towards-a-scientific-definition-of-living-vs-inanimate-matter/p1

    and let me know what you think. It identifies the initial phase changes you are looking for. then look into pg2 of comments and search for my comments re "virus", at:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/9733/towards-a-scientific-definition-of-living-vs-inanimate-matter/p2

    esp., read my comment with the "gliding plane" example.

    then read my comments re 'prion'. I'm pretty sure that prions are the earliest phase change from dead to living matter, per my definition there.

    I look forward to learn what you think of my proposal and comments there.

    thx.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    If you have any interest in a Philosophical framework & definition of "Information", the linked thread below discusses the Epistemological & Ontological status of that traditional & technical term.Gnomon

    that was a great discussion you had w/ @Wayfarer. thanks for pointing me to it. I will respond with a more philosophical version to align with your sensibilities. BTW, what I'm proposing is much more what you are wanting than what Shannon is providing. I will explain soon.
  • Towards Theory/Definitions of Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom
    To me free will is the claimed ability to take a decision without this decision being the result of the interactions between the fundamental constituents the brain is made of or whatever makes the thought possible.Rotorblade
    to clarify my prior point on the 'free will' thread, I should also point out that call conscious decisions must be based on data and information, which according to my above definitions necessarily must be "the result of the interactions between the fundamental constituents the brain is made of or whatever makes the thought possible", which contradicts your definition approach. So, my proposed definitions would seem to perform better than yours.
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    Any particle can deviate from the minimum action path, so everything has what you call primitive free will. The deviation is randomRotorblade
    not really. what you are talking about is in pure quantum states which have no action on the real world. As Feynman discovered in his QED theory, all those pure quantum random paths that deviate from the PLA cancel out to collapse only into the classical PLA path of action we observe.

    So, sure, there is a possibility for any single particles that have a probability to act otherwise, ,however, they do so with such low probabilities it could take the age of the universe for it to actually happen. Hence, it effectively never happens; e.g., you will never observe photons not refracting from air to water according to the principle of least time (i.e., Snell's law).
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    To me free will is the claimed ability to take a decision without this decision being the result of the interactions between the fundamental constituents the brain is made of or whatever makes the thought possible.Rotorblade

    I don't see how that definition works b/c any conscious decision will always be based on interactions with the unconscious that is creating the context and perceptions that conscious thought works within, which makes grounded thoughts possible. maybe you can better refine your definition in this light.
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    This would also be unpredictable in practice. The question is whether both the robot and the human are fundamentally predictable, but very hard to practically predict, or whether there is something about life that's fundamentally unpredictable.

    You assert the latter, but your argument doesn't actually support that conclusion.
    Echarmion

    I think I've supported the "fundamentally unpredictable" conclusion above. That said, you do get more predictability when the living being acts on 'Primitive Free Will' if you know it set of 'goals' (e.g., always seeks food/energy) and Degrees of freedom of their physical capabilities (e.g., types/nature of locomotion, control/effector surfaces, etc.), b/c their range of PLA deviant paths will be much more limited and far less dynamic.

    let me know otherwise...

    cheers,
    :wink:
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    In your glider example, one could easily replace the human pilot with a robot that operates the gliders to land at a random, suitable point, the randomness provided by some form of random number generator.Echarmion

    a "random number generator" does affect the impossibility of motion prediction, IMHO, b/c, while it would increase the range of uncertainty about where the glider would land you could still get a reasonable estimate based on knowing, figuring out, the probability density function (PDF) of the random distribution the random number generator is sampling from. With that you could get a mean and variance of "actions" the robot will take, and most 'actions' would average out to zero over the whole gliding path to the ground. whereas, a human has purposeful goals which are completely unpredictable; e.g., if the human wanted to stay in the air for maximum time he'd behave like vultures looking for and riding thermals keeping them in the air forever and taking them to ever new spatial locations. Zero chance of predicted where that living glider system will ever end up on the ground, or when. whereas if you kill the human in the glider, you know pretty well by the physical laws of motion where and when that (dead) glider will end up on the ground if you know the atmospheric dynamics around the (dead) glider.

