On the Nature of Causality in Complex Systems, George F.R. Ellis

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. Amazingly, those comments below panning this video and arguing for bottom-up reductionism actual assume Ellis's goal-based driver for their critique. Self-refutation is actually a bad thing people.
2. Ellis is one of the great "Crap Detectors" of our day, exposing the philosophers who misrepresent science, and scientists who misrepresent philosophy. Stunningly profound ramifications arise out of this lecture, for those who can accept them.
3. Great lecture. Love listening George F.R. Ellis
4. Top down "causation" is just initial conditions. Software in just initial conditions. Software doesn't affect causality at the lower levels , the laws of physics are unchanged and they determine how the system develops from initial conditions.
5. "Local entropy decreases as order increases". No. Entropy always "wants" to increase. More order means significantly low entropy of the system but still is driven to increase, and this is how a system becomes more complex. Entropy means that it is a higher cost per volume to preserve energy. If entropy increases in an expanding Cosmos, there is no other potential than an increasing variation to how matter behaves. The result is evolution of organic molecules and then the current ecological systems. At the maximum expansion field the complexity is gone, replaced by a uniformity of temperature. Causality is the overall pattern from the Big bang. Dynamics of wave functions or the weird positioning of quantum processes are not in conflict with causality. The quantum field's exact existence pattern ,unaffected or affected by interaction, does not by default care about our theory on it.
6. The man confuses the words physical and tangible, perhaps unavoidable for his generation. All visible and known matter is physical, if not it wouldnt be possessing or exchanging energy. Many variations of wave functions however is intangible, like sound and light. Sound waves and photons are still a part of the physical universe and therefore physics as a science can study it etc.
7. Bunch of idiots praising this mans work. I give a complete explanation why this is so bellow , though I doubt you will have the brains to understand it if you think Ellis is anything ,but a hack.
8. What a joke Ellis is. He ignores the famous "delayed choice experiment." in quantum physics. How does he explain that the wave function knows to collapse before it passes through the two slits when the decision to make an observation is made after the wave function has already passed the two slits ???  I think it is certainly important for physicists to do all they can to discover the truth ,but this simple well known experiment contradicts all of Ellis's ideas in principle as quantum mechanical reactions in the past are effected by the future that does not exist according to Ellis.
      He must be secretly religious. Special relativity is very elegant and simple in some ways. That does not give it a free pass ,but for this person to ignore the delayed choice experiment is very odd. My guess is he does not understand the theory of relativity as well as people think. I studied physics and I have talked to many "high level " physics people that simply could not grasp the concepts for some reason.
      Maybe he does and just does not like what it is saying however.
9. If the bottom-up "fundamentalists" have problems with simultaneous bottom-up and top-down (and intra-intra) "causal-chain determinism", then we can switch to "block-universe determinism" where T2 appears to an observer to causally follow T1 - but without T1 actually causing T2, since all T's exist eternally and timelessly, just like Julian Barbour's triangles.
   In a block universe paradigm (and yes QM lives quite happily in a block universe), little billiard balls don't actually knock each other around to causally move things along. Only observable relationships between T1 and T2 matter. Causality becomes nothing more than an interpretation of relationships. As such, interpretations (i.e., explanations) can be and must be multiple.
10. Excellent talk
11. Science consists of the pursuit of finding why things are they are.
    Causality. What caused them to be so.
    
    That's a definition of Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason
    
    Which modern science , although it is in fact defined by it,
    cannot accept.
    
    This is all explained in platonic physics.
    
    Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
    See my Leibniz site: https://rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
    For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net,
    ;
12. The three levels of reality in Platonic Physics
    Roger B Clough, National Institute of Standards and Technology (Retired)
    (11-28-2014)
    
    Abstract
    Here we combine the top-down metaphysics of Plato and Leibniz with the inside-out categories of C S Peirce to enable us to view the world in a new, more useful light, simultaneously from two perspectives, and in more detail than Leibniz's pre-established harmony.  The top down structuring from  Plato and Leibniz allows us to view the world as it is: governed cybernetically by thought from the top singularity (the One, comparable to a computer processing unit), rather than from the ungoverned perspective of current science.  This allows us not only to understand the world properly, but  to structure the world cybernetically. with all creation, perception and control coming in the form of thought from the top down, but inside out using C S Peirce's three categories.  
    1. Introduction. While C S Peirce is well known to the philosophy of science, the worlds of Plato and his follower Leibniz have been less explored for such purposes.  Plato was an Idealisti and Arthur Eddington spent much of his life adapting Plato to science, but his use of Mind  in a world thoroughly established in materialism ihas largely blocked exploration of the use of Mind cybernetically, as a singular, mental control point, so that the current world of science is only governed, if at all, in fiefdoms. But more significantly, materialism and a lack of a single cybernetic control from top down has hindered the develepment of an understanding to consciousness, thought and the role and nature of the self.  For example, Dennett in his explanation of consciences does not have a perceiver (or at best a fancifal and abstract invention of one). Moreover the perceiver, to obviate the homunculus with homunculus problem, must be on a higher ontological level, and which has to be a living singular entity, not an abstract reference. By application of Leibniz and Plato and common sense as well,, we see that the perceiver must be singular-- the One, the cybernetic Perceiver and control point, the central processing unit, to use a computer analogy.
    The learning curve on Plato-Leibniz is a bit steep at first, foreign to most physical scientists because of their unfamiliar top down control, which is also done indirectly by thought rather than directly by physical interaction, but also because of  Leibniz's unfamiliar  spreadsheet  style ontology, using not atoms but complete concepts called monads, which can be nested like sets. That would seem to render Leibniz more understandable to mathematicians and computer science, but his thinking in terms of substances and monads can be off-putting.  Once these are understood (through his Monadology [ ]) and if one sticks to the elementary particles scale (the particles are both substance and monads) one can proceed fairly smoothly.
    
