Fred H. Wöhlbier. The Evolution of Meaning

The Evolution of Meaning

The Evolution of Meaning

Fred H. Whlbier

Published by Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland

Copyright 2014 by F.H. Whlbier

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations

embodied in critical articles and reviews.

For information about permission to reproduce selections from this book write to

Permissions, Trans Tech Publications Ltd Kreuzstrasse 10, CH-8635 Zurich-Durnten, Switzerland

www.ttp.net

For ordering books write to Sales Department, Trans Tech Publication Ltd.

Kreuzstrasse 10, CH-8635 Zurich-Durnten, Switzerland www.ttp.net

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum No. 2

ISBN 978-3-908158-96-7

Contents

Preface

Chapter 1

What is it All About? 3 The Scientific Method 4 The Tree of Nature 5 The Tree of Everything 9

Chapter 2

The Material Base of Nature 11 Atoms 12 Elementary Particles 14 Up Quark and Down Quark 15 Electron 16 Electron-Neutrino 18 Matter I 20 Three Families of Matter 22

Chapter 3

Information Processing Events 27 Gravity 27 The Electromagnetic (EM) Force 29 The Nuclear Forces 30 The Four Types of Forces 31 Something to Wonder About 34 The Interaction between Particles 39 The Information-Processing Triplet of Parameters 41

Chapter 4

Law-like Information 45 The General Information Cycle 46 The Reality Status of the Laws of Nature 51 The Emergence of Law-Like Information 54 Biological Events 56 Conscious Events 60 Mental Causation 68 The Conceptual Level 70 The Category of Conscious Events 73 Cultural Events 74 The Four Categories of Law-Like Information 78

Chapter 5

Universal History 83 Spacetime 85 The Spacetime Tetrad 86 Spacetime and Law-like Information 89 The History Triplet of the Tree of Everything 92 Subjectivity 94

Chapter 6

Subjectivity 97 Physical Perceptions 98 Elementary Feelings 99 Propositional Perceptions 101 Volitions 102 Four Aspects of Subjectivity 103

Chapter 7

The Essential Dimensions 107 Freedom 108 Truth, Goodness and Beauty 110 The Four Essential Dimensions 115

Chapter 8

What is it All About? 121 The Universe as a Meaning Circuit 122 The Superstructure of the Tree of Everything 126 Why Does the World Exist? 128 The Top Node of the Tree of Everything 131

Chapter 9

Predictions and Conjectures 133

Key Concepts and Definitions 148 Notes 154 Index 164

Table of Contents

Front PageContents

Chapter 1

Preface

What is it All About? 3

Chapter 2The Material Base of Nature 11

Chapter 3Information Processing Events 27

Chapter 4Law-like Information 45

Chapter 5Universal History 83

Chapter 6Subjectivity 97

Chapter 7The Essential Dimensions 107

Chapter 8What is it All About? 121

Chapter 9Predictions and Conjectures 133

Key Concepts and Definitions

Notes

Index

Preface The present book is based upon the premise that information is the

fundamental entity in Nature. The Universe, from this viewpoint, consists of an intricately interconnected network of information-processing events; information here being understood not in the blind thermodynamic sense, but in the active life/observation/meaning sense (P.W.C. Davies1).

This state of affairs can be formulated scientifically in terms of a general information cycle that is applicable to all observable processes taking place in the Universe. It turns out that there are just four categories of laws and law-like entities that describe the outcome of events.

This result is surprising insofar as it seems to imply a 4x4 structure of Nature of which we had hitherto been unaware. There are (1) four sets of material particles, (2) four types of forces, (3) four dimensions of spacetime and (4) four categories of laws and law-like information.

Further analysis led to the discovery of the Tree of Nature; an asymmetrical dyadic decision-tree featuring a basic structure of six fundamental parameters, a substructure comprising 24 individual parameters and a triadic superstructure. These findings were published last year in the book, The Tree of Nature.

The present work concerns an extension of this tree into the realms of subjectivity and value-oriented essential dimensions; thus leading to the construction of the Tree of Everything. The structure of this tree features four distinct realms of reality, one of which pertains to the topic of meaning.

For clarity, some of the results published in the Tree of Nature are recalled in the present book. In due course, it is our intention to combine the two books into a single volume, which would also feature criticisms and amendments.

This book has been edited by my friend David J. Fisher (B.Sc, D s Sc) who is the editor of a number of books and journals in the field of solid-state physics, and the author of several general science titles. I gratefully acknowledge Davids many comments and suggestions, and appreciate greatly his continued support of this work.

Fred H. Whlbier, January 2014

Chapter 1

What is it All About?

My goal is simple. It is

complete understanding

of the Universe,

why it is as it is and

why it exists at all.

Stephen Hawking

What is it all about? Where am I and what am I doing here? Above all, who

am I, anyway? Religions have answers to such questions, but philosophers

have doubts. Can science help? Science, at its basic physical level, is a

descriptive-predictive enterprise; interested only in reporting hard (i.e.

observable) facts and in analyzing why, and how, such facts can lead on to

other hard facts. Meaning in the sense of meaning and purpose beyond

the pure facts is not part of the scientific vocabulary. This may change,

however, as science begins to understand the structural features of Nature in

sufficient detail to allow extrapolation into the non-physical realm of

meaning and purpose.

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 (2014) pp 3-10 (2014) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerlanddoi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/SMPF.2.3

The Scientific Method

The scientific enterprise has its roots in the 13th century; with scholars such

as Roger Bacon (1214-1294), who was one of the early promoters of

observation-based research. This approach bore its first mature fruits with

the astronomical discoveries of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543), Johannes

Kepler (1571-1630) and Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) who, in turn, prepared

the ground for Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and his famous three-volume

work Philosophi Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published on July 5th,

1687.

Standing on the shoulders of giants, as he later said, Newton

achieved the final breakthrough with his discovery of a set of fundamental

rules: the three laws of motion, which form the foundation of classical

mechanics, and the law of universal gravitation, which describes the

workings of the first of the four natural forces that we know today; gravity.

By showing that the same natural laws govern both the orbiting of planets

around the sun, and the falling of an apple from a tree, and being able to

derive Keplers empirical laws of planetary motion on the basis of his

system, Newton initiated what is called today the scientific era.

We are all aware of the huge success story of this human enterprise.

With todays telescopes we can see backwards in time, almost to the

beginning of it all; to the beginning of space and time, that is, which

occurred pretty close to 13.7 billion years ago. The evolutionary story,

starting from the original hot-spot that constituted the Universe at that time,

and leading to the billions of galaxies which we observe today, is quite well

understood. Also understood is much of the evolution of life on Earth,

leading from the first living cell some 3.5 billion years ago to the

millions of species that fill all corners of the world, and to human

civilizations.

The fact remains, however, that all of the knowledge that has been

amassed by scientists around the globe is still at a purely descriptive level.

The scientific method of inquiry employs four steps in order to arrive at

reliable knowledge concerning the workings of Nature:

4 The Evolution of Meaning

(1) Observation of facts and processes; (2) hypothesis as to why these

facts and processes are the way that we observe them; (3) testable

predictions that follow from the hypothesis; (4) experimental verification of

the predictions as an indication that the hypothesis may be correct; this

conclusion remaining in force until new experimental results show the

hypothesis to be wrong.

If this is the approach, how could we possibly arrive at answers to

those questions that interest humans the most: What, if any, is the raison

dtre of the existence of the Universe? Is there any deeper meaning to the

phenomenon of life? What is consciousness good for? Could not all

processes function just as well without it? Above all: what is our place in

this strange world (Einstein)?

The scientific method has not been designed to tackle such questions.

