forked from cogito-journal/cogito-journal.github.io
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathpritam_2.html
846 lines (697 loc) · 46.5 KB
/
pritam_2.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
line-height:115%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;}
.MsoPapDefault
{line-height:115%;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page WordSection1
{size:595.45pt 841.7pt;
margin:21.25pt 14.2pt 27.5pt 21.25pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US style='word-wrap:break-word'>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:.5in'><b><span
style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%'>
An analysis of Observation : A picture of how we picture nature</span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'>Introduction
:<u> </u></span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Study of inanimate objects being the discourse of science
naturally carries the question about existence of animate things in perception.
It is just what’s there in physical existence, that constitute the mind and
cognition, although the instantaneous reality can have utter variances among
individual minds, simply the fact that perception cannot be embodied in a
finite state computation, distinguishes the spectrum of its complexity, than
that of inanimate ones. For long literature and philosophy has jargoned about
mind endlessly, each speculating their own possibilities to tie up reality and
perception, but only have hindered the progress of scientific analysis of
causation and perception; along which direction, resides the theory of thought,
mind and all those that were seemingly metaphysical for thousands of years and
maybe information theory can tell us something novel here. Although empirical
evidence enforces the monic physical realism unlike solipsism, but at the same
time the instantaneous realisation of subjectivity in one conscious body exerts
its own truth value. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>In analysing matters that previously weren’t considered <i>natural</i>,
like acquisition of information, synthesis of so, and extrapolation of
knowledge, or let along perceiving an internal thought or external object - in
terms of analytical and scientific paradigm, one requires to consider the wide
range of possibilities from simple<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[1]</span></sup></sup></a>
quantum observation and acquisition of information to the phenomena in much
higher complexity level - subjective observations of seemingly classical
continuum. It appears that the complexity levels might enemerge<a href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[2]</span></sup></sup></a> wholly
different sets of properties to characterise the objects, but to ensure our
trajectory it is straightforward that a process like <b>the act of observation </b>is
common to both the spectrum, concluding a general structure of the process
itself, apart from the description of complexity level it is acting upon. A
thorough contemplation yields a much richer structure between observation,
knowledge and logic, based on which every possible understanding takes place in
cognition, and that logical structuralisation of an entity in perception, in
terms of language, has a very close relation with observability. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'>[ </span></b><b><span
style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'>PoSR</span></b><b><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'> ] Principle of Sufficient Reason</span></b>
: <u>If it is true, then there should necessarily be sufficient reason behind
why it is the case and not anything else </u></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>One extreme subtlety we don’t discuss often, yet extremely
use it always, is the idea that - if it is true then it should be so, or that
if it is true, it is necessarily so; and, ‘therefore there must be sufficient
reason behind why it is the case and not anything else’. this is true for every
phenomenon that totalizes nature. Isn’t that what natural science does when new
observations are made from unknown causes? They consider - since it is
naturally (given the constraints of observation {apparatus arrangement}) the
case, and not anything else - an invariant state that is an invariant to
“causation operator” - there must be a reason behind so. It’s nothing but
scientific investigation, which has at its heart the assumption of PoSR. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'> To know is to
observe, and to understand is to know - this necessary part of <i>the process
of understanding</i> that gives <i>a tiny complex blob of mass, </i>the ability
to comprehend what’s in there in the universe, i.e. the ability to make sense
and not just nonsense<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[3]</span></sup></sup></a>,
in this entirety of the cosmos, is actually very questionable. HOW COME
EXACTLY? We can see consciousness exists and everything, starting from science,
human knowledge, society… all such constructions exist - now use PoSR - what’s
the sufficient reason behind why this is the case and not anything else?</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'>“Actuality
is distinct from Reality” and Quantum Darwinism [<u>2]</u></span></b><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'>: </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> Some
dualities are omni-persistent, quite innate to the structure of existence
itself. Literature has a few names for them like Subjective
experience-/-objective reality, mind-/-matter, phenomenon-/-noumenon and
likewise. What they wish to capture is essentially the distinction between <b>what
is the case </b>and <b>what can be the case.</b> The later one is in the
logical space of the observer, who pictures all other possibilities that give