    2. The three levels
    
    Firstness Mind The One, the Monarch- this is the realm of Plato's Mind. It is life itself, pure nonphysical intelligence. Purely subjective, timeless and spaceless -     with innate knowledge and a priori memory, containing the pre-established harmony, necessary logic, numbers - the womb of the WHAT.   Mind creates all, perceives all, controls all. Thus the individual mind controls the brain,    not the reverse. Mind plays the brain like a violin.
    
    Secondness -- Mental objects so both subjective +objective- The Many.  In this, the WHAT separates  from  Mind and becomes a  HERE.  Accordingly. Heidegger referred to existence as "dasein". "Being here."
        According to Leibniz, all monads are alive to various degrees.   There are of three gradations of life in these,     according to Leibniz:
    
        a) Bare, naked monads, which we can think of as purely physical  ( Eg, a fundamental particle).
    
        b) Animal and vegetative monads, which Leibniz calls souls, which can have feelings, but little intellect.
    
       c) Spirits (corresponding to humans), which have, in addition, intellectual capacities.  Mind transforms physical signals in nerves and neurons into experiences. If Mind then reperceives or reflects on these experiences, they are said to be thoughgt or apperceived. To be apperceived is to be made conscious. Thus consciousness is the product of thought. Intentions are also made in the same way, so that we caqn say that thoughts are intentions by Mind.
    The human brain is a monad which contains as subsets,  mental capacities.  Neuroscience tells us that there is binding between  monads for parts and functions of the brain, but since monads cannot act directly on each other, this binding must be indirect, through the sequential updates of the perceptions and appetites of the subfunction monads. These must be made by Mind, either directly or through the preestablished  harmony PEH). Unfortunately the Stanford Leibniz site on Leibniz makes no mention of the action of  Mind on the individual mind,  IMHO a gross shortcoming.
    
    Sensory signals and signals for feelings must also go through such a binding process.  In a sense, the   binding process plays the role of a self, but in conventional neuroscience self is a function of  the brain, rather than the other way round, as common sense suggests and the intentionality of  self or mind  proves, along with the need for a PEH.
    
    This shortcoming in conventional understanding of the brain becomes all the more nagging if we  consider thinking, which is closely related to apperception, because it must be conscious.Thinking, we submit, consists of consciously manipulating and comparing such  apperceptions.  
    
     Through Mind, with its potentially infinite wisdom and intelligence,  intuitions and thoughts can arise spontaneously in the individual mind.  If these are to be immediate and/or original,  it is reasonable to believe that they originate in Mind, rather than  indirectly through separate although bound parts         of the brain. Anyone who has experienced a vocal duet in which the vibratos are in phase should become         convinced of this.
           
            Mind is the monarch of the intelligent mind, which controls the brain. Mind plays the brain like a violin.        Mind is also is able to focus on a thought for a brief period,  within the context of one's memory and universal memory,         for purposes of thinking an comparison, making the biological brain and its  complex bindings seem hopelessly         indirect and subject to confusion.
    
    
    Thirdness - Corresponding physical objects as is appropriate- -here the object is born or emittted     from the monad--and emerges into spacetime as a particle, becoming completely objective,     a WHAT+ HERE +WHEN.,  In addition the Thirdness of a private thought or experience is its     public expression in some appropriate form.
    
    3. Conclusions
    This format allows us to examine quantum phenomena from inside out and perception, thinking and consciousness ontologically- from physical nerve signals to mental experiences such as thought, consciousness, and cognition.  It also avoids problem encountered in “bottom-up” science, such as complexity and emergence, if for no other reason than there is no apparent way of conceiving of a singular control point at the bottom.
    