It has however produced such a treasure trove of knowledge that we begin

to see structures that extend into the realms of meaning and purpose. This is

what the present book is all about.

The Tree of Nature

It has recently been shown2 that the workings of Nature are best understood

in terms of information-processing events. This is fully in line with the

thinking of some of our most prominent physicists, such as Anton Zeilinger

(information is the fundamental substance of the universe3), John A.

Wheeler (all things physical are information-theoretic in origin4) and Lee

Smolin, for whom the world consists of a large number of eventsand the

flow of information among events5. According to the physicist David

Deutsch6, a prominent proponent of the many-worlds interpretation of

quantum mechanics, The physical world is a multiverse, and its structure is

determined by how information flows in it. In many regions of the

multiverse, information flows in quasi-autonomous streams called histories,

one of which we call our universe.

Science-Meets-Philosophy Forum Vol. 2 5

Figure 1.1 The Tree of Nature branches out from Nature (as a whole) to a

first immaterial level, made up of the parameters of Spacetime and Law-

like information; the latter being the starting point for another branching

process which leads to a second level featuring the parameters, Forces and

Matter I. A third, and final, level encompasses the two high-energy

variations of matter; Matter II and Matter III.


The multitude of events taking place in our Universe (or Nature) can

be described in terms of a general information cycle in which the

applicable laws and law-like entities (e.g. rules, habits, norms and ordering

principles), subsumed here under the heading of law-like information,

play a decisive role (see Chapter 4).

It turns out that the laws and law-like entities can be classified into

four categories; the main classification criteria being degree of

intentionality, acquisition of knowledge and type of rationality. In this

monistic view, the processes involving life, subjective consciousness and

objective knowledge do not differ in principle from elementary physical

events, but instead refer simply to different types of information processing.

The fact that the events taking place in the Universe are describable in

terms of four categories of law-like information leads to a 4x4 structure of

Nature of which we had not previously been aware: There are

(1) four sets of elementary particles,

(2) four types of forces,

(3) four spacetime dimensions and

(4) four categories of laws and law-like entities.

The immediate conundrum was, Why always four?

Further study led to the discovery that the fundamental structure of

Nature can be pictured in terms of a simple decision tree, called the Tree of

Nature, as shown in Figure 1.1. The material base of the tree (bottom

triangle) comprises the three sets of material particles (Matter I, II and III).

The second triangle from the bottom refers to the topic of information

processing and comprises those items which are needed for any processes to

be able to take place in Nature: material aggregates, the forces acting

between them and the applicable laws and rules (law-like information). The

third triangle, labeled history, comprises those parameters that are needed to

describe fully all of the events that have ever taken place; in terms of the

location and time of their occurrence (spacetime coordinates) and their

causal relationship to other events (expressed by the applicable laws and by

other types of law-like information).


Figure 1.2 The Tree of Everything results from extending the Tree of

Nature by adding a fourth triangle at the top. The enlarged tree branches out

from Reality (at the top) to a total of eight fundamental parameters; each

of which being the starting point for two further splitting processes (which

are not shown here).


In the top-down view, the structure of the tree is seen to result from

consecutive branching processes. Nature (as a whole) represents the top of

the tree, and the first splitting process leads to a first immaterial level

formed by the parameters of Spacetime and Law-like information; the

latter being the starting point for another branching process which leads to a

second level featuring the parameters, Forces and Matter I. A third, and

final, level encompasses the two high-energy variations of matter; Matter

II and Matter III (Fig. 1.1).

As we shall see below, at each of these six fundamental parameters

of Nature the tree branches again and produces, by means of two additional

splitting processes, four individual parameters. In addition to this

substructure, consisting of 24 individual parameters, the tree will be shown

to exhibit also a distinct superstructure consisting of three triads of

fundamental parameters.

The important point here is that the structural features of the Tree of

Nature are such that they suggest an extension of the tree by adding a fourth

triangle at the top, as is shown in Figure 1.2. The addition of the fourth

triangle yields a Tree of Everything including, as it does, those features of

Nature that are connected with the aspects of meaning and purpose.

The Tree of Everything

The Tree of Everything represents the ontological preconditions for the

becoming of the Universe, and its subsequent expansion and development.

It answers the questions, What are the fundamental factors that determine

the workings of the Universe? and How are these fundamental parameters

interrelated? The term, ontology, refers to the study of being, or

existence. It is concerned with the parameters that must be in place before

any events can begin to take place. The basic aim of ontological inquiry is

to determine what categories of existence are fundamental, and to discuss

the question of in what sense the items in those categories can be said to

exist in reality.


The ontological structure of the tree is more fundamental, than is any

chronological description of the evolutionary process, because it also

contains time as one of its ontological parameters. The factor, time,

would have no place within a chronological order (in which events are

ordered along the time axis); rather, it is a precondition for any

chronological considerations.

In other words, the evolutionary story of the Universe can begin only

after all of the fundamental conditions have been set up. The setting-up of

the ontological parameters turns out to proceed by means of splitting

processes that begin at the top of the tree and end with the establishment of

the material entities at the base. The evolutionary story itself begins at the

bottom, at the material base, and develops from there.

In the following chapters we shall study each of these parameters of

Nature, and consider the structural relationships via which they are

interrelated. For reasons that will become clear later, we shall begin at the

bottom of the tree (the material base) and proceed, level by level, to the top.

The principle aim is to find out how Nature works, not only at the level of

physics, but also at the levels of life and consciousness, and whether we can

discern any deeper meaning in it all.


Chapter 2

The Material Base of Nature

The first principles

of the Universe are

atoms and empty space

Democritus (460-370 BC)

In his famous Lectures on Physics1, Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman

argued that our most important piece of scientific knowledge is the fact that

the world is made of atoms: If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific

knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the

next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most

information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis

that all things are made of atoms little particles that move around in

perpetual motion


Atoms

Atoms are the material basis of the Universe. The first to come up with the

atomic hypothesis were the ancient Greek philosophers Leucippus (first

half of 5th century BC) and his disciple Democritus (460- ca. 370 BC). The

ancient scholars arrived at their astonishing hypothesis by considering the

question of whether a given piece of matter could be cut into smaller and

smaller parts, ad infinitum, without ever reaching an end. It seemed to them

that the cutting process must end at some stage; that there had to be some

final grain which could not be split up into further smaller pieces.

Democritus called these uncuttable grains atomos (Greek for in-

divisible).

The atoms were thought to be invisibly small, unchangeable and

indestructible, and to move around in empty space. The Universe was made

up of atoms and empty space; everything else following from these two

ingredients. In the words of Democritus: By convention there is bitterness,

by convention hot and cold, by convention color; but in reality there are

only atoms and the void.

When the great Aristotle (384-322 BC), disciple of Plato and teacher

of Alexander the Great, discussed the atomic hypothesis he gave it an

interesting twist. Even though he actually rejected the theory, the

philosopher succeeded in giving the hypothesis a good deal of plausibility

by citing an analogy between atoms and the letters of an alphabet; a limited

number of which can be used to produce a seemingly infinite number of

words and sentences.

It took mankind more than two millennia to come up with scientific

proof that the atomic hypothesis is indeed correct. In 1643, the Italian

mathematician Evangelista Torricelli invented the barometer by showing

that air can push down a column of liquid mercury. In the following

century, the Swiss mathematician Daniel Bernoulli explained these findings

by conjecturing that air and other gases consist of invisibly small particles

that push each other around in otherwise empty space.


In 1803, the English scientist John Dalton finally developed a fully-

fledged atomic theory according to which all forms of matter (and not only

gases) are composed of indivisible atomic particles. Even though Daltons

atomic approach was highly successful in understanding chemical reactions,

it took science another century before the theory became generally

accepted.