the same observation - is the reality, whereas the former, where one physical
realisation has taken place, is the <u>actual</u> event. <b>Reality is a
representation of this actuality</b>, without which whatever actually happens
(in nature) wouldn’t make any sense afterall. At the same time, individual
minds are perceiving their internal and external environment<a href="#_ftn4"
name="_ftnref4" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:
115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[4]</span></sup></sup></a> always, and
some representations are impossible in actuality. By this I consider the
entirety of possibilities that human mind <b>can</b> represent, has certain
constructions that aren’t <i>actually tru</i>e [a subjective dream, any such
object that is indecomposable to atoms, yet exists in the form of a
representation ]. Therefore,</p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>Actuality: </b>The truth behind the process (complete
information of its trajectory in hilbert space)</p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b>Reality: </b> The truth about the process (macroscopic
sense - classical correlations)</p>
<p class=MsoNormal>At the same time any fundamental matter functions in a very
peculiar way when an <i>observer</i> intervenes in the path of its evolution -
it freaking changes to a state that is invariant to the operation of “being
found out” <a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[5]</span></sup></sup></a>
[2], i.e. in the Copenhagenian term - collapses or in Everettian term -
branche. But now just use <b>PoSR</b>, why does it act like that? and who is
that observer? </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Unfortunately only the later has a satisfactory answer but
not the former. W. Zurek [2] says, an observer can be anything that interacts,
anything that can accept, or give-off force carriers like photons. Just as a
molecule can <i>observe</i> another one, due to the variance in the charge density,
wrapping electromagnetic fields inside a chemical solution, or a planet can <i>observe<b>
</b></i>distant black-hole merge due to gravitational waves that periodically
distorts its shape; likewise a subjective being <i>observes</i> its unconscious
responses in a dream, or observes a semantic form (meaning) by understanding
it. Clearly an observer from theoretical science seems to have a close
connection with consciousness as a subjective observer (such as those of an
inanimate observer but with origin from much different complexity level), and
we can extend the spectrum of observability to even subjective ones, and
attempt in answering - PoSR behind emergence of subject and consciousness. From
now on the observer can be anything and we can see clearly, consciousness is strongly
correlated to this whole business of understanding and making sense out of
arbitrariness. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>But attempting to answer about the specialty of observation,
the former question, i.e. why does it act like that, when observed a very
sensitive system; it becomes rather unclear, since the nature of observation
seemed to have been hidden under the rug by philosophers and interpreters of
quantum mechanics. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>I’d rather consider, since observation seems fundamental to
things that exist, there should be sufficient reason behind why necessarily it
is the case, just usual PoSR we’ve been discussing. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in'><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span><span
style='font-family:"Courier New"'>“There is no information without
representation”</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:6.5in'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'>- W. Zurek [2]</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:6.5in'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'> Recent
developments by considering observers themselves to be open systems, interacting
with a huge environment where the object under observation also is immersed;
one can show that<i> the perception of classical correlation and repeatable
observables </i>emerge due to a process called <i>Einselection [<b>E</b>nvironment
<b>In</b>duced <b>Selection</b>] </i>[2], which selects out possible states
(pointer states) which are <i>fittest </i>under the action of observation, and
once one <i>act of observation </i>takes place, it falls one of its pointer
states. Zurek [2] names this phenomenon as quantum darwinism, where pointer
states are chosen by the constraints of the environment, and observation
collapses the system to one of such states. In fact one can derive the Born’s
Rule[ <a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[6]</span></sup></sup></a>
] from the postulates in the theory of decoherence [2]. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>Considering the same description,
the perception of classical realism is due to our representation of extrinsic
information, while an intrinsic entity is solely due to the virtue of the mind
itself, talking about which one must tend towards Tononi-Chalmers-Tegmark’s
Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'>“The
Great Divide of Being”, measures and Integrated Information Theory of
Consciousness:</span></b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>
Understanding a thing at its fundamentals is being able to measure it, or
rather formalise a proper measure, suitable for quantities of that thing. Who
wondered if a species would invent natural numbers, let alone quaternions,
which are nothing but <i>measurement of countability </i>and its
higher-dimensional generalisation. Likewise we have been able to suitably
assign measure to kinematics of inanimate matters, since they involve simple
quantities like length, mass and charges, but following the idea of P.