    make sense???
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    Your definitions simply sidestep the core problemEcharmion

    excellent point, and where I was hoping discussions would start with, instead of the big PLA distraction. I just added this to my OP (re living) to help explain what my PLA criterion for 'living' (and thus start of free will) means in more plain English:
    NOTE: the intuitive gist of what I'm saying above wrt PLA is that the physical laws of motion drive, and thus predict, the motion of inanimate matter, whereas animate (i.e., living) matter, in contrast, is the driver's seat manipulating and controlling the physical laws of motion towards a self-determined, unpredictable, path for which there are no physical laws of motion which can predict where or what state of configuration the living matter will end up in even if you perfectly know all the environmental forces and dynamic conditions in its phase/configuration/action space/time. In this way, any matter which deviates from that predicted by PLA exhibits an act of living primitive free will for which no inanimate matter is capable of. Also, note that this act of living primitive free will conceptual could come before the matter attains the rest of the requirements to be sustainable, living matter, which may be how (dead) matter explores paths towards sustainable (e.g., sentient & reproducing) living configurations and processes, thereby bootstrapping the path from dead to living matter.
    =============
    , which is how do we know what happens inside the intelligent system is not just another physical process, following the standard laws?Echarmion

    Now, back to answering your question: My above proves that the state of configuration and path of motion of living matter are completely self-determined and unpredictable as there are no physical laws of motion which can predict where or what state of external configuration, or what 'actions' the living matter will end up in. Thus, it naturally follows that there are, likewise, no physical laws of motion that can govern or predict what internal state of motion or configuration or behavior, or what resulting 'actions'[/b] the living matter will end up making to itself and/or the environment for similar reasons as the external motion/action case. More specifically, for example, because the living matter's internal (behavioral) states completely, chaotically, randomly, non-monotonically, etc., depend, in a very degenerate manner, on the external configuration/conditions/path, which I've already proven no physical laws of motion or interactions can govern or predict, then it is impossible for those same physical laws of motion physical laws of motion/interactions to predict the internal states/function/behavior from what they unpredictably depend upon. QED!

    More generally, in my framework, you are jumping way too far down the chain to talk about 'intentionality' of the living matter. in my framework, you have to break 'free will' down to a continuous hierarchy from clear zero free will (inanimate matter) to increasing stages/categories of 'free will' which one builds-on and simultaneously may coexist as part of a final decision to make an 'action' on the 'free will'. Thus, I am breaking it all down horizontally and vertically in all functional terms and functional constituents. I believe most of what humans consider as actions arising from their qualia of 'free will' is in my highest 'Conscious Free Will"; however, you will never be able to categorize all (not even most!) human actions in that category b/c the vast majority of human actions are very pragmatic and based on scripts and habits which mostly reside in my "Sentient Free Will" category, and most of our unconscious actions/behaviors likely are governed by my "Primitive Free Will" category. They all occur in parallel and as an interference pattern in superposition as the 'collapse' to form a final 'action' for which we have to do even do personal CSI type of introspection investigations to figure out where, why, and what was the 'intention' and 'purpose' and 'meaning' of an 'action' we 'decided' to make.

    So, in my framework, most philosophical and neurosciences accounts, models, and discussions of 'free will' are mostly non-sense, and only out of context, (very) partial truths at best.

    I'm hoping the strong philo types will find real logical flaws or strong counter-examples to my proposed 'free will' framework, which, BTW, I ground all the way down to the molecular level and physics!