By the end of the 19th century, the physicists James Clerk Maxwell

and Ludwig Boltzmann had provided convincing evidence that the theory

was correct but there were still many scientists, including giants such as

Ernst Mach, who adamantly rejected it. This on the grounds that science

was based upon observable facts and that unobservable things, such as

hypothetical atoms, could not possibly be part of serious scientific theory.

In 1906, the fierce and bitter ongoing debate drove the depression-prone

Boltzmann to commit suicide. Only two years later, the work of Albert

Einstein, at that time still an unknown clerk at the Swiss patent office in

Berne, and Jean-Baptiste Perrin, convinced the scientific community that

atoms must really exist.

Then 1905, later to be called Albert Einsteins Annus Mirabilis

(miraculous year), saw the great physicist publish four papers which

radically revised our views of space, time and matter. One of these papers

explained the hitherto inexplicable phenomenon of Brownian motion in

terms of atomic theory. Brownian motion is named for the Scottish

botanist Robert Brown who, during microscopic studies made in 1827, had

noticed that small particles floating in water were jiggling around as if

something was pushing them. Einstein, convinced that the atomic

hypothesis was true, surmised that the particles were kicked around by

water molecules and provided the mathematical equations that correctly

describe this behavior. Three years later, the atomic hypothesis was

experimentally confirmed by French scientist, Jean-Baptiste Perrin.

Nobody had still ever actually seen atoms of course. One ten-millionth

of a millimeter in size, they are just too small to show up in our


conventional microscopes. It was only in 1981 that this shortcoming of

observational atomic theory was finally resolved when Gerd Binnig and

Heinrich Rohrer developed the scanning tunneling microscope. This is

based upon quantum-physical phenomena and allows us actually to see

the surfaces of atomic and molecular arrays. In 1986, these two scientists

were awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for this work.

Elementary Particles

Now that we can actually see them, it is undisputable that atoms exist.

There are 92 types of atoms to be found in Nature; each type representing

an element. In addition, 20 other types of atoms (elements) have been

synthetically produced during scientific experiments. Atoms can combine to

form the millions of different substances (molecules) which we observe in

Nature; ranging from hydrogen and water molecules (consisting of two and

three atoms, respectively) all the way to the unbelievably complex

biological substances in which thousands of atoms combine to form

intricately structured molecules (DNA, proteins etc.).

Democritus had actually thought that each substance is constituted of

its own type of atom, but Nature apparently operates much more

economically in that it needs only 92 types of atoms, which can combine to

form the millions of substances in the world as we see it. If Nature functions

so economically, could it not be that the approximately 100 atoms are made

up of a limited number of smaller particles? Could it not be that there are

only a handful of elementary particles of which atoms are made?

This is indeed so. We know today that atoms are made up of a heavy,

and positively charged, nucleus which is surrounded by various numbers of

negatively-charged electrons. The nucleus consists of one or more

positively charged protons and (zero or more) neutrons (carrying no

charge). As we shall see below, protons and neutrons are in turn made up of

two types of quarks. Atoms are thus made up of only three types of


elementary particles: two types of quarks (called up quarks and down

quarks) and electrons.

For some reason, Nature has also provided us with a fourth type of

elementary particle; the neutrino, which is similar to the electron but which

carries no electric charge (whereas the electron carries a negative electric

charge). The world in which we live consists only of these four types of

matter particles: neutrino, electron, up-quark and down-quark.

Up Quark and Down Quark

The up and down quarks are the elementary particles that occur commonly

in Nature. As we shall see below, there are two additional sets of quarks

(charm/strange and top/bottom) that are formed in high-energy collisions

and can be studied in particle accelerator experiments. The existence of

quarks was conjectured independently by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and

George Zweig in 1964; and confirmed experimentally, one after another, in

the period 1968-1995.

One of the curious aspects of quarks is that, even though they are the

tiniest of the elementary particles, they make up most of the mass of the

Universe, by far. Another odd finding is that the attractive forces acting

between them become stronger as the particles move apart; in surprising

contrast to the force of gravity and the electromagnetic force, which

decrease in strength as the aggregates involved are separated by larger and

larger distances. Another unique property of quarks is that they cannot exist

by themselves; isolated from other quarks, that is.

Quarks are so different from other material particles or aggregates

(ions, atoms, molecules, crystals) that they certainly deserve to be

characterized by such unusual names as up and down, charm and strange,

bottom and top. And it comes as no surprise that these six varieties are not

referred to as different kinds or types, but as different flavors.


The name quark is due to Gell-Mann who was inspired by the

nonsense-word quark which occurs in James Joyces scurrilous novel,

Finnegans Wake; in a passage beginning with

Three quarks for Muster Mark!

Sure he has not got much of a bark

And sure any he has its all beside the mark.

Another one of their peculiarities is that quarks possess an electric

charge that is a fraction of that of an electron. The up quark carries a charge

of +2/3, whereas the charge of the down quark is -1/3. Quarks are the

building blocks of positively-charged protons (charge +1) and uncharged

neutrons (charge 0). Thus, in order to form a proton, two up quarks and one

down quark need to combine whereas, for the formation of a neutron, two

down quarks and one up quark are required. To get this result, one simply

needs to add the charges.

Up quarks and down quarks cannot exist in isolation. They can never

be observed individually, that is. In other words, the two types of particles

complement each other in a very strong way. We shall see more of such

complementarities as we study the other parameters of the Tree of

Everything.

Electron

The name of the third elementary particle, the electron, is connected with

the findings of the ancient Greek scholar, Thales of Miletus (ca. 624-546

BC), who had noticed that amber, when rubbed with silk, attracted light

objects. Amber is fossilized pine resin and, as we know today, the rubbing

charges its surface electrostatically. But Greek mythology held a more

poetic view of amber: When Phaeton, the son of sun-god Helios also

called Elector was killed, the tears of his mourning sisters became the

origin of electron, the Greek word for amber.


In the mid-19th century, the British chemist Richard Laming suggested

that an atom is composed of a core at the center, surrounded by particles

carrying electric charges. Two decades later, Irish physicist George

Johnstone Stoney studied the phenomenon of electrolysis and conjectured

that there exists a single definite quantity of electricity, the charge on a

monovalent ion. On the basis of Faradays laws of electrolysis, he was then

able to estimate the value of this elementary charge and suggested that it be

called an electron; a combination of the words electr(ic) and (i)on.

The final breakthrough came when British physicist J.J. Thomson

succeeded in showing experimentally that electrons are particles. For the

first time it became clear that atoms are composed of smaller parts. Today,

we know that atoms consist of a nucleus at the center, and a shell of

electrons surrounding it. The size of an atom arises from the fact that the

electrons are at a certain distance from the nucleus. One can thus picture an

atom as consisting of three ingredients: a small nuclear core, one or more

surrounding electrons and empty space; most of it is empty space.

The shape of the electron has been shown to be almost perfectly

spherical, and its mass to be nearly 2000 times smaller than that of a proton;

the nucleus of the smallest atom (hydrogen). Almost all of the mass of an

atom is thus located in the nucleus.

What makes electrons important is that they carry a negative electric

charge. Because of the electric charge, the number and distribution of the

electrons determine the chemical properties of an atom. The bonds that hold

atoms together in molecules, crystals and other substances are completely

determined by the number of electrons of the respective atoms.

This is to say that all of chemistry is due to electrons and their charge.

All molecules, beginning with the simplest, such as hydrogen or water, and

ranging up to such ridiculously complex aggregates as proteins and genes,

are due to the behavior of the negatively charged electrons. When it comes

to our everyday life, it is the electrons that count. This is in complete

contrast to the neutrino, the fourth (and last) kind of elementary particle,

which hardly seems to matter.