Anderson’s <b>more is different, </b>how can we expect much more complex
structures to have only such measures as its fundamental constituents, rather
its suitable to think of them having different quantities, which are yet unmeasurable.
But phenomenological experience, just as Newton or Kepler did about celestial
mechanics, led Neuroscientist Julio Tononi, Physicist Max Tegmark and
Philosopher David Chalmers to devise <i>a theory to measure consciousness</i>.
In fact they did with few assumptions like <i>Cause-Effect Power</i>, <i>Empiricism
and Emergentism</i>, and showed consciousness to be an intrinsic entity to the
subject and put forward a measure of intrinsic-information content of a complex
system, or somewhat of a measure of complexity - <b><span style='color:#202122;
background:white'>Φ</span></b><b><span style='font-size:10.5pt;line-height:
115%;color:#202122;background:white'> - </span></b> as the measure of
consciousness. But for that, one requires to classify what requires what it
takes for something to exist as an <u>intrinsic entity</u>. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><b>Intrinsic
Existence</b> - <i>Cause‐effect power that is intrinsic - </i>Something can
exist only if it has certain cause-effect power - “<i>Crucially, something can
be said to exist from its own intrinsic perspective – for itself, independent
of external observers – only if it has cause‐effect power intrinsically, that
is, within itself</i>” - [3] </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><b>Compositionality
- </b>It can be said to be composed of its parts only if those parts exerts
cause-effect power over the whole </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><b>Informational
</b>- State of such system requires to be specific to carry out informational
measurements</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><b>Integration
</b>- <i>Cause-effect power is such that it is irreducible - </i>the
transformation of information within the subparts cannot be separated from the
whole without destroying the overall structure - i.e. the measure cannot be
further factored into subparts and the difference that the whole-ness makes
than the sum of its parts - gives the integrated information in this
intrinsical environment (inside cognition). </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'>●<span
style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span><b>Exclusion
- </b><i>Cause-effect power that is maximally irreducible </i>- “<i>From the
intrinsic perspective, something can only exist as an entity if it has definite
borders and spatio‐temporal grain</i>” - [3] - which can find its origin in
Carl Friston’s Markov Blanket formalism of consciousness. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Such requirements - <i>being a global maximum of
irreducible, specific, structured, intrinsic cause-effect power - </i>must be
met for something to strictly exist as an intrinsic entity - one that exists
for itself - as a “subject” of existence. To quote from the author </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:
"Courier New"'>“<i>For something to exist extrinsically, instead, it is
sufficient to have cause‐effect power externally – on something outside.
According to IIT, the distinction between existence as an intrinsic entity and
any lesser kind of physical existence constitutes the “great divide of being.”