    BTW, for the sake of completeness, I added a new type of 'free will' to my OP.
    Quantum Free Will: the freedom for pure quantum systems to probe all possible valid paths and/or states of energy in space and time, but no freedom to act on any of them except for that prescribed by the Principle of least action (PLA).
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of an "Action"
    I am curious, is this your personal theory about animate matter, or did you read it somewhere?SophistiCat

    my personal one, part of building a much grander theory of sentience.
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of an "Action"
    Here is a random example from the literature:

    This paper proposes a theory for understanding perceptual learning processes within the general framework of laws of nature
    SophistiCat

    Nice reference, however, that approach only works with a Lagrangian b/c it is a pure function of time and the dynamics of their learning processes are only applicable to those have stochastic gradients, which does not apply to the general (e.g., Genetic) algorithm programs/learning behavior control systems, such as a molecular program of a virus.
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of an "Action"
    Once you define your Lagrangian (a mathematical object), then the definition of action follows straightforwardly from that. But how the Lagrangian is cached out in physical terms is going to vary from one theory to another. It is one thing in non-relativistic classical mechanics, another - in relativistic classical mechanics, yet another in quantum mechanics, etc.SophistiCat

    I disagree with you on that.

    PLA simply does not always apply. So, it is wrong as a universal principle as it can never apply to predicting or modeling "intelligent control" situations. PLA prescribes the exact path the object has to take if you know the starting and ending locations and a constant force field that acts on it. So, I'll give you a simpler example: You can never predict where a human piloted glider will end up landing, even though it expends no KE beyond that which PLA proscribes and is motion is completely determined by PLA at each moment, but PLA does not apply (i.e., becomes useless as a predictive equation) when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to change forces acting on it (e.g., changing glider control surfaces) towards its goal (e.g., gaining more PE or choosing where to land), hence no Lagrangian dynamics equation is possible, so no PLA application is possible. Moreover, it is impossible to know the path the piloted glider took even if you knew the starting and ending locations and every molecule of air flow information, b/c the configuration and "intelligent" program control and configuration of the control surfaces at every point along the true path are never knowable ex-post facto. Thus, PLA can never apply to modeling such "intelligent control" situation.

    So, please propose the type of Lagrangian mathematical object that would model such "intelligent control" situations which otherwise render the PLA useless in those situations?

    Let me make it more simple for you: there are no laws of motion which govern the motion of a particle under contextual algorithmic/programmatic (i.e., "intelligent") control. So, it is nonsense to say PLA (or any physics laws of motion) describes the path which any living matter must take. Hence, the soundness of my definition!!!

    In more detail, that is, I say there are no Lagrangian mathematical descriptors that are possible b/c Lagrangian mechanics requires variables that are functions depending on time and requires a constraint equation and only applies be applied to systems whose constraints are all holonomic. Clearly, there are no holonomic constraint equations possible for particles under "intelligent control" as I've explained it (e.g., when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to contextually change forces and KE acting on it), which means their equations of motion are not functions depending of time, but functions of context. Hence, PLA can never apply to modeling such systems under "intelligent control". Seems obvious to me, but if you can evidence otherwise, I'm all ears...


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
    One or more of the particles may each be subject to one or more holonomic constraints; such a constraint is described by an equation of the form f(r, t) = 0. If the number of constraints in the system is C, then each constraint has an equation, f1(r, t) = 0, f2(r, t) = 0, ... fC(r, t) = 0, each of which could apply to any of the particles. If particle k is subject to constraint i, then fi(rk, t) = 0. At any instant of time, the coordinates of a constrained particle are linked together and not independent. The constraint equations determine the allowed paths the particles can move along, but not where they are or how fast they go at every instant of time. Nonholonomic constraints depend on the particle velocities, accelerations, or higher derivatives of position. Lagrangian mechanics can only be applied to systems whose constraints, if any, are all holonomic. Three examples of nonholonomic constraints are:[11]when the constraint equations are nonintegrable, when the constraints have inequalities, or with complicated non-conservative forces like friction. Nonholonomic constraints require special treatment, and one may have to revert to Newtonian mechanics, or use other methods.
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    Obviously it does apply, or else PLA is simply wrong as a description of the physical world, of which viruses are a part.Echarmion

    PLA simply does not always apply. So, it is wrong as a universal principle as it can never apply to predicting or modeling "intelligent control" situations.