Electron-Neutrino

The most entertaining fact about the electron-neutrino (one of the three

neutrino-types) is the way it was discovered. In the nineteen-twenties, the

concept of the atom was generally accepted and quite well understood. One

of the few remaining puzzles were radioactive beta-decay processes in

which electrons are emitted from an atomic nucleus. The energies of such

electrons were shown experimentally to exhibit a continuous rather than a

discrete spectrum; thus apparently contradicting the law of conservation of

energy.

To solve the problem, Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli came up

with the idea that, in such processes, a hitherto unknown elementary particle

was emitted whose properties were such that the continuous energy

spectrum could be explained without running into conflicts with well-

established conservation laws.

Pauli proposed his daring idea in a letter sent to a meeting of atomic

physicists (addressed by Pauli as radioactive ladies and gentlemen), held

in Tbingen (Germany) in 1930. Here are some excerpts from the text,

which has become one of the most famous pieces of physics history:

Dear Radioactive Ladies and Gentlemen,

As the bearer of these lines, to whom I graciously ask you to listen, will

explain to you in more detail I have hit upon a desperate remedy to save

the law of conservation of energy Namely, the possibility that in the

nuclei there could exist electrically neutral particles, which I will call

neutrons The continuous beta spectrum would then make sense with the

assumption that in beta decay, in addition to the electron, a neutron is

emitted such that the sum of the energies of neutron and electron is

constant.

But so far I do not dare to publish anything about this idea, and

trustfully turn first to you, dear radioactive people, with the question of how

likely it is to find experimental evidence for such a neutron I admit that


my remedy may seem almost improbable But nothing ventured, nothing

gained, and the seriousness of the situation, due to the continuous structure

of the beta spectrum, is illuminated by a remark of my honored predecessor,

Mr Debye, who told me recently in Bruxelles: Oh, It's better not to think

about this at all, like new taxes. Thus, dear radioactive people, scrutinize

and judge.

Unfortunately, I cannot personally appear in Tbingen since I am

indispensable here in Zrich because of a ball on the night from December

6 to 7. With my best regards to you, and also to Mr. Back, your humble

servant signed W. Pauli.2

Pauli had called his new particle neutron but this name was later

changed, by the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, to neutrino which is Italian

for little neutron. The neutrino is indeed extremely small and its mass has

since been shown to be 4 million times lower than that of an electron3.

Today we know that neutrinos do exist and that they are not only very

small but extremely elusive. They are smaller and much lighter than

electrons, but the decisive difference between the two types of particles is

that neutrinos are electrically neutral, i.e. they do not carry an electric

charge.

This feature has the consequence that the interaction between

neutrinos and other forms of matter is so minimal that they can pass through

the entire Earth without hitting another particle. Each second, billions of

these curious particles pass through our bodies without leaving any trace.

Because of this evasiveness of the ghostly particle, as it is often referred

to, it took 26 years to prove its existence experimentally; and another 40

years to confirm experimentally that it has some mass (albeit infinitesimal).

The American writer John Updike aptly summed up the situation in an

often-cited poem; beginning with the words,

Neutrinos, they are very small.

They have no charge and have no mass

And do not interact at all.


The earth is just a silly ball

To them, through which they simply pass,

Like dustmaids through a drafty hall

Or photons through a sheet of glass.

Matter I

As we have seen above, the material aggregates of the world around us

consist of just four elementary particles: the elusive electron-neutrino and

the three particles of which atoms are made: the electron (responsible for

the shell) and the up and down quarks (forming the nucleus).

The two types of quarks can be said to complement each other

because they cannot exist alone; without the presence of the other type of

quark that is. The electron-neutrino and the electron also seem to be

complementary to each other because, as we shall see below, their

controlling forces (the weak force and the electric force) have been shown

to be different aspects of the so-called electroweak force.

We are interested here not so much in the individual types of

elementary particles that make up the Universe but, rather, in the general

structural features of the Tree of Nature (Fig. 1.1) which permit us to

extend this tree into the dimensions of meaning and purpose (Fig. 1.2); thus

offering a first glimpse of the central question with which mankind has seen

itself confronted for at least six millennia: What is it all about?

The four types of elementary particles point to three structural features

that we shall meet time and again as we proceed toward the top of the tree:

(1) There is always an odd-man-out parameter which differs

greatly from the other three parameters. In the case of elementary particles,

the odd one is the neutrino because it has minimal mass, carries no electric

charge and interacts minimally with other particles.


(2) After setting aside the exception, there remains a triplet of

parameters that are, in some important way, connected to each other. In the

present case, the electron and the two types of quarks are strongly

interacting particles that have the potential to form atoms.

(3) There are always doublets of parameters that are closely

connected and, in some sense, complementary to each other. In the case of

Matter I, the complementary couples consist of (i) the electron-neutrino and

the electron and (ii) the up and down quarks, respectively.

This can be better visualized by arranging the particles in the form of

a decision tree, as shown in Figure 2.1

Figure 2.1 The four elementary particles constituting Matter I.

Odd one out: Electron neutrino.

Triplet: Electron, up-quark and down-quark.

Complementary Doublets: (i) Electron-neutrino and electron; (ii) up and

down quarks.


Three Families of Matter

Who ordered that? This is one of the celebrated quips that we meet time

and again in historical accounts of the story of physics. It is due to Galicien-

born American physicist and Nobel Laureate Isidor Isaac Rabi; expressing

his surprise and indignation at the discovery of the muon, a kind of heavy

electron with a mass about 206 times greater than that of the electron. That

was in 1936. At that time physicists had learned to understand the world in

terms of atoms which consist of protons and neutrons at their core, plus a

shell of electrons. Nobody needed a heavier version of the electron. It just

didnt fit into the physical worldview of the day.

Figure 2.2 The elementary particles constituting Matter II.


Figure 2.3 The elementary particles constituting Matter III.

Almost 40 years later, American physicist Martin Lewis Perl

discovered a still heavier version of the electron; the tau, which has a mass

3500 greater than that of the electron. Perl was awarded the 1995 Nobel

Prize in physics for his discovery. Today we know that not only the electron

comes in three versions, but also the neutrino and the two types of quarks.

Here are the three groups, usually called families', of the elementary

particles:

Family I: Electron-neutrino, electron, up-quark, down-quark (Fig. 2.1)

Family II: Muon-neutrino, muon, charm-quark, strange-quark (Fig. 2.2)

Family III: Tau-neutrino, tau, top-quark, bottom-quark (Fig. 2.3)

The particles of families II and III are produced in high-energy

collisions but are extremely unstable and short-lived; decaying within a

fraction of a second. For example, the muon has a mean lifetime of two

microseconds, and the tau decays within 10-13

seconds.


Nobody knows why Nature has provided us with these additional

varieties of elementary particles. They have the same properties as the

particles that make up the world in which we live (family I), but they have

higher mass; and they form only in very high energy environments. These

high-mass particles must have existed in abundance in the early stages of

evolution; at the time, that is, when the Universe was still a small and

unbelievably hot spot.

In his bestselling book, The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene4 poses

questions, such as Why are there three families? Why not one family or

four families or any other number? The systematic approach which we are

presenting here does not yield an answer to the first question, but it does

have a reply to the second.

It would be consistent with the Tree of Everything (Fig. 2.4) if there

were only one family. However, if there are to be additional families, there

must be at least a doublet of additional families, branching out from family

I. Thus the tree does not explain why there should be three families, but it is

consistent with the occurrence of three families. If there were a total of two

or four families, this would not be consistent with the general structure of

the tree.