And a great divide it is, because it is the same divide as that between
consciousness and unconsciousness: since the requirements for being an
intrinsic entity are exactly the same as those for supporting experience, it
follows that being an intrinsic entity, properly defined, is one and the same
thing as being conscious.</i></span><span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>"</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Courier New"'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:2.0in'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;
line-height:115%'> - Julio Tononi, Integrated Information Theory of
Consciousness : Some Ontological Considerations.</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Clearly it seems a clear and suitable definition of measure,
corresponding <i>intrinsic<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7" title=""><sup><b><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[7]</span></sup></b></sup></a></i>
<i>attributes</i> are necessary in </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>order to understand that which differs a <i>Conscious
observer </i>and a <i>non-conscious<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8" title=""><sup><b><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[8]</span></sup></b></sup></a></i>
one, and this will further guide us to distinguish between <i>a thing</i> and <i>a
being</i>. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>
____<u>O</u>____</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The current text is concerned with providing a basis of
observation in terms of empirical knowledge as well as apriori analytical
knowledge, thus providing an axiomatic viewpoint of what observation entails
from the fundamental interactions to the process of understanding and picturing
the world as we intend. In the following a set of elementary propositions will
be laid flat, of whose elaboration, can be found just correspondingly
afterwards : </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal><b>Apriority of Existence : If it is, it exists; and it is
a thing {PoAE - </b>Proposition of Apriority of Existence<b>}</b></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>[Although fundamental objects are
to be classified based on what it does, i.e. its essence, given certain
constraints; a conscious entity or a subject cannot be classified by an a
priori universality or essence, rather for an existing <i>being</i> - existence
precedes essence [<span style='font-size:10.5pt;line-height:115%;color:#202122;
background:white'> <i>l'existence précède l'essence - </i></span>Jean-Paul
Sartre], which can as well be extended to substances, of unknown or known
essence - though the existence can be solely fictitious in the subject’s exotic
reality, and even in that case it must be considered <i>a real thing</i>, in
the same sense that your dream <i>appears </i>to you as real to you as a chair
or an electron]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b> </b></p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=2 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal><b>Perception is a co-measurement {PoCM - </b>Proposition
of Co-Measurement<b>}</b></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> </b>[<i>Intrinsic measurement </i>that yields
a <i>distribution of correlations</i> is a <u>co-measurement</u> - a
phenomenon that is structurally similar to measurement but isn’t exactly so, <u>co-measurement
assigns cause-effect structure to intrinsic information,</u> by which I mean to
assign apriori causal correlations to a phenomenon, by <i>logically recreating </i>it
in some form (analytically in theory or approximately in simulations), or just
extrapolating sense from some perception, eg. to seek the structure in trees
from its picture is to correlate between the patterns of its branches
(subparts), and this is this act of co-measurement. One can understand this by
integration of information from several modalities in our body, i.e. visual,
auditory, olfactory and all such sensory modalities capture external
correlations, which in turn <i>integrates</i>, into the perception (see Fig 1)
The key distinction between measurement and co-measurement is that the former <i>detects
correlation </i>and the later <i>assigns correlation</i>, so where a
measurement results a quantity, a co-measurement results in a correlated-integration
of the constituents. Note that, both are acts of observation,one yielding <i>a
distribution of correlations</i> and other yielding a numerically representable
quantity]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=3 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal><b>Specificity of Information : Correlations are all there
is {PoSI - </b>Prop. of Specificity of Information<b>}</b> </li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>[A sceptic can always question the
standardization we calibrate our measurements to, i.e. an electron charges