    PLA prescribes the exact path the object has to take if you know the starting and ending locations and a constant force field that acts on it. So, I'll give you a simpler example: You can never predict where a human piloted glider will end up landing, even though it expends no KE beyond that which PLA proscribes and is motion is completely determined by PLA at each moment, but PLA does not apply (i.e., becomes useless as a predictive equation) when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to change forces acting on it (e.g., changing glider control surfaces) towards its goal (e.g., gaining more PE or choosing where to land), hence no Lagrangian dynamics equation is possible, so no PLA application is possible. Moreover, it is impossible to know the path the piloted glider took even if you knew the starting and ending locations and every molecule of air flow information, b/c the configuration and "intelligent" program control and configuration of the control surfaces at every point along the true path are never knowable ex-post facto. Thus, PLA can never apply to modeling such "intelligent control" situation.

    So, please propose the type of Lagrangian mathematical object that would model such "intelligent control" situations which otherwise render the PLA useless in those situations?

    Let me make it more simple for you: there are no laws of motion which govern the motion of a particle under contextual algorithmic/programmatic (i.e., "intelligent") control. So, it is nonsense to say PLA (or any physics laws of motion) describes the path which any living matter must take. Hence, the soundness of my definition!!!

    In more detail, that is, I say there are no Lagrangian mathematical descriptors that are possible b/c Lagrangian mechanics requires variables that are functions depending on time and requires a constraint equation and only applies be applied to systems whose constraints are all holonomic. Clearly, there are no holonomic constraint equations possible for particles under "intelligent control" as I've explained it (e.g., when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to contextually change forces and KE acting on it), which means their equations of motion are not functions depending of time, but functions of context. Hence, PLA can never apply to modeling such systems under "intelligent control". Seems obvious to me, but if you can evidence otherwise, I'm all ears...


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
    One or more of the particles may each be subject to one or more holonomic constraints; such a constraint is described by an equation of the form f(r, t) = 0. If the number of constraints in the system is C, then each constraint has an equation, f1(r, t) = 0, f2(r, t) = 0, ... fC(r, t) = 0, each of which could apply to any of the particles. If particle k is subject to constraint i, then fi(rk, t) = 0. At any instant of time, the coordinates of a constrained particle are linked together and not independent. The constraint equations determine the allowed paths the particles can move along, but not where they are or how fast they go at every instant of time. Nonholonomic constraints depend on the particle velocities, accelerations, or higher derivatives of position. Lagrangian mechanics can only be applied to systems whose constraints, if any, are all holonomic. Three examples of nonholonomic constraints are:[11]when the constraint equations are nonintegrable, when the constraints have inequalities, or with complicated non-conservative forces like friction. Nonholonomic constraints require special treatment, and one may have to revert to Newtonian mechanics, or use other methods.
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    Obviously inanimate matter cannot employ "intelligence", whatever that means.Echarmion
    I disagree with that in general terms. That is, an example of "intelligence" includes the molecular program of the virus, which is otherwise inanimate matter but for that molecular program.
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of "Free Will"
    Why not? Clearly we can predict how viruses act generally to for medical purposes. From a physical perspective, a virus is of course very complex, but why would it be unpredictable?Echarmion

    b/c how it behavior depends on the context of its environment, and then its matter configuration and behavior continually and purposefully changes all along that generally random/chaotic path. See my glider analogy in my virus post I pointed you to.