It belongs to the structural features of the Tree of Everything

(including the Tree of Nature) that parameters always come in doublets and

that such doublets arise from a source parameter with which they share a

common aspect. The source parameter here is family I. The parameters

branching out from this source are families II and III, which represent

simple variations of family I. The common aspect of the three families is

that they represent the material basis of the Universe, each version referring

to a given energy state; the higher the energy environment, the higher are

the masses of the respective particles.


Figure 2.4 The material basis of the Tree of Everything is constituted of the

three families of Matter.


Let us consider it the other way around. Let us suppose that we had

discovered families II and III first. As the particles of one family have

exactly the same properties as those of the other family, differing only in the

respective masses, we would have concluded that this could not possibly be

due to chance. Our best guess would have been that both sets of particles

were variations of a common mother set of particles. This would have

turned out to be correct (in a way).

The three sets of material particles (Figs. 2.1-2.3) make up the

material base of the Tree of Everything (Fig. 2.4). We would know nothing

of these particles if their presence was not communicated, by means of

force particles, to the rest of the world. This will be the subject of the next

chapter.


Chapter 3

Information Processing Events

Information is the

fundamental substance

of the Universe.

Anton Zeilinger

In the preceding chapter, we have introduced the twelve elementary matter

particles1 that are known to us. We would know nothing of any of those

particles if they did not interact with the world around them. These

interactions are mediated by a total of four forces; gravity, the

electromagnetic force and two types of nuclear forces.

Gravity

Modern science begins with Isaac Newton who, supposedly inspired by the

phenomenon of apples falling down from trees, discovered the most


visible of the four forces via which material objects can interact with each

other: gravity.

One of the first biographers of Newton, the antiquarian and

archeologist William Stukeley, tells us how the great scientist explained to

him, in April 1726, the type of thinking that had led him to discover

gravitation: Why should that apple always descend perpendicularly to the

ground? Why should it not go sideways, or upwards? Assuredly, the reason

is that the earth draws it. There must be a drawing power in matter, and the

sum of the drawing power in the matter of the earth must be in the earths

centreif matter thus draws matter; it must be in proportion of its quantity;

therefore the apple draws the earth, as well as the earth draws the apple."2

In the late 1660s, Newton had begun to consider the idea that

terrestrial gravity, due to which an apple falls from a tree, might extend all

the way to the Moon and other celestial objects. It took him another two

decades, however, before he was able to present his law of universal

gravitation in a book titled Philosophi Naturalis Principia

Mathematica, published on July 5th, 1687: Every point mass in the

Universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly

proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the

square of the distance between them. Point mass here refers to the fact that

the force of gravity of a material object can be regarded as being located at

the center of the object. The expression universal gravitation indicates that

gravity acts everywhere, even in outer space, and between every object.

Newton arrived at the law of universal gravitation by combining his

concept of gravity with Keplers laws of planetary motion. In this way he

was able to improve the accuracy of predictions resulting from Keplers

original planetary laws. This confirmed Newtons theory. There was only

one big problem: nobody knew how the conjectured force of gravity could

possibly extend over large distances and influence the behavior of celestial

objects. Today, more than three centuries later, there is still no general

agreement as to how gravity actually works. We shall come back to this

problem below.


What we do know is that the interactions between material particles

(and their aggregates) have much to do with the transfer of information. In

fact, it becomes ever clearer that the Universe does not consist of material

entities per se, but of information-processing events. This will be discussed

in more detail in Chapter 4.

The Electromagnetic (EM) Force

As we have seen above, the existence of what we call today electrostatic

forces was already known to the ancient Greek scholars of the 6th century

BC: amber, when rubbed with cloth or fur, exhibits the property of

attracting small objects.

The earliest literary reference to magnetism was made in the 4th

century BC in China. In the 11th century AD, the Chinese scientist, and head

official of the Bureau of Astronomy, Shen Kuo discovered the magnetic

north pole and, in 1088 AD, described the magnetic needle compass and its

usefulness for navigation. The first reference to the magnetic needle

compass in Europe was made almost exactly 100 years later (1187) by

English teacher and scholar, Alexander Neckam.

Somewhat more than six hundred years later, in 1820, Danish

physicist Hans Christian Oersted discovered by chance that a compass

needle is deflected by a nearby wire carrying an electric current. At that

time, nobody was able to explain what then became known as, and is still

called, Oersteds Experiment. It took scientists another four decades of

intense research by such giants as Andr-Marie Ampre, Carl Friedrich

Gauss and Michael Faraday before the Scottish theoretical physicist James

Clerk Maxwell was able to show that electricity and magnetism are

different aspects of one and the same entity; the electromagnetic field.

Maxwells theory is based upon a set of 20 differential equations

which describe the propagation of electric and magnetic fields which

regenerate each other as they travel through space. Using these equations,

and plugging-in experimental data from electrical experiments, Maxwell

was able to calculate the rate of propagation of electromagnetic fields.


Much to his surprise, this turned out to be very close to the speed of

light, leading him to conclude courageously, that light and magnetism are

affections of the same substance, and that light is an electromagnetic

disturbance propagated through the field according to electromagnetic

laws"3.

Maxwell had thus managed to unify our views of electricity,

magnetism and light; exposing the three phenomena as being various

aspects of one and the same entity, the electromagnetic field. On the

centennial anniversary of Maxwells birth, his achievement was praised by

Einstein as being the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has

experienced since the time of Newton.

The Nuclear Forces

In addition to gravity and the EM force, which play important roles in our

daily life, there are two other types of forces of which we have no personal

experience at all: the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, also

called the strong force and the weak force, respectively.

The strong force is responsible for holding quarks together in the

protons and neutrons which make up the nuclei of atoms. It is the strongest

of the four types of fundamental forces; being about one hundred times as

strong as the EM force and a whopping 1039

times as strong as the force of

gravity. On the other hand, whereas gravity and the EM force have un-

limited reach, the strong force does not extend to distances exceeding 10-13

centimeters; roughly the size of an atomic nucleus.

The weak nuclear force is about one hundred thousand times weaker

than the strong force, and its range is at least one hundred times shorter. The

weak force is important for explaining nuclear transformations and

interactions, as well as certain radioactive processes, such as the beta-decay

mentioned in Chapter 2. The force is also responsible for the hydrogen

fusion processes taking place in the sun and other stars. What interests us

most, however, is the fact that the weak force and the EM force can be


considered to be different facets of a single unified force, called the

electroweak force.

At first glance, the two types of forces seem to be very different. The

EM force has unlimited reach (light waves reach us from galaxies billions

of light-years away), whereas the weak force is limited to distances smaller

than the radius of atomic nuclei. Moreover, its strength decreases extremely

rapidly with distance: at a range of about 10-15

cm it is already 10,000 times

weaker than the EM force. And yet, at energy levels of about 100 GeV

(Giga electron volt), the two forces unite naturally to form the electroweak

force.

This energy level, corresponding to temperatures of the order of 1015

degrees Kelvin, must have existed in the early Universe during the small

fraction of a second (10-12

seconds that is) after the Big Bang which began it

all. As the Universe expanded and cooled down the combined electroweak

force split up into the two forces that have existed ever since: the EM force

and the weak force.

The physicists Abdus Salam, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg

were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics for their contributions to

electroweak theory. Final experimental proof of the theory was obtained in

1983. The upshot here is that the EM force and the weak force are closely

related to each other (in terms of electroweak theory) and are, in a way,

complementary to each other. This is an interesting point with regard to

fitting the two forces neatly into the general structure of the Tree of

Everything.