-1.603x10^-19 times what is known to be 1 coulomb. We see information is
represented in terms of <i>relative measures </i>with respect to some
standardization - and this statement is standard-insensitive. In fact what we
acquire empirically or analytically are the <i>relations</i> between several
components, could be internal to the object or via some interaction with the
environment, which is nothing but how it is correlated with respect to its
constraints, likely in a visual mode of perception - the constituents that make
up the external entirety, are represented in the logical space within
consciousness, and so we see humans with certain anatomical structure, or trees
with certain class of shapes and not something drastically different than so -
therefore it is just the correlation that is propagated throughout neuronal
channel that recreates what’s outside, inside the intrinsic environment]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=4 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal><b>Quantifiability: Observation yields quantity {PoQ : </b>Proposition
of Quantifiability<b>}</b></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>[By now we have distinct types of
observation, classified for different products - A. <u>extrinsic observation</u>,
involving actual bodies, are necessary to have numerical representation to its
quantity, B. <u>Intrinsic observation</u>, involving exotic subjective
modalities, are to be quantified with meaning and these are <b>semantic
quantities</b>. Note that a measurable or co-measurable quantity can be a
numerically or semantically representable quantity, and in fact <b>co-measurement
includes measurement </b>by assuring that semantic form of expression supports
numerical representations within them. Therefore the co-measurement seems
fundamental but slightly metaphysical, although the measurement has always been
crudely physical. With this classification here we distinguish between several
kinds of quantities and measurables - <i>numerical quantities </i>and <i>semantic
quantities</i>]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in'><b>4.1 Object
under observation must have at least one measurable attribute </b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'>[ i.e. the object must have some
quantifiable attribute or that the observer must have at least one
representation to quantify an attribute of the object. Consider, an expression
“the bowl is glowing with temperature 720 deg celsius” - here a picture is conveyed
where the picture itself carries the semantic measure of a phenomenon, that
something was radiating with a numerically measured value a measurable
attribute, i.e. temperature (here). This expression clears the distinction
between co-measurement–measurement and numerical–semantic quantity]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> 4.2 At least one universal
definition of a measure is accepted</b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'>[For measuring an attribute, i.e.
constructing a definition to assign each of its subsets a unique value from the
non-negative bounded reals, one must agree to one definition. Instead
co-measurement is free of definition and thus subjects picture differently,
every expression by virtue of their corresponding subjective response. This
similar procedure is adapted in the formulation of Integrated information
theory of consciousness by Tononi-Tegmark-Masafumi]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=5 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal><b>Structural Representation : A valid expression in
universal grammar is a fact {PoSR - </b>Proposition of Structural
Representation<b>}</b></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>[truth of an expression in a
logical system, requires an algorithm (deterministic of Halting or
indeterminable or non-halting) to validate its truth of falsity in binary
result, therefore in this postulation, an expression will be considered to be
valid if it is permitted in universal grammar. To quote from a linguist of
Chomsky index 1( <a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9" title=""><sup><sup><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[9]</span></sup></sup></a>
) - “<i>To begin with, the term Universal Grammar (UG) is nothing but a label
for the striking difference in cognitive capacity between “us and them”, i.e.,
humans versus the 21 rest of animal species </i>” - Angel J. Gallego. Likewise
a semantic quantity that has quantitative value within perception, can be
physically realised by logically representing the <i>meaning</i> into a
syntagma. Note that, at this point, there can very easily arise a debate about
whether we can represent a meaning solely into syntax - of whose answer can be
the following. <u>Meaning of an expression is what that should be a logical reference
of, and that solely should depend on the constructor/user of the syntagma</u>.