    --
    Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
    See my Leibniz site: https://rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough
    For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
13. On the Moral Nature of Universe
    Excellent book by G. FR Ellis
    
14. A top-down theory of mind and brain based on neuroscience, and double aspect theory
    
    
    Cybernetics is the top-down control theory similar to the top-down metaphysics of Plato-Leibniz.
    Neuroscience  consists of studying  the mental functions assigned to physical components of the brain, providing a double aspect theory of psychology. This dualism also permits drawing a systems theory or cybernetic map of the mind/brain in which all brain functions are created and controlled by Mind. This corrects what we consider to be the current erroneous theory of mind, in which mind is an emanatioon or emergence from the brain.
    
    
    To apply this concept, from neuroscience. we can obtain a rough map of brain functions, an example of which is given below, taken from
    http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Brain/Aboutbraintumours/Thebrain.aspx
    
    According to the above link, there are five basic components of the brain, which provide the  five mental functions:
    Frontal lobe - This controls thought, memory, planning, problem solving and behaviour.
    Parietal lobe - This is responsible for language, helping us form words and thoughts. It also deals with touch and how we recognise sensations, and helps us be aware of our body position.  
    Temporal lobe - This helps us understand and process what we hear. It’s also involved with how we learn and organise information.The temporal lobe is also responsible for emotions and emotional memory.
    Occipital lobe -- This is where all visual information is processed, such as colour, shape and distance.
    Cerebellum- This is the back part of the brain and is concerned with balance and coordination.
    
    Assuming these to be the five major functions/components, we can assign Leibnizian monads to these and arrange them systematicaly according to the five phase cycle of traditional chinese medicine. To do so, we note that according to wuxing, or traditional chinese medicine 
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_Xing
    the major brain functions are associated with the five senses, in keeping with Locke and the British empiricists, in which all (current) knowledge from the outer world is obtained through the five senses.
    Thus we can assign the five brain components (lobes) to the monads of the five mental components. 
    Frontal Lobe =>-Metal => thought, skin, touch
    Parietal Lobe =>- Water => ears, hearing and sound processing
    Occipital Lobe =>- Wood => vision and visual processing
    
    Temporal Lobe => Fire, speech,  organizing information. passions
    
    Cerebellum => Earth  => balance, coordination'
    
    The brain then works in a cyclic fashion, and in the generating cycle,
    
    Metal neurons feed into Water neurons into Wood neurons into
    Fire neurons into Earth neurons back into Metal neurons.
    
    There is also a destructive cycle in wuxing, but at the moment it does not seem to apply to the brain.
    
    These five monads are subset of the higher level o9f mind, The One or Mind (the Self), which
    perceives all of the sensory signals coming from the monads of the five basic components
    and adjusts each one in accordance with Leibniz's pre-established order, which tends
    to operate by Aristotle's "final causation" so that the mind tends to act , as all life
    does, purposefully.
    --
    Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (retired, 2000).
    See my Leibniz site: https://rclough@verizon.academia.edu/RogerClough For personal messages use rclough@verizon.net
15. I don't really understand why he stops at 1 level. Stating that the polar bear turns white because the environment tells him to seems a bit short-sighted if you don't ask yourself why the environment is white? If you could determine that from a 'starting state', surely you can expect the polar bear to be white as well? 
    Same goes for the thermostat example; of course the goal is determining the outcome if you don't look past 1 level, but what determines the goal and why? Isn't that deterministic?
    This question is for me also applicable to the computer analogy. It's fine to split the hardware and software and state that the software tells the hardware what to do, but who/what determines the software and isn't that a causal relation that needs explanation before stating that the hierarchy is not bottom-up?
    
    What am I missing? ;) 
16. In Complex Systems, the inverse link becomes dominant instead of the cause-effect link. The inverse link takes place, for example, between a computer on the one hand, and knowledge of how to operate a computer on the other hand. Here, both elements are equally important: without a computer, our knowledge of how to operate a computer is useless, and vice versa, without knowledge of how to operate a computer the very computer is useless as well. 
    
    In Consciousness Studies, the inverse link appears as a relation of functional tautology (or FT-relation for short). It means that a complex system formalizes itself using its own means of formalization. For example, the FT-relation appears when a researcher uses his/her exemplar of consciousness simultaneously as a tool of studying and an object of studying. For more, see http://generaltheory.webs.com/GeneralTheory.pdf  Section 2.6 and Section 3.2.2
17. I thought this was an excellent talk. :D
18. I've enjoyed all of these seminars. But I have to ask, why are all of the speakers men? Not one woman out there able to pull it off?
19. Mr . George Ellis  . . my main man as always . the most captivating speaker ever seen . 
20. Definitely there is no top-down causation. In his computer example, Prof Ellis
    conveniently forgets that software is developed by a human programmer, who creates the algorithms in his/her brain before planting them into the computer. So the real question is how does the programmer's brain create the algorithms in the first place. This is known as the binding problem, or how do loose pieces of information that the programmer's brain receive bind together and create meaningful code that can control the hardware. Binding, and its derivatives the scaling problem and the ubiquitous presence of fractals and power laws in nature, are directly contained in the fundamental principle of causality, and can be mathematically calculated from there.