The Four Types of Forces

After having briefly introduced the four fundamental forces with which

Nature works, let us see how they fit into the three structural features of the

Tree of Everything as we have stated them in Chapter 2 for the four types of

material entities: (1) An odd-one-out parameter, (2) a triplet of closely

related parameters and (3) two doublets of closely related and, in some way,


complementary parameters. Figure 3.1 shows the structural relations for the

forces tetrad:

Figure 3.1 The four fundamental forces.

Odd one out: Gravity (extremely weak, least understood, does not

noticeably participate in nuclear or atomic processes).

Triplet: EM Force, strong force and weak force (compared with gravity,

these are relatively strong forces; all three forces are engaged in atomic and

nuclear processes, and are describable within the framework of the

standard model of particle physics).

Complementary Doublets: (i) Gravity and the strong force (conjectured

below to be complementary to each other); (ii) EM force and weak force

(both unify naturally, at energy levels of 100 GeV, to form the combined

electroweak force)


Odd one out: Gravity

The oddity of the four forces is undoubtedly gravity. When compared to the

other three forces, gravity is a force of almost zero strength. For example,

the gravitational force with which two electrons attract each other (on

account of their mass) is 4 170 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

000 000 000 [1042

] times weaker than the electromagnetic force acting

between them, and causing them to repel each other. Not only is the force of

gravity unbelievably weak, it is also the least understood of all of the forces

and its hypothetical messenger-particle, the graviton, has not yet been

confirmed experimentally. Moreover, gravity does not have any noticeable

effects on the processes taking place at the nuclear or atomic level.

Triplet: EM force, weak and strong force

The triplet is made up of the EM force, the weak and the strong force.

These are the three forces that are applicable when describing the processes

taking place in atoms. The workings of all three forces can be described by

the so-called Standard Model (or Standard Theory) which is based upon

the concept of charges (electric charge, weak charge, strong charge).

1st Doublet: Gravity and strong force

The first doublet of complementary parameters refers to gravity and the

strong force. Unfortunately, gravity is not yet fully understood. General

relativity pictures this force in a way that is not compatible with our present

view of quantum mechanics. It is generally believed that an overarching

quantum gravity theory may solve the problem und yield a deeper

understanding of the gravitational force. Intense research is in progress. The

Tree of Everything predicts here that an ultimate solution will involve a

strong complementarity between gravity and the strong nuclear force (see

also Chapter 9).


2nd

Doublet:EM force and weak force

The EM force and the weak force represent different facets of the

electroweak force and are thus very closely and mutually related; each

presupposing the other in electroweak theory.

Something to Wonder About

We know a lot about the material particles and the forces acting between

them. But it is exactly this detailed knowledge that leads to a great many

surprising, even perplexing, questions. Is there any explanation for the fact

that two forces have unlimited reach (gravity and EM) whereas the other

two are limited to distances of the order of 10-13

cm or less? Why is gravity

1039

times weaker than the strong nuclear force?

How would the world change if the force of gravity were twice as

strong as it actually is? What effect would it have if we were to double the

strength of the EM force? What, at first glance, may look like a high-level

scientific pastime turns out to be a very serious undertaking with far-

reaching philosophical implications. The remarkable fact is that we would

not be here if the various properties of the elementary particles were

somewhat different than what they actually are.

In the words of one of todays best-known physicists, Brian Greene:

the detailed features of the elementary particles are entwined with what

many view as the deepest question in all of science: Why do the elementary

particles have just the right properties to allow nuclear processes to

happen, stars to light up, planets to form around stars, and on at least one

such planet, life to exist? [Italics by Greene]4 Greene refers here to the so-

called Anthropic Principle which states the surprising, and much

discussed, fact that the properties of the particles and forces of Nature, and

the various constants of the laws of physics, happen to have almost exactly

the values they need to have in order to allow for the eventual evolution of

life, consciousness and human culture.


Here are some examples of the facts supporting the validity of the

principle. If the weak force were only a few percent stronger than it actually

is, all of the neutrons would have decayed shortly after the beginning of the

Universe and we would have ended up with a Universe of 100% hydrogen.

There would have been no cosmic and terrestrial evolution processes which

eventually paved the way to the human culture of our day. If, on the other

hand, the weak force were to be even somewhat weaker than it is, only a

small portion of the neutrons would decay before being bound up with

protons to form helium nuclei, and the resulting Universe would consist of

almost 100% helium; another dead end.

The strong nuclear force holds together the nuclei of the atoms.

Should this force be only 1% stronger, hydrogen would not exist because

the protons would have become bound up, with other protons and neutrons,

to form heavy nuclei. The disastrous result would have been that there

would now be no water in the Universe, and no life. On the other hand, if

the strong nuclear force were a little bit weaker than it is we would get into

two other problems: (1) Hydrogen-based nuclear fusion would no longer be

possible and we would be left without the sun or other stars to serve as

energy sources. (2) Only hydrogen atoms would be stable, no chemical

evolution could take place and the Universe would have remained a dead

place for all eternity.

The electromagnetic (EM) force is vital for all of chemistry because it

determines the strength with which the electrons of atoms are bound to the

nucleus. Were this force to be only a few percent stronger than it actually is,

the electrons would be much too strongly bound to the nucleus for any of

the more complex molecules to form. Sophisticated assemblies, such as

DNA or the proteins of living organisms, would have never had the slightest

chance of coming into existence. If, on the other hand, the EM force were

somewhat weaker than it is, the electrons would bind much too loosely to

the nuclei, with essentially the same result: no DNA, no proteins and no life.

The most mysterious of the forces is gravity; a force of almost zero

strength when compared to the other three forces of Nature. Gravity is so

incredibly weak that one might be tempted to consider it a negligible


quantity. It is, in fact, a quantity that one does not need to consider when

studying the interaction of elementary particles or the behavior of small

entities, such as atoms and molecules. However, it turns out that we would

not be here if the force of gravity were much different from what it actually

is. Let us see why.

From the viewpoint of any living organism, stars are needed for two

things. Firstly, it is the nuclear reactions in the stars that produce the heavier

elements needed for the formation of the complex molecular and biological

structures that are required for the evolution of living organisms. Secondly,

the stars provide the continuous stream of energy which an organism needs

in order to develop and maintain these complex structures. In both cases

there are stringent conditions which the stars must meet in order to fulfill

their task.

On Earth, for example, it has taken life a period of more than three

billion years to evolve creatures as complex as man, with his unbelievably

intricate brain structure. For this to happen, most of the elements we are

made of, such as carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, must have previously been

produced in stars, so that they were available on Earth and ready for

chemical evolution to begin. Secondly, the sun must be of the right size,

contain the right components and be in a stable condition, so that it can

provide us with a constant stream of energy for more than three billion

years.

Here is some of the fine-tuning required to fulfill these requirements.

If the force of gravity were somewhat stronger than it is, the nuclear

reactions in the sun and all of the other stars would be much more violent

and the stars would burn out much faster: life would not have the billions of

years it needs in order to evolve to the human level.

On the other hand, if the force of gravity were a little weaker than it

actually is, the effect would have been twofold. For one thing, stars and

galaxies would most likely have never been able to form in the first place.

Secondly, if stars had indeed formed at some place in the Universe, gravity

would have been too weak to press the hydrogen gas atoms together to

beyond the critical point needed for nuclear reactions to take place: The


heavier elements would thus never have had a chance of seeing the world;

and stellar energy sources could not have arisen.

Another problem is the production of the heavier elements in stars.

We have already seen that the weak force needs to be almost exactly as it is,

or we would end up with a world that contains either only hydrogen, or only

helium. Once a Universe reaches such a state, nothing happens anymore and

no further chemical evolution is possible. Only if the Universe succeeds in

generating, in its very first evolutionary stages, a carefully adjusted mixture

of hydrogen, deuterium (a hydrogen isotope) and helium, will it be possible

to synthesize the heavier elements needed for complex structures, such as

living organisms.