Therefore the physical realisation of an expression, are in terms of syntagmas,
where patterns of words and letters are supposed to represent an underlying
sense that has nothing to do with each of the letters or words, but only their
overall arrangement [4]. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in'><b>5.1 A fact is a
representation of a picture </b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'>[ In the introduction of Tractatus
Logico Philosophicus, by Bertrand Russel, one finds - “<i>In order that a
certain sentence should assert a certain fact, there must, however the language
may be constructed, be something in common between the structure of the
sentence and the structure of the fact. This is perhaps the most fundamental
thesis of Mr. Wittgenstein’s theory</i>”; besides Proposition 2.1 from [1] “<i>Wir
machen uns Bilder der Tatsachen</i>” -> “We picture facts to ourselves”, and
just afterwards - Prop. 2.12 - “<i>Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit</i>”
-> A picture is a model of reality, and that precisely is the functionality
of language - This portion is straightforwardly adapted from Wittgenstein’s
structuralisation]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <b>5.2 A picture depicts a truth</b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:1.0in'>[Prop 2.131 + Prop 2.141 + Prop
2.1513 from [1] => “<i> In a picture the elements of the picture are the
representatives of objects</i>” + “<i>A Picture is a fact</i>” + ”<i>So a
picture, conceived in this way, also includes the pictorial relationship, which
makes it into a picture</i>” - indicates picturing is modelling actuality,
therefore validating truths that are actual in existence]</p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in'><b>5.3 Facts totalize
the possibilities </b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> </b>[Simply the consequence of “<i>what
can be sad can be said clearly</i>”, that possibilities of observations
totalize the possibilities of events, therefore their representations must
totalize language, note that there cannot be a possibility which cannot be
quantified semantically, that would violate Chomsky’s observation of <span
style='background:white'>Wilhelm von Humboldt's phrase</span> that language is
- infinite use of finite means. Therefore, it a thing is possible, it must have
a fact representing that picture of possibility]<img width=364 height=377
src="An%20analysis%20of%20Observation%20_%20A%20picture%20of%20how%20we%20picture%20nature_files/image001.jpg"
align=left hspace=12 vspace=12></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=6 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal><b>Observability exhausts knowledge {PoE : </b>Proposition
of Exhaustion<b>}</b></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal><b> </b>[The primary origin for the finitude of
knowledge comes due to finitude of observability, since <u>what cannot be
observed, cannot be known</u> - the spectrum of observability provides the
horizon upto which the entirety of knowledge might reach, therefore saturating
knowledge. Even though it might seem knowledge is infinite and boundless,
analytic treatment of language says that it is not, and bounded by the spectrum
of possibilities. Yet containing vast possibilities, it must afterwards be a
finitely measurable quantity. In the Modal Logic, first identified by Aristotle
in his <i>De Interpretatione</i> or <i>Organon</i>, that <i>Possibility and
Necessity </i>(the foundational modes in modal logic) are interchangable in the
sense that - “p is possible” is equivalent to “~p is not necessary”, that is,
“it is never necessary that ~p is the case” which in turn means “p is possibly
the case”. In this way, the possibility is totalized by the range of its
necessity, and beyond which it cannot necessarily be the case and thus becomes
impossible. This in turn further strengthens how “what is possibly the case”,
that which is observable in reality (representational) constructs knowledge,
and what’s impossible then is what falls outside the boundary of necessities]<span
style='position:absolute;z-index:251659264;margin-left:423px;margin-top:281px;
width:298px;height:50px'><img width=298 height=50
src="An%20analysis%20of%20Observation%20_%20A%20picture%20of%20how%20we%20picture%20nature_files/image002.png"
alt="Fig : Ernst Mach’s self portrait "></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=7 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal><b>Relativity of Representation: Extrinsic facts must be
representation-insensitive</b>. <b>{PoRR} </b></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>[outcomes of Intrinsic observation
can very well be subject dependent, or dependent on the choice of
representation of the Being, yet external objects that everybody agrees upon
cannot be sensitive to the representation of any one or few individuals alone,
even if so, there must be one to one correspondence between them. Objective
information therefore can be considered absolute, since everybody agrees upon
the standardization, therefore equivalent meaning is conveyed to and understood
by intrinsic observers. This ensures information involving physical processes
cannot have any subjective effect, only that all of them will use equivalent
representation so that their correlative picture is invariant upon any
transformation of subject. Without this postulate we would fall into utter
senselessness due to being sceptic towards fundamental informations about
nature, which cannot be the case] </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'>Language
Design as Information Renormalization : </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal> <img
width=327 height=110