    PLA is not about "predict how viruses act generally to for medical purposes". PLA prescribes the exact path the object has to take if you know the starting and ending locations and a constant force field that acts on it. So, I'll give you a simpler example: You can never predict where a human piloted glider will end up landing, even though it expends no KE and is motion is completely determined by PLA at each moment, but PLA does not apply (i.e., becomes useless as a predictive equation) when the matter purposefully reconfigures itself to change forces acting on it (e.g., changing glider control surfaces) towards its goal (e.g., gaining more PE), hence no Lagrangian dynamics equation is possible, so no PLA application is possible. Moreover, it is impossible to know the path the piloted glider took even if you knew the starting and ending locations and every molecule of air flow information, b/c the configuration and "intelligent" program control of the control surfaces at every point along the true path are never knowable ex-post facto. Thus, PLA can never apply to modeling such "intelligent control" situation.

    I'll copy key parts here below:
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    That is, if we consider a virus organism as an example, it appears to be an inanimate grouping of molecules until it is in the presence of an environment which activates its complex molecular action to be attracted to and mate with living cells that are hijacked to make copies of itself, whereby the virus is leveraging the potential energy gained by the living cell to carry out all the kinetic energy mechanisms necessary to move and replicate the virus. Once a copy or version of the virus is made the virus as a unique entity has effectively increased its potential energy at the expense of the living organisms reduction of its potential energy. In this way, the virus has a complex context dependent molecular potential energy program which is capable of redirecting natural path of least action forces present in certain environments towards path and destination which makes its molecular program with another organism’s molecular program replication machinery that is powered by the other organisms potential energy. Because the virus has no means to consume energy producing matter (i.e., cannot eat something to increase its potential energy so that it can produce its own goal-directed kinetic energy) it must instead systematically and smartly redirect environmental least action forces through a sequential molecular program that manipulates and redirects those forces like a gliding plane with no engines that glides to and safely lands on its target by simply dynamically adjusting its control services to create its own path of least action towards meeting its target destination which completely diverges from the path of least action which nature (i.e. gravity) would have forced the agent to take had the agent not had any such control surfaces or context dependent controlling program. In this way, according to the foregoing definition, the virus particle is indeed alive and the minimal form of life that can exist because anything less would not be able to acquire and redirect potential energy from its environment to increase its own potential energy. I posit that a virus using a cell’s machinery and PE as a tool to make copies of itself is an increase in the virus’ PE because all the viral copies share a common meaning a purpose of the original virus organism thus it has amplified itself and its kinetic action potential to affect its environment according to effective implied purpose of the common molecular program, much like any social/pack animals increase their PE by cooperating with each other in common purpose and behavioral (re)action.

    ...
    I do not expect that any complete and accurate broad B/W definition to classify a living system will be based on entropy. Generally, IMHO, the problem with all entropy based definitions of life is that it is possible for matter to gain potential energy during PLA dynamics without changing or increasing environmental entropy. Thus, matter can have the ability to gain future action potential w/ no change of entropy, and because all living system must gain future action potential to have the ability to create the excess KE to afford to deviate from PLA. So, if your measure is entropy change then such matter could selectively take a deviant path from nature's PLA, yet your entropy based definition would never detect it is actually alive. A virus is a great example of what I mean. Throughout the virus' whole existence "life" at no point is it increasing the entropy of the environment, even while morphing itself to attack and evade all the host's defenses, even while guiding and morphing itself to break through the cell wall, even while it guides and morphs itself to get into the nucleus (etc.), even while it is hijacking the replication machinery (thus all hidden from entropy based definition ), and not until it actually starts making copies of itself does it even potentially show up on the entropy based definition radar, but even then it is arguable that making copies of itself does not increase entropy because there are deletion of (molecular) bits, just rearrangement of existing ones that make its kind vs the host's kind (thus neutral entropy).
  • Towards a Scientific Definition of an "Action"
    And that's not going to happen with the language you're using and how you use it. But here I leave you to it.tim wood

    so, why don't you be constructive, and propose language fixes that keep the spirit of my approach in tact? otherwise, you are not helpful, and just rhetoric.. like any art critique who cannot make their own art.

Sir Philo Sophia

Start FollowingSend a Message