Let us now turn to the basic components of atoms; protons, neutrons

and electrons. The masses of the proton and the neutron are quite similar:

938.3 MeV (million electron volts) and 939.6 MeV, respectively. The small

difference between them is very important in many ways. For example, the

deuterium mentioned above would not form if the difference between the

masses of the proton and the neutron were to be even slightly different from

what it actually is; with the result that the heavier elements needed for the

evolution of life could not have been synthesized in the stars.

In addition, it is good that the mass of the electron is smaller than the

already small neutron-proton mass difference. If this were not the case, the

neutron would be a stable particle and would not decay as it actually does

to form a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The result would have been

that most of the protons and electrons in the early Universe would have

combined to form stable neutrons; leaving too little hydrogen to act as the

fuel of the stars.

The processes by which the various heavy elements are formed, in the

center of stars, often depend upon very special physical properties of the

particles taking part in these reactions. For example, there is the famous

prediction, of the British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, that the carbon nucleus

must have an excited energy level of 7.7 MeV; otherwise it would be

impossible that the Universe could contain as much carbon as it actually

does. As all forms of life depend critically upon the abundant availability of


carbon, with its very special chemical properties, this energy level is a pre-

requisite for our being here.

Hoyle had noted that the stellar carbon-manufacturing process

combines three helium atoms into one carbon atom. As it is quite unlikely

that three atoms should meet, under the proper energetic conditions, to

combine in this way Hoyle suggested that two helium nuclei first interact to

form a beryllium nucleus and that this beryllium nucleus could then interact

with another helium nucleus to yield carbon. For this to happen in

appreciable quantities, carbon would need to have a 7.7 MeV excited state

in order to provide for the high reaction probability required for this two-

step process5. When experimental investigations showed that carbon indeed

had such an excited state, at 7.66 MeV, Hoyle shot to fame and science was

enriched by the experimental confirmation of yet another very special

condition which our Universe has to fulfill in order for us to be here.

In fact, Hoyle himself was so impressed by his discovery that he

wrote: I do not believe that any scientist who examined the evidence would

fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been

deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside

the stars. If this is so, then my apparently random quirks have become part

of a deep-laid scheme. If not, then we are back again at a monstrous series

of accidents6.

There are dozens of characteristic twists of this sort, all of them

being required to be in place if life is to evolve on Earth. These include

relatively unspectacular, more or less hidden items, such as Hoyles 7.66

MeV excited state for the carbon nucleus and the finely-tuned mass ratios of

the elementary particles. Other prerequisites for life include the large-scale

properties of the Universe as a whole, such as its very special geometry, the

somewhat mysterious cosmological constant (which governs the expansion

of the Universe) and the highly improbable initial rate of cosmic expansion

following the so-called Big Bang; the beginning of the Universe. If any of

these parameters were much different, galaxies, stars and planets could

never have formed.


There is no question among physicists that the argument behind the

Anthropic Principle is real. "A life-giving factor lies at the center of the

whole machinery and design of the world" concludes John A. Wheeler; one

of the most towering figures of 20thcentury physics

7

We shall not discuss here further the implications of the Anthropic

Principle, nor do we see any immediate connection with the structural

features of the Tree of Everything. Still, these are important scientific

findings that are in need of study and clarification.

The Interaction between Particles

How exactly do material particles interact with each other? According to

quantum field theory, elementary particles can be pictured as constantly

emitting, and re-absorbing, force-carrying virtual particles. The latter are

not directly observed, but their existence can be indirectly verified. These

virtual particles, also called messenger particles, communicate the forces

that are characteristic of the elementary particle by which they are emitted.

The messenger particles of the electromagnetic force, for example, are

virtual photons. One can picture the electromagnetic field of an electron as

being a cloud composed of virtual photons carrying the message here is a

negatively-charged particle.

The interaction between two electrons can thus be described as

follows. A given electron A continuously emits, and re-absorbs, virtual

photons; thus building up an electromagnetic field around itself. If another

electron, B, happens to come close to A, it will absorb photons that have

been emitted by A and thus notice that it is approaching another

electron. Of course, B also emits photons and these are absorbed by A.

The overall process can thus be described as involving an exchange of

photons between the two particles; resulting in the effect that the two

electrons move away from each other (because both electrons carry the

same charge, thus repelling each other).


Figure 3.2 The information-processing triplet of the Tree of Everything.


The physicist Brian Greene8 likens the process to an ice-skater who

affects a fellow ice-skaters motion by hurling a barrage of bowling balls at

him. An important failing of the ice-skater analogy, Greene points out, is

that the exchange of bowling balls is always repulsive it always drives

the skaters apart. In the case of two electrons, this analogy works well. But

if we have two oppositely charged particles, a negatively charged electron

and a positively charged positron, for example, the result of the photon

exchange is exactly the opposite, i.e. the particles are drawn together. Its

as if the photon is not so much the transmitter of a force per se, but rather

the transmitter of a message [emphasis by Greene] of how the recipient

must respond to the force in question. The message is either move apart

or come together.

It follows that the interaction between two electrons, A and B, is

equivalent to an information process in which each electron absorbs a

photon emitted by the other electron, and both react in accordance with

the applicable physical laws by moving away from each other.

In other words, interactions between particles are best described in

terms of communication and information-processing events. In the same

way that the EM force is communicated by means of virtual phonons, the

strong nuclear force employs eight types of gluons, which are exchanged

between quarks with the result of gluing these tightly together. The weak

force is transmitted via electrically charged W+ and W

- bosons, and the

neutral Z boson, and gravity can be pictured as being communicated by

means of virtual gravitons. Gravity is not yet fully understood however and,

so far, the graviton has not yet been observed experimentally.

The Information-Processing Triplet of Parameters

There exists a strong complementarity between matter and forces. On the

one hand, the material particles emit virtual force-communicating particles;

and on the other hand, these messenger particles communicate the presence

of the normal particles to the rest of the world. In other words, the

messenger particles are due to normal particles and the latter cannot be said


to exist unless the messenger particles communicate their presence. This

complementarity is shown in Figure 3.2, second level from the bottom, to

originate from the law-like-information parameter (to be discussed in

greater detail in Chapter 4).

As we shall see below, the information processing triplet (Fig. 3.2)

exhibits the same general features that also characterize all other triplets of

the Tree of Everything. The unifying view of the three parameters (matter,

forces and law-like information) is given by the fact that all three items

taken together are needed to produce observable reality. We have already

noted that interaction processes require both material particles, and virtual

force-communicating particles. But there is also a third item involved here:

the laws that describe the interaction process.

We present reality here in terms of information processing events.

This is in line with the thinking of a number of todays physicists, such as

Lee Smolin who tells us that it is an illusion that the world consists of

objects the Universe consists of a large number of events and the flow

of information among events.

According to John A. Wheelers it from bit doctrine, all things

physical are information-theoretic in origin: Otherwise put, every it

every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself

derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely even if in

some contexts indirectly from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no

questions, binary choices, bits. It from bit symbolizes the idea that every

item of the physical world has at bottom a very deep bottom, in most

instances an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality

arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the

registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical

are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory Uni-

verse9.

Fundamentally speaking, reality is made up of information processing

events that lead to observable changes. Such events are based not only upon

material entities that communicate with each other (via virtual messenger

particles), but also require the existence of law-like entities such as


fundamental laws, rules, habits, norms and ordering principles; subsumed

here under the heading of law-like information. This will be the topic of

the next Chapter.