src="An%20analysis%20of%20Observation%20_%20A%20picture%20of%20how%20we%20picture%20nature_files/image003.png"
align=left hspace=12 vspace=12></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Noam Chomsky in his 1993 paper <i>A minimalist program for
linguistic theory </i>introduced a syntactic-structural formalisation of the
idea MERGE, where two syntagma combines (coarse grains) into one, i.e. two
syntagma merges into one. He managed to show that such an act of MERGE is
ubiquitous in all forms of language, and therefore not at all specific to
language rather general to universal grammar itself. Later on in a paper [4],
Physicist Roman Orus and Linguist Angel J. Gallego, both from Spain formalised
this idea in terms of (Syntactic) Tensor Networks, where the MERGE operation as
been formalised to take two inputs and give off an output, i.e. MERGE: X, Y <b><span
style='font-size:10.5pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";
background:white'>→ </span></b>Q . In the diagram beside, δ = M<sup>[1]</sup>{α,
β} and μ = M<sup>[2]</sup>{γ, δ}. Likewise given a syntagma, one can construct
a tensor network tree, representing syntactic decomposition of the expression,
and it can be understood as renormalisation of information at each scale of
MERGing operation, i.e. once each MERGE takes place we wash away redundant
degrees of freedom, and deal with renormalised (MERGEd) information only. Work
on comparative cognition has endorsed the insight that - </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>“<span style='font-family:"Courier New"'>Only humans appear
to possess a mental grammar - an “<b>I</b>-Language” where “<b>I</b>” stands
for <i>Intentional, Internal and Individual - </i>that allows us to create
infinitely many meaningful expressions from a finite stock of discrete units …
However, the knowledge of such fundamental rules (the so called reductionism)
does not imply a priori the knowledge of the emergent laws for aggregates of
many fundamental entities (the so-called emergentism)</span> ”<b> </b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:7.0in'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;
line-height:115%'> — [2]</span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Therefore like scale-transformation of statistical mechanics<b><span
style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'>, </span></b>MERGE in linguistics
entails Information-renormalization in physics. A coarse-graining of
information means the removal of superfluous degrees of freedom in order to
describe a given physical system at a different (coarse-grained) scale.
Combined with rescaling, it is the procedure entailing renormalization by which
the rules describing the macroscopic equation emerge from those describing the
microscopic. Chomsky’s MERGE operation entails the renormalization of syntactic
information, moreover the renormalization accounts for different <i>time-scales</i>.
i.e. <img width=408 height=239
src="An%20analysis%20of%20Observation%20_%20A%20picture%20of%20how%20we%20picture%20nature_files/image004.jpg"
align=left hspace=12 vspace=12></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>M{[<sub>V </sub>eat], [<sub>N</sub> pasta]] = [<sub>VP </sub>[<sub>V
</sub>eat] [<sub>N</sub> pasta]], {formal example of MERGing two syntagmas}. A
Tree decomposition representing information information renormalization is
vivid in the figure beside: </p>
<p class=MsoNormal>The sense extrapolated from the expression - “the man from
Boston drives well the car” resides at the topmost renormalised scale (z<sub>4</sub>
here), likewise in exactly similar formal procedure one extracts essence from a
paragraph by considering each of its sentences each leaf nodes, and likewise
for a chapter, its paragraphs are the leaf nodes, and upto the furthest point,
the <i>whole semantic sense </i>of a text can be extrapolated by quantifying a <i>Semantic
Tensor Network</i> like syntactic one described in [4]. Indeed without
reduction of superfluous degrees of freedom, it would be unbearably difficult
to go through any form in language, let alone long text, and that we can do it
after all, is due to the structure of language itself - which renormalizes
information by virtue of its usage. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal> </p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'>Conclusion
:</span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:13.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>This monograph is dedicated to closely analyse the the role
of identifying and functionally demystifying Subject as nothing but an <i>intrinsic
observer</i>, where in addition to usual measurement of external agency, it has
capability to co-measure what’s intrinsic to itself, and therefore identify
consciousness from inanimate objects that are only capable of extrinsic
observations. Besides the logic in language along with representation of
picture as facts, are made clear in this paradigm of a description of
observation that holds both for subjects of extreme high internal complexity to
objects of identically no complexity within whatsoever (structure with no
further decomposable structure). </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-indent:.5in'>Targeting the rudimentary symmetry
might ease the task of explaining a phenomenon upto great certainty for a wide
range of complexity levels. In this case, the knowledge yielded by observation
carries the structure of the symmetry that prevails from atomic observation to
subjective observation, only that its form and manifestation change only, not the
content. Such a formalisation holding for this wide range of complexity is a
non-trivial task although much richer formalization is possible and will be the
next task, to polish it into a theory of observation. </p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:5.5in'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;
line-height:115%'> </span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:5.5in;text-indent:.5in'>
<u><span style='font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%'> </span></u></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:5.5in;text-indent:.5in'><u><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%'><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></span></u></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:5.5in;text-indent:.5in'><u><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;line-height:115%'><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></span></u></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%'>References:
</span></u></b></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><u><span style='text-decoration:none'> </span></u></b></p>
<ol style='margin-top:0in' start=1 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal>L. Wittgenstein : Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus [<a
href="https://writing.upenn.edu/library/Wittgenstein-Tractatus.pdf"><span
style='color:#1155CC'>link</span></a>]</li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Wojciech
Hubert Zurek : Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the
classical [<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105127"><span
style='color:#1155CC'>link</span></a>]</span></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Giulio
Tononi : Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness Some: Ontological
Considerations [ <a
href="https://sci-hub.se/https:/doi.org/10.1002/9781119132363.ch44"><span
style='color:#1155CC'>link</span></a> ]</span></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:black'>Language
Design as Information Renormalisation : <a
href="https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Gallego%2C+A+J"><span
style='color:black;background:white;text-decoration:none'>Angel J. Gallego</span></a></span><span
style='font-size:11.5pt;line-height:115%;color:black;background:white'>, </span><span
style='color:black'><a
href="https://arxiv.org/search/cs?searchtype=author&query=Orus%2C+R"><span
style='color:black;background:white;text-decoration:none'>Roman Orus</span></a>
- [ <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01525"><span style='color:#1155CC'>link</span></a>]
</span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div><br clear=all>
<hr align=left size=1 width="33%">
<div id=ftn1>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[1]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> fundamental bodies are simplest by virtue of their
lack of internal structures - [1] proposition 2.02</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn2>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[2]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> en-emerge = cause to emerge</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn3>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[3]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> it should be clear that sense is contained in
language, by this I mean an arbitrary wild or natural sound isn’t a sense,
since there isn’t any equivalence between what it <b>means</b> to what <b>can
be said</b> - we can use language because we’ve been able to establish such an
equivalence, that is to say - “…and whatever a man knows, whatever is not mere
rumbling and roaring that he has heard, can be said in three words.” - [1] -
Kurnberger - but ‘wind is blowing with 63 decible sound in my sensor’ is a
sense, since you’ve placed it in a framework where sense is possible, and in
doing so you’ve <i>represented</i> the senseless sound of blowing wind into
some <i>meaningful measurement</i>. </span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn4>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[4]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Internal Environment is like the psychological state
of one mind, but with rather measurable attributes</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn5>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[5]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> The state collapses into <b>any </b>eigenvalue of
operator, which <b>represents </b>the observation </span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn6>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[6]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Born’s Rule is a foundation in quantum theory, which
states - the dynamic quantity one deals with in quantum theory, the
wavefunction - gives the probability of that event to take place, when
mod-squared </span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn7>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[7]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> from now on, intrinsic would necessarily mean such
regarding intrinsic to subject or consciousness - as defined in IIT (integrated
Information Theory)</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn8>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[8]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Note that, a conscious observer can be a unconscious
observer, but by non-conscious I mean strictly the entities that have no
possibility to configure into a conscious state</span></p>
</div>
<div id=ftn9>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:0in;text-indent:0in;line-height:normal'><a
href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>[9]</span></sup></sup></a><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'> Chomsky index of one author is the number of nodes to
connect that author to Chomsky, in academic-collaboration graph</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>