Chapter 4

Law-Like Information

The laws of Nature are of a

stronger and more explicit reality

than the objects to which they refer

Henning Genz

Law-like information has a special status in the structure of the Tree of

Everything (Fig. 3.2) constituting, as it does, the connection between the

two matter-related triplets of the lower part of the tree and the two upper

triplets which refer to immaterial parameters. Even though laws and law-

like entities are clearly immaterial in nature, they have some features that

connect them closely to the material aspects of the world. This will become

clearer below. Let us first consider the nature of information-processing

events, and the reality status of laws and law-like entities.


The General Information Cycle

One can differentiate between three aspects of information: (1) syntax refers

to the occurrence of individual units of information (the letters of an

alphabet, for example); (2) semantics is concerned with the meaning of a

given set of information units; and (3) pragmatics describes the effect of the

information units (after their meaning has been recognized). In his standard

text on information theory, the philosopher Holger Lyre emphasizes that

these three kinds of information are inseparably unified; merely

representing different aspects of the fundamental information concept1.

In short, information is a dynamic concept representing a sequence

of three different items; (1) existence of information units (syntax), (2)

understanding (semantics) and (3) production of information (pragmatics).

On the basis of these three aspects it is possible to formulate a general

information cycle that can be applied to all observable events taking place in

the Universe. The cycle is based upon the following key concepts2.

(1) An Information Processing Entity (IPE) is any entity that is

capable of sensing information, and reacting accordingly. The simplest

processors are elementary particles, e.g. electrons and quarks. These can

combine to form physical aggregates such as atoms and molecules. The

most complex processors that we know of are found in the realm of life;

living cells, multi-cellular organisms, conscious creatures and humans.

(2) Potential Information is latent information that transforms into

factual information once it is taken up and understood, in some way, by a

given processor (IPE). Potential information is communicated by material

entities, such as photons (light) reflected from a traffic sign. Its actual

meaning, in a given event, depends upon both the IPE and the situation at

hand. A traffic sign, for example, carries quite different actual information

depending upon whether the respective IPE is a car driver or a buzzard.

According to Jeremy Campbell3, information is in essence a theory

about making the possible actual. Prior to being charged with meaning, all

kinds of interpretations of a given situation are available. It depends upon

the receiver of the information (the IPE), and upon the corresponding


context, which factual semantic information will be generated from a given

potential setting.

(3) Factual Information results from sensing, and understanding, a

given situation in some way. It refers to the meaning that the potential

information has for a given processor in a given context. Factual

information can be questioned as to its truth value (true or untrue?). There is

no need for such information to be true, but it is always possible to question

its truth value. The adjunct, factual, thus does not refer to some absolute

truth; it refers rather to what the processor holds to be true.

(4) Law-like Information refers to such entities as laws, rules,

algorithms, norms, habits, rational behavior, decision fields or patterns of

order that guide, or describe, the actions of an IPE; once a given situation

has been understood in one way or another. Law-like information refers to

the pragmatic level of description of an event and is given by an if-then

structure; the information simply describes what is being done, or prescribes

what is to be done.

(5) The Real Effect represents the observable result of an information

process. A car may stop in front of a traffic sign; a buzzard may settle on

top of it. If there is no noticeable effect, no information processing has

taken place.

The above concepts are related to each other by the following general

information cycle; the denomination IPE indicating that the respective

information depends upon the IPE in question:

Potential Info + Factual InfoIPE + Law-like InfoIPE Real Effect

The basic premise here is that Nature is made up of causally-related,

information-processing events. The potential information of a given

syntactic situation is interpreted by an information processing entity (IPE)

in terms of the factual situation at hand (as understood by the IPE) and the

corresponding action to take (as guided by IPE-specific law-like

information). The three items together yield an observable effect, i.e. a

physical, or mental, change due to the information process. The observable

effect may concern the environment or the IPE, or both. The term


environment here is relative to the IPE; everything that is not the IPE

represents part of the environment. The real effect may be regarded as

being the most important aspect of the overall process. It represents

potential information for other information cycles to begin with (Figure

4.1).

The crucial point is that the four parts of the information cycle form

an indivisible whole. The potential information of a given situation

represents (syntactic) information only if it is understood (taken up) by

someone, or something, in some way. The factual interpretation of the

situation at hand leads the processor to act in a way that can be described in

terms of laws or other law-like entities; e.g. when nearing a stop sign,

apply the brakes (if the IPE is a car driver), or when coming close to an

electron, change the direction of flight (if the IPE is a negatively charged

particle).

The factual information of a given setting cannot be defined in

absolute terms. According to Lyre4, the probably most important

characteristic of information is the fact that it is, ultimately, information for

somebody [emphasis by Lyre]. Information is information for somebody,

or something (the IPE). The virtual photons of an electromagnetic (EM)

field, for example, potentially carry information for those particles that are

capable of interacting with EM fields, such as electrons or protons. For

other particles, e.g. neutrinos, they do not carry any information (because

neutrinos cannot take up virtual phonons). Information must be understood

in order to be information. The word understanding is here used in a broad

way and includes the unconscious sensing of physical data.

For living creatures, factual information is that information which, in

a given context, is held to be true. It does not need to be true (e.g. for other

creatures), but it is the kind of information that can be questioned as to its

truth value. In the realm of life, the concept of meaning is useful only in

reference to an individual, and his interpretation of a given situation.

Meaning develops at the interface between an IPE and the rest of the world.


Figure 4.1 The general information cycle begins with the syntactic

information that is encapsulated in a given situation and whose potential

information content is interpreted, in some way, by a processor (IPE). The

corresponding factual information (as understood by the IPE) leads to a

reaction, which can be described in terms of an if-then rule (law-like

information). The resulting real effect (an observable change in the world)

concludes the cycle and confirms the reality status of the first three items of

the process (syntactic-potential, factual and law-like information). The real

(i.e. observable) effect not only constitutes potential information for further

cycles to begin with but also represents the sine qua non condition for an

information process to take place at all.


Once a processor has interpreted a given situation, he is bound to act

in some way. Even the decision simply to discard a piece of information is

an action which concludes the information process with an effect. The

action of an IPE may be described by a simple if-then rule; e.g. If I see a

stop sign, then I apply the brake. Such a rule may already exist in the mind

of the processor (e.g. if the IPE has learned the rule in driving school), or he

generates it spontaneously. All actions can be formulated in terms of if-then

rules.

It is important to note that the basic laws of physics, and the

additionally emerging rules, are not causing the outcome of an event; rather,

it is the triad of potential information, factual understanding and pertinent

law-like information that leads to an observable result. Here is an example.

Let a wild beast run towards me (potential information); I notice the beast

(factual information) and my logical reasoning leads me to the rule, In case

of danger, try to escape (law-like information); and here I am on the run

(real effect). It is not only my decision to escape that causes me to act.

Rather, this is just one of a triad of items which together cause the event.

Without the wild beast running towards me, and without my noticing this

state of affairs, I would not have run away. All three factors together

produce the causal background that results in the observable effect of my

flight.

In higher animals, and especially in humans, the relationship between

potential information, factual interpretation and law-like action is often

highly complex, so that these three steps are intricately interwoven, rather

than being strictly ordered in this sequence. In any case, the decisive

element of the information cycle is always the real effect, i.e. the change in

the world that the cycle produces. What counts is realized reality (Sartre).

We can tell that the potential information of a given situation has been

understood and reacted upon, if some noticeable effect results. If there is no

observable effect, there is no event, no information processing. In the words

of physicist H.C. Baeyer, unless information leads to significant conse-

quences, it is not really information at all5. The observable effect makes a

cycle become reality; thus creating new potential information. The potential


setting with which an information cycle begins is the result of all of the

previous cycles that have ever taken place.

This line of thought overcomes

Documents

Fred H. Wöhlbier. The Evolution of Meaning